Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Simmons' apartment that allowed them to intercept private conversations and telephone calls. The complaint asserted violations of two federal wiretapping statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2520 and 47 U.S.C. Sec. 605 , a Florida wiretapping statute, Fla.Stat. 934.10, a claim under 42 U.S.C....

...Plaintiffs' first unilateral pre-trial stipulation specified as an issue the "amount of damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled under the applicable Statutory provisions." The complaint sought civil damages for, inter alia, violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2520 and Fla.Stat. Sec. 934.10....

...FEI cross-appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to amend to add a claim for punitive damages as well as the trial court's denial of an injunction against Dr. Minotty from exercising his "put" option to require purchase of his stock in FEI. I. Claim for Interception of Communications Pursuant to Section 934.10, Florida Statutes Dr....

...4) [imposing criminal liability]. By including the word "endeavor," the statute would permit criminal liability for an attempt to intercept oral communications. However, the Legislature limited civil causes of action to cases of actual interception. Section 934.10, Florida Statutes provides: Civil remedies....

...There, Carroll had complained to Southern Bell that she was receiving harassing calls which she believed Armstrong was making. The phone company put a device on the phone line to record the numbers which Armstrong dialed, but it did not record her voice. Armstrong sued Southern Bell for damages for violation of 934.10....

...ply to silent video surveillance. Id. at 90 (emphasis supplied). As the Florida statute is patterned after the federal statute and contains essentially the same language, we conclude that silent video surveillance is not covered by section 934.02 or 934.10....

...JP Life’s telephone system did, however, emit a periodic beep during the call. The call concerned a bill submitted to JP Life for a patient under the care of Royal Health. II.PROCEDURAL HISTORY Royal Health sued JP Life for unauthorized interception of an oral communication under section 934.10 of the Act....

...Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir.1990); Oriental Imports & Exports, Inc. v. Maduro and Curiel’s Bank, N.V., 701 F.2d 889, 890-91 (11th Cir.1983). We begin with an examination of the statutory scheme, and then proceed to a review of the relevant ease law. Royal Health alleges a claim under section 934.10 of the Act. That provision creates a civil remedy for “[a]ny person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted ... in violation of [sections] 934.03-934.09.” Fla.Stat.Ann. § 934.10 (West Supp.1990)....

...The exception to the definition of “electronic, mechanical, or other device” is commonly referred to as the business extension exception or the extension phone exception. Under the plain meaning of the statute, if this exception is met, then no interception occurred and there can be no liability under section 934.10....

...ons’ apartment that allowed them to intercept private con *787 versations and telephone calls. The complaint asserted violations of two federal wiretapping statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and 47 U.S.C. § 605 , a Florida wiretapping statute, Fla.Stat. 934.10, a claim under 42 U.S.C....

...Plaintiffs’ first unilateral pre-trial stipulation specified as an issue the “amount of damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled under the applicable Statutory provisions.” The complaint sought civil damages for, inter alia, violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 and Fla.Stat. § 934.10....

...ember of the charitable foundation. When Edward learned that his cousin had recorded this telephone conversation without his permission, he filed this lawsuit in 2003 in Collier County against Neely claiming the right to receive a civil remedy under section 934.10 of the Act for an illegal recording of a telephone conversation....

...a complete defense to criminal prosecution, cf. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (good faith reliance on warrant); Wright v. State of Florida, 495 F.2d 1086 (5th Cir.1974) (good faith reliance on wiretap order); § 934.10, Fla....

...of a property interest: (1) the Police Officer Bill of Rights, Fla. Stat. § 112.532 and (2) the contract between the City and UM. By its terms, the Officer Bill of Rights applies only to "full time law enforcement officers, as defined by Fla. Stat. § 934.10. As extensively discussed in the earlier part of this order, for purposes of Fla. Stat. § 934.10, the plaintiffs are classified as "part-time law enforcement officers"....

...he respondent was a witness. Upon learning of the existence of the tape, respondent filed a civil action for damages alleging that petitioner had intercepted their telephone conversation by means of an electronic or mechanical device in violation of Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...Based on the aforesaid reasons, the Southeast Defendants' and Defendants Paige, Fernandez, and Furns' motions for summary judgment are DENIED with respect to Count I of Plaintiffs' complaint. Count IV: Florida Privacy of Communications Claim (Fla.Stat. § 934.10) The parties agree that this statute is modeled after 18 U.S.C....

...g's invasion of privacy claim was barred by the statute of limitations; (3) he was immune from liability under section 440.105 of the Florida Statutes for reporting evidence of suspected insurance fraud; [3] (4) he had a good *417 faith belief under section 934.10(2) of the Florida Statutes that the tape recording was permitted by law; (5) he had no duty to prevent a third person from committing an allegedly criminal act or to warn the alleged victim of the act; and, (6) Keating did not have a l...

