Defamation claim based on a campaign flyer; Defamation per se; Ghanam v Does; Greenbelt Co-op Publ’g Ass’n v Bresler; Effect of plaintiff being a public official; “Actual malice”; Smith v Anonymous Joint Enter; False-light invasion of privacy; Puetz v Spectrum Health Hosps; Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Ireland v Edwards

In this case alleging defamation per se, false-light invasion of privacy, and IIED based on a campaign flyer, the court concluded that “the trial court failed to consider the statements in context, including the fact that the flyer was a political mailing by” plaintiff-Trombly’s opponent. Thus, it vacated the trial court’s order granting defendants summary disposition of these claims and remanded. As to the defamation claim, “the trial court erred by considering the alleged defamatory statements in isolation rather than in context with one another and with the other statements on the flyer. [It] also erred by failing to consider the format through which the statements were communicated—a campaign flyer circulated by Trombly’s political opponent. Although Trombly was required to identify the precise statements he alleged were defamatory,” the court noted that the trial court had “to consider the statements in context and in light of the format used to communicate the statements[.]” Its error resulted in the case going “to trial based on only select statements made on the flyer when the proper approach required an examination of the flyer as a whole.” As to the false-light and IIED claims, because the same principles that applied to the defamation claim also applied to them, summary disposition of these claims was also error.