University Sovereign Immunity Defeats Missouri Defamation Claim Against St. Louis Public Radio

Defamation plaintiffs sometimes spend most of their energy on what was said and whether it was false. But when the defendant is a state entity, there can be a threshold problem that ends the case before those issues matter at all. In Eby v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, No. ED113499 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. May 26, 2026), the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment against a former St. Louis Public Radio manager because he failed to show the University had waived sovereign immunity.

The opinion is a useful reminder that not every public-entity case turns on the merits of the alleged defamation. Sometimes the real battle is over immunity, insurance language, and the strict rules governing the summary-judgment record.

What the Lawsuit Was About

According to the opinion, Tim Eby had worked for KWMU, St. Louis Public Radio, since 2009 and eventually became its general manager. After he was removed from that role in September 2020 following accusations of racism, he sued the University for defamation.

Eby alleged an anonymous group of staffers had published accusations on Medium, that KWMU later quoted and hyperlinked those accusations in its own articles, and that KWMU also falsely reported that he had mismanaged station finances. His theory for getting around sovereign immunity was that KWMU acted in a proprietary capacity and that the University had liability insurance that waived immunity.

Why the Sovereign Immunity Defense Won

The Eastern District rejected Eby’s proprietary-function argument because the University is a state entity, not a municipality. Missouri’s governmental-versus-proprietary distinction applies to municipalities, but full common-law sovereign immunity belongs to the State and its entities unless immunity has been waived, abrogated, or consented away.

That left the insurance issue. The University argued its policies preserved sovereign immunity, and the Court of Appeals agreed that the summary-judgment record supported that position. One insurance exhibit was initially filed incorrectly and later replaced with the correct version, but the court held that the substitution was properly allowed and did not change the operative facts. The court also rejected Eby’s attacks on the replacement exhibit, including arguments about authentication, ambiguity in the superseded exhibit, and lack of consideration.

Why the Procedure Mattered So Much

This opinion is full of summary-judgment procedure, and that is part of the lesson. The court repeatedly emphasized that appellate review is limited to the properly supported numbered facts and responses required by Rule 74.04. Narrative arguments and attacks that are disconnected from that framework do not do much work on appeal.

The court also rejected Eby’s argument that he should have won by default because the University filed its answer late. Rule 74.05(a) says default may be entered, not that it must be, and the court found the University was still actively defending the case through discovery and summary-judgment practice.

Takeaway

Eby is a useful Missouri case-law update on sovereign immunity, public-entity defamation claims, and the importance of building a clean summary-judgment record. The decision shows that even serious allegations will not get far if immunity has not been waived and the plaintiff cannot anchor the challenge within the procedural framework the rules require.