...The First District Court of Appeal has certified the following question as being a matter of great public importance. Does the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity bar a civil cause of action for money damages brought by one spouse against the other spouse, under Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979)? Burgess v....

...This Court has specifically stated that any legislative enactment which would allow interspousal tort actions should be "positive and unambiguous." Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 886, 101 S.Ct. 240, 66 L.Ed.2d 111 (1980). The sole question involved in this case is whether section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979), permits, with requisite clarity, interspousal tort litigation. For reasons discussed below we find that the language of section 934.10 is both "positive and unambiguous" and provides an aggrieved party with an unconditional civil cause of action, regardless of marital status....

...Burgess' telephone conversations. He then played these recordings to neighbors and used them for purposes of gaining an advantage for himself in the dissolution proceedings. Mrs. Burgess, petitioner, filed a civil action seeking monetary damages under section 934.10 based on Mr....

...Given the explicit language of the statute, we cannot agree. In chapter 934, the Florida Legislature evidenced its overriding concern for the protection of personal privacy by imposing both civil and criminal sanctions upon those in violation of the statute. § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (1979). The language of section 934.10 is straightforward and provides in relevant part: Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, disclos...

...itigation costs reasonably incurred. (Emphasis added.) The message here is plain — any person falling victim to an unlawful wire intercept shall have a civil cause of action against any person so violating chapter 934. The word "person", as used in section 934.10, is defined by statute as follows: (5) "Person" means any employee or agent of the state or political subdivision thereof and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation; ......

...vorce agreement. This conduct runs contrary to fundamental concepts of privacy and is specifically prohibited under chapter 934. The teeth of this prohibition are located in the criminal and civil sanctions provided by statute. §§ 934.03(1)(a) and 934.10. To bar the victimized spouse from civil remedy would undermine the legislature's purpose in upholding one's constitutional right to privacy. In sum, the remedy afforded by section 934.10 should not be circumscribed by the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity....

...Those persons involved in the illegal surveillance are guilty of a third-degree felony. § 934.03(1)(a). In addition, the suspected criminal — as victim to an illegal wiretap — is entitled to receive from those persons actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees. § 934.10....

...This result is incompatible with chapter 934's strong purpose of assuring personal rights of privacy within the institution of marriage. Accordingly, we find that the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity does not bar a civil cause of action for money damages brought by one spouse against the other under section 934.10....

...It is so ordered. OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. ALDERMAN, C.J., dissents with an opinion, in which BOYD, J., concurs. BOYD, J., dissents with an opinion. ALDERMAN, Chief Justice, dissenting. I do not believe that the legislature, in enacting section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979), intended to create an exception to the doctrine of interspousal immunity....

...A reading of the statute certainly does not reveal such an intent. In order to create such an exception to the rule of spousal immunity, the language of the statute should contain positive and unambiguous language revealing this intent. I disagree with the majority that section 934.10 positively and unambiguously provides an aggrieved party with an unconditional civil cause of action regardless of marital status. I believe that the majority has misread section 934.10 to allow this limited exception to the doctrine of interspousal immunity, which exception allows one spouse, falling victim to an unlawful wire intercept, to have a civil cause of action against the other spouse who violated chapter 934....

...Section 934.03 provides, in pertinent part, that [A]ny person who ... [w]illfully intercepts ... any wire or oral communication ... shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree ... [unless] all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception. The suit for damages was based upon section 934.10 which provides for the recovery of damages from "[a]ny person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted ......

...committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any insured."). In other words, the intent to do the act of recording the telephone conversations was equivalent to the intent to cause the natural consequences of that act, to wit, the harm which section 934.03 was enacted to interdict and for which section 934.10 provides a civil remedy....

...Reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment for the insurance company consistent with this opinion. RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur. NOTES [1] We do not address the statutory amendments enacted after the alleged recordings in this case which provide a good faith defense under section 934.10(2).

...must be instructed that it may not use evidence of out-of-state conduct to punish a defendant for action that was lawful in the jurisdiction where it occurred. Campbell, 538 U.S. at 422 , 123 S.Ct. 1513 . *864 In providing a private cause of action, section 934.10 would appear to - be punitive in nature. The statute does not require proof of actual damages and expressly authorizes the award of punitive damages. Furthermore, as observed by the Kountze court, for Ms. France to have committed an act that allowed for a civil remedy under section 934.10, it would seem to be necessary that her conduct in North Carolina constituted a criminal violation of section 934.03 in Florida....

...Bollea asserts five causes of action against Heather Clem: (1) invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, (2) publication of private facts, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (5) violation of Section 934.10, Florida Statutes....

