Recent Case Law

A Battery Upon a Person Does Not State a Claim for Invasion of Privacy

By Patrick Russell, Esq.

Sep 18, 2003 - 3:56:00 PM

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Victor Ginsberg, SC00-2614 (Fla. 2003), opinion filed September 18, 2003.

An employee alleged that her employer subjected her to unwelcome physical touching, including claims for battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.  The employee's claim was given to the Employer's insurer for a defense.  The Employer's insurer refused coverage asserting that employee's claim for invasion of privacy was not proper.

The invasion of privacy is a distinct cause of action in Florida.  The right to privacy is the right to be let alone, the right to live in a community without being held up to the public gaze if you do not want to be held up to the public gaze.  The right to privacy can be invaded by (1) intrusion into a person's physical solitude or seclusion; (2) public disclosure of private facts; (3) placing a person in a false light in the public eye; and (4) the appropriation and exploitation of the property value of one's name. 

The Florida Supreme Court held that the definiton of the invasion of privacy is not so broad as to include the intrusion into or upon a physical body part.  Rather, the physical intrusion as contemplated by an invasion of privacy entails the intrusion into a "place" in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Accordingly, the invasion of privacy focuses upon the right of a private person to be free from public gaze.  As such, the employee's battery claim fails to state a cause of action for invasion of privacy.