were intentional and mali-clous;" (8) publication, ie., "[the Defendants have released to a few individuals the alleged contents of part of the report highly negative about [Eddie];" and (4) special damages, i.e., "[Eddie] has suffered ... loss of earnings ... from the Defendant's actions. Appellants' Appendix at 19-20. Thus, the complaint is sufficient to defeat an Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(8) motion to dismiss. Although unartfully pleaded, the complaint placed the Defendants on notice as to the theory of Eddie's defamation claim and its underlying facts and is capable of supporting a defamation claim. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of this defamation claim and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See, e.g., McQueen, 711 N.E.2d at 67 (<HOLDING>). IV. Loss of Consortium The last issue is
holding that court erred in dismissing minors claims with prejudice absent a hearing holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding court erred by disposing of plaintiffs claims on merits after nonsuit filed instead of dismissing case without prejudice holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim