May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Categories [more]
General (1983)
Lawyer 2 Lawyer (283)
Latest Blogs
This Month's Posts [more]
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Links of Interest [more]
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Quote of the Day - Not only is it an invasion of privacy, but it's just not right. - Jim Jackson
Adjust font size: A A+ A++
Claim Your Profile on Avvo

Touch Me, But Don't Invade My Privacy

Often, lawyers come up with new theories to get coverage under insurance policies. Here's a new twist that didn't work in Florida. Lawyers there tried to trigger the "invasion of privacy" policy terms based on a claim of "offensive touching." No, it's not first and ten, it's unwelcome sexual advances.

Mealy's Litigation Reports posted this article that highlight's Elaine Scarfo's case against her employer, Victor Ginsberg, for offensively touching her.

Ginsberg tendered the suit to his insurance company, Allstate Insurance, which denied the claim.

They then both sued Allstate. Allstate won, and the Florida Supreme Court determined that unwanted sexual advances do not trigger coverage under invasion of privacy policy language. Want to see practically the entire case? Florida State University College of Law has a nifty little website that indexes the opinion and all the briefs. It even includes an amicus brief, and video of the oral arguments.

Cool.

As an aside here, Allstate has changed its jingle from "You're in Good Hands" to "The Right Hands Make All the Difference." I'll have to refrain from commenting - but you've got your own imagination.

Call me silly, but it seems that being felt up qualifies from a common sense approach as an invastion of privacy. Certainly, there are legal reasons it does not. Perhaps the 11th Circuit expert, Abstract Appeal, can give some more insight on the case.

Printer friendly page Permalink Email to a friend Posted by J. Craig Williams on Sunday, September 28, 2003 at 18:53 Comments Closed (1) |
 
Share Link