## Facts

- A memoir recounted a bar incident after a military wake in which an unnamed “celebrity,” later publicly identified as Jesse Ventura, allegedly made disparaging remarks about U.S. service members and was punched by the author, Chris Kyle.
- Ventura admitted being present at the bar but denied making the statements and denied any physical altercation occurred.
- Ventura alleged the story was fabricated and harmed his reputation, particularly among military and veteran communities.
- Ventura sued under Minnesota law for defamation, misappropriation of name/likeness, and unjust enrichment based on alleged book profits attributable to the story.
- A jury found for Ventura on defamation and awarded $500,000 compensatory damages; it rejected misappropriation.
- The jury, acting in an advisory capacity, recommended roughly $1.35 million on unjust enrichment; the district court adopted that recommendation and entered judgment on unjust enrichment.
- At trial, Ventura’s counsel cross-examined two publisher witnesses about potential liability insurance and argued in closing that an insurer would pay any defamation judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing insurance-related cross-examination and closing argument unfairly prejudiced the defense such that a new trial was required on defamation.
2. Whether Minnesota law permits an unjust-enrichment recovery where the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for the same alleged harm (defamation damages).

## Decision

- The court vacated the defamation judgment and damages award and remanded for a new trial on defamation.
- The court reversed the unjust-enrichment judgment, vacated the approximately $1.35 million award, and directed entry of judgment for the Kyle estate on that claim.
- A separate opinion concurred in reversing unjust enrichment but dissented from ordering a new defamation trial.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence or argument about liability insurance is generally inadmissible to prove wrongdoing, and use of insurance to show witness bias requires a substantial, concrete connection between the witness and the insurer.
- Improper injection of insurance coverage into a case, especially when reinforced in closing argument to suggest a verdict will be paid by an insurer, can create unfair prejudice warranting a new trial.
- Under Minnesota law, unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy generally unavailable when there is an adequate remedy at law; it may not be used to obtain an overlapping monetary award for the same alleged injury addressed by a tort claim.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit ordered a new trial on defamation because insurance-related questioning and argument improperly suggested an insurer would pay the verdict and deprived the defense of a fair trial, and it rejected unjust enrichment because defamation damages provided an adequate legal remedy under Minnesota law.


Ventura v. Kyle, 825 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2016)