Decided June 26, 1989.




"You smile and mock me, as if I meant naughtily."




This appeal raises an important question about the scope of the common law action for invasion of privacy. It arises in the form of a declaratory judgment action brought on a contract of insurance. The insured, John P. Snakenberg, seeks a declaration that the insurer, the Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, has a contractual duty to defend him against certain third party suits for invasion of privacy. The Hartford denies that Snakenberg's homeowner's policy covers the liability in question. The circuit court entered judgment for the Hartford. Snakenberg appeals. We affirm.




The facts are undisputed. Snakenberg purchased a Hartford homeowner's insurance policy for his residence in Beaufort, South Carolina. It provided both casualty and personal


    If a claim is made or a suit is brought against any
    insured for damages because of bodily  injury  or property
    damage to which this coverage applies, we will:



      a. pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for
    which the insured is legally liable; and



      b. provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our
    choice.



There followed an exclusionary clause stating that personal liability coverage does not apply to bodily  injury  or property damage "which is expected or intended by the insured." This appeal concerns the application of the exclusionary clause.




While the policy was in force, three teenage girls — all minors suing by a next friend — filed actions against Snakenberg for outrage and invasion of privacy. Their claims stemmed from a swimsuit "modelling session" conducted by Snakenberg on the insured premises. The complaints were substantially the same and alleged the following facts.




Snakenberg placed a want ad in the newspaper, soliciting swimsuit models at twenty-five dollars an hour. Each of the girls responded to the ad by calling the phone number listed. Snakenberg instructed each to come to his home for the modelling session. When the girls arrived, Snakenberg told them the swimsuits were in his bedroom. Using the bedroom as a dressing room, each girl modelled the swimsuits, unaware that Snakenberg had concealed a video tape camera and recorder in the dressing room and was filming and recording her changing from swimsuit to swimsuit. The girls neither authorized nor consented to let Snakenberg videotape them as they changed swimsuits. Snakenberg's actions intruded into the private activities of the girls, causing them mental suffering, shame, and humiliation.




In each instance, Snakenberg's personal attorney forwarded the complaint to the Hartford with a request that it defend the action. The Hartford refused to defend, asserting that the facts underlying the suits fell within the "intentional acts" exclusion of the policy. Because the Hartford would not defend him, Snakenberg retained his own counsel


I.




The applicable law can be briefly stated. The allegations of the third party complaint determine the insurer's duty to defend; and if the facts alleged in the complaint fail to bring a claim within the policy's coverage, the insurer has no duty to defend. South Carolina 


In this case, the policy expressly excludes coverage for damages intended or expected by the insured. Such an exclusion is valid in a voluntary policy of insurance. See Rhame v. National Grange Mutual Insurance Company, 238 S.C. 539, 121 S.E.2d 94 (1961) (reasonable exclusions valid); cf., South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Mumford, ___ S.C. ___, 382 S.E.2d 11 (Ct. App. 1989) (contrasting excl

Page 1 2 3 4 5 
South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
						  
						Personal Injury Lawyers