Background
The Lochead-MacMillan's house in Waiuku was insured with AMI Insurance. When their house later burnt down, they made an insurance claim with AMI. AMI in assessing the claim, got an investigator to interview the claimants. Two interviews were conducted, both of which were recorded by the investigator.
On 4 February 2010, the claimants requested AMI for a copy of audio files and transcripts, which under the Privacy Act they had the legal right to obtain. Only the transcript for the second interview was provided on 22 February, which was incomplete, and the transcript for the first interview was only provided in June.
With regards the request for the audio files, it was never acknowledged despite they were legally required to do so within 20 working days of the request. This request was never complied with by AMI, as at some stage the audio files were lost by them.
On 2 March 2010, unaware that the audio files were lost, requested AMI again for the audio files, and 3 days later AMI informed them that their claim had now been accepted, although there was still a dispute of the amount that was to be paid by AMI.
The claimants again requested the audio files from AMI on 13 April 2010.
Concerned about the progress of their insurance claim, on 6 May 2010 they requested AMI to also provide a copy of the VFR fire investigation report. While in this instance they got a reply from AMI on 21 May, they refused to provide them with the report on the grounds of litigation privilege.
Five days later, they claimants later accepted, under protest, a lesser amount than they had claimed. They did so without the benefit of having the investigators report on hand. However, after this matter was investigated by the Privacy Commission, AMI released the report to them on 3 November.
The claimants then filed a claim with the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
The Decision
The Tribunal ruled that AMI breached the Lochead-MacMillan's privacy on numerous grounds, including not giving a written decision to access requests, not providing records within a reasonable time, and not informing them of their right to lodge a complaint with the Privacy Commission.
Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that AMI's claim of litigation privilege was not genuine, as when they said this, they had no reasonable contemplation of litigation on the matter.
The Tribunal made a ruling for damages of $10,000 for the violation and the injury to Lochead-MacMillan's feelings.
Frivolous litigation is the use of legal processes with apparent disregard for the merit of one's own arguments. It includes presenting an argument with reason to know that it would certainly fail, or acting without a basic level of diligence in researching the relevant law and facts. That an argument was lost does not imply the argument was frivolous; a party may present an argument with a low chance of success, so long as it proceeds from applicable law.
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.
In English civil litigation, costs are the lawyers' fees and disbursements of the parties.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 is a United States Act of Congress enacted by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 21, 1996. It aimed to alter the transfer of healthcare information, stipulated the guidelines by which personally identifiable information maintained by the healthcare and healthcare insurance industries should be protected from fraud and theft, and addressed some limitations on healthcare insurance coverage. It generally prohibits healthcare providers and businesses called covered entities from disclosing protected information to anyone other than a patient and the patient's authorized representatives without their consent. The bill does not restrict patients from receiving information about themselves. Furthermore, it does not prohibit patients from voluntarily sharing their health information however they choose, nor does it require confidentiality where a patient discloses medical information to family members, friends or other individuals not employees of a covered entity.
False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person's movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., is federal legislation enacted to promote the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies. It was intended to shield consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of erroneous data in their credit reports. To that end, the FCRA regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information, including consumer credit information. Together with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the FCRA forms the foundation of consumer rights law in the United States. It was originally passed in 1970, and is enforced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and private litigants.
In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.
Insurance bad faith is a tort unique to the law of the United States that an insurance company commits by violating the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which automatically exists by operation of law in every insurance contract.
Tort reform consists of changes in the civil justice system in common law countries that aim to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to bring tort litigation or to reduce damages they can receive. Such changes are generally justified under the grounds that litigation is an inefficient means to compensate plaintiffs; that tort law permits frivolous or otherwise undesirable litigation to crowd the court system; or that the fear of litigation can serve to curtail innovation, raise the cost of consumer goods or insurance premiums for suppliers of services, and increase legal costs for businesses. Tort reform has primarily been prominent in common law jurisdictions, where criticism of judge-made rules regarding tort actions manifests in calls for statutory reform by the legislature.
Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd[2004] UKHL 22 was a House of Lords decision regarding human rights and privacy in English law.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:
The Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission (VWC) is an agency of the U.S. state of Virginia that oversees the resolution of workers' compensation claims brought in that state, in accordance with the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims. Its decisions may be appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals. The Commission is led by a Senior Leadership team consisting of three Commissioners, an Executive Director and a Chief Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioners are appointed by the Virginia General Assembly and serve staggered six-year terms. Honorable Robert A. Rapaport, Honorable Wesley G. Marshall and Honorable R. Ferrell Newman currently serve as Commissioners. The Commissioners elect a Chairman for a term of three years. Commissioner Rapaport currently serves as Chairman. Ms. Evelyn McGill is the Commission’s Executive Director and Honorable James J. Szablewicz is the Commission’s Chief Deputy Commissioner. The Commission is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, and has offices and hearing locations at various places around the state.
Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a statutorily established institution fundamental to the application, determination and up holding of human rights in New Zealand. The tribunal is established under the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993. The Human Rights Review Tribunal is one of two key human rights bodies in New Zealand and provides the mechanism for adjudication and resolution of human rights issues. The jurisdiction of the tribunal extends to cover matters from domestic human rights law, principles given in the Privacy Act 1993 and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. Complaints may be bought by the Director of Human Rights or where it is deemed not appropriate to do so, a citizen may proceed with a claim at their own cost. The tribunal has the power to grant a wide range of remedies and in making a determination, is not required to give effect to technicalities but rather, the substantial merits of the case. The Human Rights Review tribunal also holds special status within the array of tribunals in New Zealands domestic legal system, with a far more significant legal jurisdiction than other inter partes tribunals. This special status reflects the fact that decisions of the tribunal can have substantial political and societal implications.
Director of Human Rights Proceedings v INS Restorations Ltd [2012] NZHRRT 18 is an important privacy case from the Human Rights Review Tribunal that is mentioned on their website.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner administers the Privacy Act 2020. The Privacy Commissioner is entrusted to protect personal information of New Zealanders in accordance with the Privacy Act. Current Privacy Commissioner, Michael Webster, began his role in July 2022.
The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2015 is a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Blake Farenthold that would require asbestos trusts in the United States to file quarterly reports about the payouts they make and personal information on the victims who receive them in a publicly accessible database. The legislation would also allow defendant corporations in asbestos cases to demand information from the trusts for any reason.
The civil liability of a recreational diver may include a duty of care to another diver during a dive. Breach of this duty that is a proximate cause of injury or loss to the other diver may lead to civil litigation for damages in compensation for the injury or loss suffered.
