Express, Inc., 334 Pa.Super. 295, 483 A.2d 456 (1984). Although such statements may ultimately prove to be false or maliciously motivated, the same may be said of statements made by a party who consults with his or her attorney preliminary to instituting a civil action, or of statements made by counsel in preliminary conferences or negotiations on their client’s behalf. Nevertheless, such statements are deemed to be absolutely privileged because the policy concerns stated above outweigh the right of the defamation plaintiff to seek redress for harm caused by the statements. Pawlowski v. Smorto, 403 Pa.Super. 71, 588 A.2d 36, 41-42 (1991) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). See also Marino v. Fava, 915 A.2d 121, 124 (Pa.Super.2006), appeal denied, 592 Pa. 782, 926 A.2d 975 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Herein, Appellant admits Appellee’s allegedly
holding that statements typically found in an attorneys demand letter related to an imminent judicial proceeding absolutely privileged holding an insurer has a right to rely on statements made in an insurance application holding that prosecutors defamatory statements to the press after plaintiff was pardoned were absolutely privileged holding that defamation claim fails because communication by employer to dc office of employment services is absolutely privileged  holding that statements an uncle made in an application to have his nephew involuntarily committed along with those he later made at the commitment hearing were absolutely privileged and could not form the basis for a defamation action