Richardson-Tunnell v. School Insurance Program for Employees
December 10, 2007, Second District, Div. Six
Cite as 2007 SOS 7210

Government entity's immunity on invasion of privacy claims

Klare Richardson-Tunnell was a school employee of the Lucia Mar Unified School District who suffered a back injury while at work. In June 2003, she underwent disc replacement surgery. Five months later, in October 2003 she was married while still on disability leave.

The district and its workers compensation insurance organization, the School Insurance Program for Employees (SIPE) hired a private investigator, namely, Anthony Esparza from the Eye-Con Investigations agency to investigate Richardson-Tunnell's ongoing disability claim.

Esparza secretly attended the Richardson-Tunnell's wedding as a guest. He videotaped the ceremony and the reception. Moreover, he also videotaped the plaintiff and her husband as they sunbathed during their honeymoon.

The plaintiff sued the School District, SIPE, Esparza and the investigation agency in the Superior Court of the San Luis Obispo County for damages on the following causes of action:

• violation of her constitutional Right to Privacy


• violation of Civil Code section 1708.8


• general negligence


• invasion of privacy or intrusion

The plaintiff sought compensatory damages, treble damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1708.8, and punitive damages.

The School District and the SIPE passed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings based on statutory immunity. Their motion was granted by the court without leave to amend and dismissed all causes of action against SIPE and District.

On appeal in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District Division Six, plaintiff agreed that both the school district and its insurer are public entities.

Under the Government Code, a public entity is not liable for any injury except as provided by the statute. Any statutory liability of any public entity is subject to any applicable statutory immunity.

A public entity is not liable for any conduct of employee for which that employee is immune. Finally, under the Government Code § 821.6, "a public employee is immune from liability for instituting or prosecuting judicial or administrative proceedings."

The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held the following:

• The conduct alleged by the plaintiff was well within the scope of Government Code § 821.6 Immunity. California courts construed this section broadly. In further to serve its purpose of protecting public employees in performing their prosecutorial duties from the threat of harassment through civil lawsuits.


• Investigations are considered part of the judicial and administrative proceedings for purpose of section 821.6 immunity.


• The investigation of the plaintiff is considered part of the judicial and administrative proceedings for purposes of section 821.6 immunity. Thus, the surveillance conducted by the defendants' on the plaintiff was for purposes of investigating her worker's compensation claim, making the defendants immune from any tort liability.


• The Civil Code § 1708.8 was enacted after Princess Diana's death in order to protect against the aggressive and dangerous paparazzi-like behavior of tabloid journalists. It imposes liability for invasion of privacy only under particular circumstances. However, this section is outside the tort claims act.

According to the general rule, the Governmental Immunity will override a liability created by a statute outside the tort claims act. Without an expression of legislative attempt to the contrary, the Government Code § 821.6 immunity overrides the liability created by the Civil Code § 1708.8.

Even the Court's review of the legislative intent analysis specifically demonstrated to pursuit governmental immunities.