Parnoff v. Aquarian Water Co. of Connecticut (AC40383)
204 A. 3d 717, 188 Conn. App. 153 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, a plaintiff must prove: (1) an intentional intrusion, physical or otherwise; (2) upon the plaintiff's solitude, seclusion, or private affairs; (3) which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Facts:
- On July 11, 2011, Aquarion Water Company employees David Lathlean and Kyle Lavin went to Laurence V. Parnoff's property to service a fire hydrant.
- The employees discovered the hydrant was missing a cap, was leaking, and had a garden hose on the ground next to it.
- The employees traced the hose to a goat pen and also observed other hoses that appeared to lead to the pen.
- While searching for the missing cap, they walked into an open canopy tent about ten feet from the hydrant and found the cap on the floor of Parnoff's tractor, along with a pipe wrench.
- The employees observed that the cap had been altered with a drilled hole and a welded connection, leading them to suspect tampering and a potential contamination risk.
- Parnoff confronted the employees, telling them to leave his property.
- Lavin allegedly shouted "you're stealing water" and put a camera in Parnoff's face.
- Parnoff allegedly threatened to get a gun and kill the employees, after which both Lathlean and Parnoff called the police, resulting in Parnoff's arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- In July 2014, Laurence V. Parnoff sued Aquarion Water Company and its employees in a Connecticut trial court.
- Parnoff filed a revised complaint alleging trespass, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the claims for trespass, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the CUTPA violation.
- The defendants later filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment on the remaining negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, arguing they were barred by the statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted the supplemental motion for summary judgment, disposing of all claims against the defendants.
- Parnoff (appellant) appealed the trial court's grants of summary judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut (intermediate appellate court), with Aquarion and its employees as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a water company's entry onto a customer's property to service a hydrant, which includes searching the immediate vicinity and verbally accusing the customer of theft, constitute the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion?
Opinions:
Majority - Keller, J.
No. A water company's entry onto a customer's property under a belief of legal authority to service equipment does not constitute an invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, even if it involves searching a semi-private area and making accusations, because such conduct fails to meet the tort's required elements. The court adopted the three-part test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B. Parnoff's claim failed on all three elements. First, there was no 'intentional intrusion' because the employees believed, based on an easement and public utility tariff, that they had the legal permission to be on the property to service the hydrant; an actor must believe or be substantially certain they lack permission for an intrusion to be intentional. Second, there was no intrusion upon 'solitude or seclusion' because the area searched—a driveway and an open canopy tent—was not a place where Parnoff had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. Third, the employees' conduct, including walking around the property and accusing Parnoff of stealing water, was not 'highly offensive to a reasonable person,' which requires conduct that is a substantial interference and would cause a reasonable person to strongly object, far beyond mere insults or rudeness.
Analysis:
This case formally adopts and clarifies the elements of the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion in Connecticut, aligning the state's common law with the Restatement (Second) of Torts. By setting a high bar for liability, the decision makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on such claims, particularly when the alleged intrusion occurs in semi-public areas of a property and the defendant has a colorable claim of right to be present. The ruling emphasizes that the defendant's conduct must be a 'substantial' interference that is 'highly offensive' to an ordinary person, thereby distinguishing legally actionable invasions from mere annoyances or disputes.
