Missouri Court of Appeals Upholds Strict Standard for Proving Reputational Harm in Defamation Cases

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District recently affirmed a trial court's decision granting directed verdicts in favor of defendants in a defamation lawsuit. In Apperson v. Kaminsky, the Court held that the plaintiff, Mouna Apperson, failed to submit sufficient evidence of actual reputational harm, relying solely on personal testimony without corroboration from third parties or other concrete proof. This ruling emphasizes the stringent requirements for plaintiffs to prove reputational damage in defamation actions within Missouri.

Defamation law protects an individual against harm to his or her reputation. To prevail on a defamation claim in Missouri, a plaintiff must plead and prove:

1. publication
2. of a defamatory statement
3. that identifies the plaintiff
4. that is false
5. that is published with the requisite degree of fault
6. damages the plaintiff’s reputation

The Missouri Supreme Court has made clear that “proof of actual reputational harm is an absolute prerequisite in a defamation action.” To establish actual damages, a plaintiff must proffer evidence that is not “too speculative and must be founded upon more than the plaintiff’s embarrassment or perception of their own reputation.”

In Apperson, the plaintiff filed defamation claims against two former romantic partners, alleging they made false statements labeling him as a "rapist," "serial rapist," and "serial abuser" on social media, and by emailing the landlord where his business was leased. At trial, Apperson testified regarding the alleged defamatory statements and asserted that these statements harmed his personal reputation. He also indicated that his lease for his business was terminated, he was harassed in public, lost a speaking engagement with Missouri Office of Prosecuting Services, and was kicked out of his home as a result of the defendants’ statements. Apperson did not, however, present testimony from third parties or any additional evidence to substantiate his claims of reputational damage, and thus on appeal he “fail[ed] to demonstrate how he proffered non-conclusory evidence to show reputational harm beyond his own perception of his reputation.”

In other words, the Court found that Apperson's reliance on his own personal testimony, without corroboration, was insufficient to establish actual damages. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court's directed verdicts in favor of the defendants.

The decision is not final at this point and could be modified by the Court or changed if transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court, but nonetheless demonstrates the critical importance of presenting objective and corroborated evidence of reputational harm when pursuing defamation claims in Missouri.

If you have any questions, please contact an attorney from our Media & Communication practice group.