Jesse Ventura v. Taya Kyle
44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2126, 825 F.3d 876, 100 Fed. R. Serv. 757 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Minnesota law, an unjust enrichment claim is not available when an adequate legal remedy such as defamation exists, nor can it be premised on a defamatory statement absent a pre-existing quasi-contractual relationship. Furthermore, repeated and improper references to a defendant's insurance coverage at trial can be so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial.
Facts:
- Chris Kyle, a U.S. Navy SEAL, authored the book 'American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History.'
- In the book, Kyle described an incident in October 2006 at a bar in Coronado, California, where he punched a celebrity he referred to as 'Scruff Face.'
- Kyle alleged that 'Scruff Face' had made offensive remarks, stating he 'hates America,' that SEALs 'were killing men and women and children and murdering,' and that they 'deserve to lose a few.'
- During promotional interviews for the book in January 2012, Kyle identified 'Scruff Face' as Jesse Ventura, a former Minnesota Governor and Navy special forces member.
- Ventura denied that the altercation, or the statements attributed to him, ever occurred.
- The book was a commercial success, selling approximately 1.5 million copies by 2014.
Procedural Posture:
- Jesse Ventura sued Chris Kyle's estate in U.S. District Court (a federal trial court) for defamation, misappropriation, and unjust enrichment.
- Kyle's estate moved for summary judgment on all claims, but the district court denied the motion, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
- A jury trial was held. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ventura on the defamation claim, awarding $500,000 in damages.
- In its advisory role on the unjust enrichment claim, the jury recommended an award of approximately $1.35 million, which the district court adopted.
- The jury found in favor of Kyle's estate on the misappropriation claim.
- Kyle's estate filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- Kyle's estate (the appellant) appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does Minnesota law permit a plaintiff to bring an unjust enrichment claim to recover profits gained from an allegedly defamatory statement when the legal remedy of a defamation action is also available? 2. Do improper and repeated references to a defendant's liability insurance during witness cross-examination and closing arguments constitute prejudicial error requiring a new trial on a defamation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Riley, Chief Judge
To Issue 1: No. An unjust enrichment claim is not permitted under Minnesota law in this context because there is an adequate remedy at law available through a defamation action, and the claim lacks the necessary pre-existing quasi-contractual relationship. The court reasoned that Minnesota law limits unjust enrichment to claims based on an implied or quasi-contract, which did not exist between Ventura and Kyle. Furthermore, the availability of money damages for defamation provides an adequate legal remedy, precluding the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment. The court rejected the argument that disgorgement of profits is necessary for an adequate remedy, citing precedent that a defamation action is the sole recourse for a person whose reputation is falsely dishonored. To Issue 2: Yes. The repeated references to Kyle's potential insurance coverage were improper and highly prejudicial, denying him a fair trial. The court found there was no proper foundation to question the publisher's employees about insurance to show bias, as there was no 'substantial connection' between the employees and any insurer. Ventura’s counsel's statements in closing argument that the 'insurer is on the hook' were based on facts not in evidence and were a 'deliberate strategic choice' to prejudice the jury. Given that this was a close case that took the jury five days to reach a non-unanimous verdict, the cumulative effect of the improper cross-examination and closing argument warranted a new trial.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Smith, Circuit Judge
To Issue 1: No. The dissent concurs with the majority's reversal of the unjust-enrichment judgment. To Issue 2: No. Although the district court erred in permitting questions about insurance, the error was harmless and did not warrant a new trial. The dissent argues that the references to insurance were brief and isolated during a long trial, the witnesses questioned denied any knowledge of the subject, and the $500,000 damage award was not excessive or beyond the bounds of rationality. Critically, the dissent also argues that Kyle’s motion for a mistrial based on the closing argument was untimely because it was made after the case had been submitted to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional boundary between legal and equitable remedies, specifically preventing defamation plaintiffs from using an unjust enrichment theory to claim a defendant's profits in addition to reputational damages. This clarifies that the defamation tort itself is considered the comprehensive legal remedy. The ruling also serves as a strong cautionary precedent for trial attorneys, highlighting the high risk of reversal when improperly injecting the topic of insurance into a trial. It underscores that even when Federal Rule of Evidence 411 permits insurance evidence to show bias, a substantial connection must be established; otherwise, the evidence's powerful prejudicial effect will outweigh any limited probative value, particularly in a close case.
Unlock the full brief for Jesse Ventura v. Taya Kyle