Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg
Decision Date | 18 September 2003 |
Docket Number | No. SC00-2614.,SC00-2614. |
Citation | 863 So.2d 156 |
Parties | ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and Allstate Indemnity Company, Appellants, v. Victor GINSBERG and Elaine A. Scarfo, Appellees. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Lori J. Caldwell and David B. Shelton of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Appellant.
Douglas H. Stein and Maurice J. Baumgarten of Anania, Bandklayder, Blackwell, Baumgarten & Torricella, Miami, FL; and Martha A. Chapman, Orlando, FL, for Appellees.
Richard E. Johnson, Tallahassee, FL; and Carol Swanson, Orlando, FL, for the National Employment Lawyers Association, Florida Chapter, Amicus Curiae.
We have for consideration several issues of Florida law certified by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that are asserted to be determinative of a cause pending in that court and for which there appears to be no controlling precedent. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(6), Fla. Const.
This case involves a declaratory decree action, which is proceeding in the federal court. The underlying tort action is proceeding in the state courts of Florida. In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 235 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir.2000), the Eleventh Circuit reviewed a summary judgment holding that appellants Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company (Allstate) had no duty to defend a state court complaint against its insured, appellee Victor Ginsberg, for invasion of privacy because the complaint failed to state a privacy claim. In its opinion, the Eleventh Circuit summarized the litigation history of this case:
Allstate, in providing a defense to the actions under a reservation of rights, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination whether Allstate's policies cover the claims alleged by Scarfo against Ginsberg. In 1997, the district court dismissed Scarfo's federal civil rights action on jurisdictional grounds, and dismissed Scarfo's state law claims without prejudice. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal in Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d 957 (11th Cir.1999). Scarfo re-filed her claims against Ginsberg in the state court as common law torts.
(Emphasis added.)
Id. at 1333-34 (footnote omitted).
In view of this Court not having ruled on the precise issue framed by the Eleventh Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit certified four questions to this Court. The questions certified are:
Id. at 1337-38.1 We assume for the purpose of answering the certified questions that the pleadings to which the first certified question refers are the allegations set forth in the complaint of appellee Elaine A. Scarfo:
....
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
....
C. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF— INVASION OF PRIVACY
....
24. Defendant GINSBERG, individually and in his capacity as President and Director of corporate Defendants and related corporations, invaded Plaintiff's privacy by intruding into Plaintiff's solitude in an offensive and objectionable manner which would cause mental distress and injury to a reasonable person having ordinary dealings and sensibilities.
25. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant GINSBERG's actions, Plaintiff was injured and suffered great damages to both her physical and mental well-being.
We conclude that these pleadings do not state a cause of action for the common law tort claim of invasion of privacy under Florida law. In view of this conclusion, we decline to answer the remaining questions because those questions assume that the pleadings do state a cause of action under Florida law for invasion of privacy.
In Cason v. Baskin, 155 Fla. 198, 20 So.2d 243 (1944), this Court first recognized the tort of invasion of privacy as a distinct cause of action in Florida. In that case, the plaintiff, a private person who claimed that publicity was extremely distasteful to her, brought an invasion of privacy claim against a well-known author, Marjorie Kinnan Baskin (also known as Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings), who had published a book which contained a biographical sketch of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the book personally violated her right to privacy by exposing private facts about her to the public. Cason, 20 So.2d at 245. This Court adopted the then recent reasoning of two legal scholars that allegations that the book published an intimate character sketch of the plaintiff could constitute a prima facie case of invasion of the plaintiff's right to privacy. Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rebalko v. City of Coral Springs
...the law of defamation; and (4) Appropriation, i.e., commercial exploitation of the property value of one's name. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg , 863 So. 2d 156, 161 (Fla. 2003). Here, the Rebalkos proceed only under the first category: intrusion. See Response at 20–21. In a recent case, thi......
-
Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp
...of the four general categories of invasion of privacy, one of which is a cause of action for false light. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156, 160-61 (Fla.2003); Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Associated Industries of Fla., Inc., 678 So.2d 1239, 1252 n. 20 (Fla. 1996) (citing......
-
Bollea v. Clem
...to prove the defendant “physically or electronically intrud[ed] into one's private quarters.” Id. at 726 (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156, 162 (Fla.2003)).5 Neither of these torts requires the application of federal law. A federal issue is therefore not “necessarily rai......
-
Watts v. City of Hollywood
...reasonable expectation of privacy,” and “the focus is the right of a private person to be free from public gaze.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156, 162 (Fla.2003) (alteration added). The Eleventh Circuit has thus interpreted Florida law as requiring “an intrusion into a private ......
-
Chapter 8
...Management, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 147 Conn. App. 450, 83 A.3d 664 (2014). Florida: Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156 (Fla. 2003). Illinois: Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay, 2014 IL App (4th) 110527-B, 2 N.E.3d 1253, 377 Ill. Dec. 972 (2014); Valley Forge Insura......
-
CHAPTER 9 Comprehensive General Liability Insurance—The Pollution Exclusions
...Management, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 147 Conn. App. 450, 83 A.3d 664 (2014). Florida: Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156 (Fla. 2003). Illinois: Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay, 2014 IL App (4th) 110527-B, 2 N.E.3d 1253, 377 Ill. Dec. 972 (2014); Valley Forge Insura......
-
Defamation & privacy
...rule, has expressly recognized a right to sue in tort for the civil wrong of ‘invasion of privacy.’”) 4. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156, 162 (Fla. 2003); but see Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098, 1102-03, 1115 (Fla. 2008) (finding that false light is not a recogniz......