## Facts

- Nadia Hussain and Akhil Patel dated intermittently for about seven years and ended the relationship in 2010.
- During the relationship, Hussain sent Patel intimate photographs and asked him to delete them; he did not.
- Patel secretly recorded Skype video chats depicting Hussain engaging in sexual activity.
- After the breakup, Patel allegedly harassed Hussain, attempted to access her accounts, and posted the secretly recorded sexual videos online without her consent.
- Hussain testified that the online dissemination caused serious emotional harm (including humiliation, anxiety, and fear) and harmed her reputation.

## Issues

1. Whether the defamation verdict could stand when the jury found the challenged publication was substantially true.
2. Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) was available when other established tort claims provided a remedy for the same conduct and injury.
3. Whether the damages award violated Texas’s one-satisfaction rule by allowing more than one recovery for the same injury.
4. Whether evidence of mental anguish was legally and factually sufficient, including whether continued social media use defeated a showing of substantial disruption.
5. Whether exemplary damages could stand given challenges to the mental anguish and damages findings.

## Decision

- The court held Patel was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict on defamation because substantial truth is a complete defense; defamation damages were removed.
- The court held IIED was unavailable as an independent basis for recovery because it is a gap-filler tort and Hussain recovered under recognized privacy torts; IIED damages were removed.
- The court rejected the one-satisfaction challenge as to the remaining damages after removing defamation and IIED recoveries.
- The court upheld the mental anguish award, concluding Hussain presented evidence of the nature, duration, and severity of her distress, and continued social media activity did not negate that evidence.
- The court upheld exemplary damages tied to the surviving privacy claims.
- The judgment was modified to $345,000 and affirmed as modified; the permanent injunction remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff cannot recover for defamation based on a statement the factfinder deems substantially true; substantial truth defeats defamation liability.
- In Texas, IIED functions as a gap-filler tort and is not available when established tort doctrines provide a remedy for the complained-of conduct and injury.
- The one-satisfaction rule bars double recovery for the same injury, but does not prohibit recovery for distinct injuries supported by separate, viable causes of action.
- Mental anguish damages may be supported by evidence showing the nature, duration, and severity of emotional distress; the evidence need not show total withdrawal from daily life.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reduced the judgment by eliminating defamation and IIED damages, but otherwise affirmed substantial recovery and injunctive relief based on intrusion on seclusion and public disclosure of private facts, including mental anguish and exemplary damages arising from nonconsensual dissemination of intimate recordings.


Patel v. Hussain, 485 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.)