Legal Question in Civil Rights Law in California

Insurance Company's rights for video surveillance

I have a continuing claim disability claim. After surgery, MRIs, and reports from doctors, the company is paying but they making it ''difficult''. The following is a sub-section of the CA privacy law seems to entitle the company to videotape (''peep'') into my home with an ''articulable suspicion'', not necessarily a valid one. Is my concern legit?

(f) This section shall not be construed to impair or limit any otherwise lawful activities of law enforcement personnel or employees of governmental agencies or other entities, either public or private who, in the course and scope of their employment, and supported by an articulable suspicion, attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a person during an investigation, surveillance, or monitoring of any conduct to obtain evidence of suspected illegal activity, the suspected violation of any administrative rule or regulation, a suspected fraudulent insurance claim, or any other suspected fraudulent conduct or activity involving a violation of law or pattern of business practices adversely affecting the public health or safety.


Asked on 4/28/04, 4:01 am

1 Answer from Attorneys

Michael Stone Law Offices of Michael B. Stone Toll Free 1-855-USE-MIKE

Re: Insurance Company's rights for video surveillance

Insurance companies often do, especially in disability and workers' comp cases, shoot "sub rosa" footage of the allegedly injured claimant. Usually this is done in public places where the photographer or videographer has a right to be. If they were to shoot through the windows of your house you might have a case for invasion of privacy or infliction of emotional distress. Then again, you might not. Keep your blinds closed and don't work on your car in the driveway. While you have probably seen footage on TV of scam-artist disability claimants skiing or lifting barbells, most such video is subject to more than one interpretation or is otherwise of questionable value. Most judges are usually not impressed unless the nature of the activity caught on tape clearly proves fraud.

Read more
Answered on 4/29/04, 3:53 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Civil Rights Law questions and answers in California