Snakenberg v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., Inc.
299 S.C. 164, 383 S.E.2d 2, 1989 S.C. App. LEXIS 103 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of wrongful intrusion into private affairs is an intentional tort, requiring proof that the defendant acted willingly and knew or should have known that an intrusion would result from their conduct. A defendant's motive, purpose, or lack of malice is irrelevant to establishing the element of intent for this tort.
Facts:
- John P. Snakenberg placed a newspaper advertisement soliciting swimsuit models for twenty-five dollars an hour.
- Three teenage girls separately responded to the ad and went to Snakenberg's home for a modeling session.
- Snakenberg instructed each girl to use his bedroom as a dressing room to change into various swimsuits.
- Unbeknownst to the girls, Snakenberg had concealed a video camera and recorder in the bedroom.
- Snakenberg videotaped each girl without her knowledge or consent as she changed clothes.
- The videotaping caused the girls to suffer mental suffering, shame, and humiliation.
Procedural Posture:
- Three teenage girls filed separate lawsuits against John P. Snakenberg in a South Carolina trial court for outrage and invasion of privacy.
- Snakenberg tendered the defense of the suits to his homeowner's insurer, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company.
- Hartford refused to defend, asserting the claims fell within the policy's exclusion for intentional acts.
- The claims against Snakenberg were ultimately settled.
- Snakenberg (plaintiff) then filed a declaratory judgment action against Hartford (defendant) in the circuit court, seeking a ruling that Hartford had a duty to defend.
- The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Hartford.
- Snakenberg (appellant) appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
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 the tort of wrongful intrusion into private affairs constitute an intentional act that falls within an insurance policy's exclusion for damages that are 'expected or intended by the insured,' thus relieving the insurer of its duty to defend?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, J.
Yes, the tort of wrongful intrusion into private affairs is an intentional tort, and the alleged conduct falls squarely within the insurance policy's exclusion for intentional acts. The court reasoned that this specific type of invasion of privacy requires an intentional act, which is distinct from negligence. An act is intentional if it is done willingly and the actor knows or should know the result will follow. Snakenberg's actions of concealing a camera and recording the girls were voluntary, and the resulting intrusion into their privacy was a natural and expected consequence. The court explicitly distinguished intent from motive, purpose, and malice, holding that Snakenberg's claimed innocent motive (e.g., for security) was irrelevant. Because the complaints alleged facts constituting an intentional tort, the claim was excluded from coverage under the policy, and Hartford had no duty to defend.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the elements of the tort of wrongful intrusion into private affairs in South Carolina, firmly establishing it as an intentional tort. By distinguishing intent from motive and purpose, the court significantly narrows the ability of defendants to re-characterize such actions as merely negligent. This has a major impact on insurance coverage disputes, making it more difficult for insured individuals who commit acts of surveillance or intrusion to claim a defense or indemnification under policies that exclude intentional acts. The case serves as a foundational opinion for understanding the mental state required for this privacy tort.
