party. Madonna v. United States, 878 F.2d 62, 65 (2nd Cir.1989); see also Bruce v. Riddle, 631 F.2d 272, 274 (4th Cir.1980). A Rule 12(c) dismissal is warranted where the pleadings, construed favorably to the non-movant, make clear that a “plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitled him to relief.” Bruce, 631 F.2d at 274. Thus, AOL contends that even assuming the truth of Zeran’s pleadings and viewing those pleadings in the light most favorable to him, Zeran cannot recover from AOL. III. Zeran sues AOL for negligence, under the theory that distributors of information are liable for the distribution of material which they knew or should have known was of a defamatory character. See Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135, 141 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (<HOLDING>). AOL does not contend for the purposes of this
holding that statements not protected where the defendants had no basis for their optimistic statements and already knew allegedly that certain risks had become reality holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant holding that defendant could not be liable for distributing defamatory statements unless it knew or had reason to know of statements holding that statements in personnel files that would otherwise be defamatory are privileged