Tort : Libel – Invasion Of Privacy – Emotional Distress

(1)Where a plaintiff who claimed she had a relationship and a baby with a rock star brought claims against him based on what was written about her in his autobiography, summary judgment for the defendant on the claim of libel per se is reversed because the trier of fact must decide whether the plaintiff satisfied the publication element of the claim, the statements were defamatory as a matter of law and the plaintiff showed the existence of a fact issue precluding summary judgment as to whether the challenged statements were “of and concerning her.”

(2)Where a plaintiff who claimed she had a relationship and a baby with a rock star brought a claim of false light invasion of privacy against him based on what was written about her in his autobiography, summary judgment for the defendant on the claim is reversed because questions of fact existed as to whether the challenged statements were sufficiently publicized, but the plaintiff did not present substantial evidence that she suffered emotional distress, so summary judgment for the defendant on the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is affirmed.

(3)Where a plaintiff who claimed she had a relationship and a baby with a rock star brought claims against him based on what was written about her in his autobiography, a jury could conclude that the defendant breached the parties’ confidentiality provision by acknowledging that he provided financial assistance to the plaintiff, so summary judgment was not appropriate on the breach-of-contract claim, although summary judgment was appropriate on the claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Judgment is affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
Doe v. Hagar (MLW No. 66889/Case No. 13-2156 – 16 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8^th Circuit, Bright, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Reade, J. (Edward Francis Foye, Boston, David Lee Brown, Alexander E Wonio and Howard M. Cooper appeared on the brief) (James Wesley Kinnear, San Francisco, argued for appellee; Richard J Sapp and Ryan Gene Koopmans appeared on the brief).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)