Skip to main content

Horning-Keating v. Employers Ins. of Wausau

Fla. Dist. Ct. App.October 26, 2007No. 5D05-3903, 5D06-184, 5D06-314Cited 6 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Palmer
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on all of plaintiff's claims. The appellate court reversed in part, finding material issues of fact regarding one count that should have gone to the jury, while affirming summary judgment on other counts.

What This Ruling Means

**Horning-Keating v. Employers Insurance of Wausau (2007)** This case involved a worker who sued their employer, Employers Insurance of Wausau, claiming the company invaded their privacy and violated Florida's law protecting private communications. The employee alleged that the company improperly monitored or accessed their personal communications in some way. The trial court initially dismissed all of the employee's claims, ruling in favor of the insurance company on every issue. However, when the case was appealed to a higher court, the judges partially reversed this decision. The appeals court found that on at least one of the privacy claims, there were enough disputed facts that a jury should have been allowed to decide the case rather than the judge dismissing it outright. However, the appeals court agreed that some of the other claims were properly dismissed. **What this means for workers:** This ruling shows that employees do have legal protections against workplace privacy violations, even when employers initially win in court. If you believe your employer has improperly monitored your communications, the law may protect you, and appeals courts will carefully review whether your case deserves to be heard by a jury.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Dreggors
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Nov 2007
Mixed Result
Richardson-Tunnell
Cal. Ct. App.Dec 2007
Defendant Win
Clark v. Teamsters Local Union 651
E.D. Ky.Oct 2018
Mixed Result
Charles Stinson v. David E. Mensel
Tenn. Ct. App.Jul 2017

This appeal involves a dispute between landowners over an easement on Plaintiffs' property that allows the Defendants to use the easement for ingress and egress to their homes. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Defendants unlawfully bulldozed the easement, encroached onto Plaintiffs' property, and used threats and intimidation to prevent the Plaintiffs from coming on or using the non-exclusive easement. Defendants counter-sued, alleging that the Plaintiffs were actually the ones engaging in a campaign of harassment, and that the Plaintiffs were preventing the Defendants from the peace and enjoyment of the easement, which they used as their driveway. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Plaintiffs were liable to Defendants for nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. The trial court also enjoined the Plaintiffs from having any use of the easement. Plaintiffs appealed. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and partially vacate the injunction. Specifically, we affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to the nuisance claim, reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims, and vacate the permanent injunction against Plaintiffs to the extent that it prohibits them from the lawful use of their property.

Mixed Result
Diana R Green v. Lansing Automakers Federal Credit Union
Mich. Ct. App.Aug 2019
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.