...ibed by the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff's reply also contains multiple substantive footnotes (see Dkt. 28 at 2, 5, 8) in violation of the Court order that the reply "shall not contain substantive footnotes" (Dkt. 27). . Section 934.10(1) provides ''[a]ny person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss....

...n of the oral communication. See Western Cas. & Sur. Co. v. City of Palmyra, 650 F.Supp. 981 (E.D.Mo.1987). Accordingly, the court erred in determining that Acceptance had a duty to defend Bates in the Rubino action. Reversed and remanded. NOTES [1] Section 934.10 provides an injured party with civil remedies for violation of section 934.03....

...[2] Bates' contention that the statute may be violated by negligent use or disclosure of audio-taped materials is of no moment as the complaint does not contain such allegations. In addition, we are precluded from following Bates' suggestion and considering a good-faith defense, § 934.10(2), Fla....

...legal authorities upon which appellant had relied in forming his belief that he could legally tape the conversations. The proffer discloses that appellant had researched case law and spoken with many people, some of whom had worked on amendments to section 934.10(2)(b), Florida Statutes, from which his defense arose....

...Following the proffer, appellant testified before the jury that he had taped a telephone conversation between him and Agent Tierney in order to show that Tierney had lied to a Panama City police officer. Thereafter the defense rested. Appellant requested and submitted a jury charge, based on section 934.10(2)(b), instructing that a defense existed as a result of a good-faith determination that federal or Florida law permitted the conduct....

...cation[] * * * * * * shall be punished as provided in subsection (4). *220 Section 934.03(4) provides that except in cases dealing with certain radio communications, such offense is a third degree felony. Appellant attempted to raise a defense under section 934.10(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), which states: (2) A good faith reliance on: (a) A court order, subpoena, or legislative authorization as provided in ss....

...tion is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State. (Emphasis added.) Neither party has revealed any cases interpreting the defense provided in section 934.10(2)(b)....

...§ 2511(2)(d), permitting the consent of only one of the parties to the interception, under the circumstances there provided. After Florida's Security of Communications Act was amended in 1974 to require the consent of all parties, the legislature further amended chapter 934 in 1986 to create the defense provided in section 934.10(2)(b)....

...closed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 shall have a civil cause of action against any person or entity who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person or entity to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications.... *324 § 934.10(1), Fla....

...Appellants filed a complaint and later an amended complaint alleging that on July 17, 1974 employees of appellee directed that an illegal electronic surveillance device be placed upon their telephone line, thereby entitling them to a cause of action pursuant to Florida Statute 934.10....

SHEVIN, Judge. Braulio Jatar appeals an adverse final summary judgment. We affirm. Jatar brought an action for civil remedies pursuant to section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1989), alleging that defendants Camilo Lamaletto and Balgres Distributing Company, Inc....

...The exception to the definition of “electronic, mechanical, or other device” is commonly referred to as the business extension exception .... Under the plain meaning of the statute, if this exception is met, then no interception occurred and there can be no liability under section 934.10....

entity, it permits suit against the district. See § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (2022). Sovereign immunity is

...�� or by some significant common trait such as race or gender.” Hammett, 203 F.R.D. at 696 (quoting Holmes, 706 F.2d at 1155 n. 8). In Count II of the Third Amended Complaint, Stalley and Hallback seek injunctive relief pursuant to Florida Statute § 934.10(1)(a). (Doc. #208 at 13). However, Count I states, “This is an action for statutory damages under the FSCA.” (Id. at 12). While § 934.10 provides a statutory scheme for the award of actual damages, it requires that damages be determined on a claimant-by-claimant basis by examining the dates and frequency of calls made to a specific claimant in violation of the FSCA: “Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher.” Fla. Stat. § 934.10 (l)(b)....

...This business is under 24-hour video and audio surveillance." The present case is similar to Jatar v. Lamaletto, 758 So. 2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), where an employee alleged that the recording of his statements during a meeting with his employer violated section 934.10....

...game records. Defendant also referred to the call in Internet postings and voluntarily filed a transcript of the call in a defamation case that Plaintiff has brought against Twin Galaxies in California. Plaintiff sued Defendant in Florida under section 934.10, Florida Statutes (2019), which creates a civil remedy for violations of the Act, including unlawfully recording phone calls without the consent of all parties. See § 934.10(1), Fla....

...acilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business[.]" 5 As the Eleventh Circuit Court noted: "Under the plain meaning of the statute, if this exception is met, then no interception occurred and there can be no liability under section 934.10 ....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 934.10(3), Fla....

disclosure of intercepted oral communications); § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing a cause of action

disclosure of intercepted oral communications); § 934.10, Fla. Stat. (2015) (providing a cause of action

damages from petitioner. She based her action on Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1977), which authorizes

...r other than "911 call-backs" because even though the recording did not fall within the exception in section 934.03(2)(g)2, the city had a good faith belief that the recording was authorized by other provisions of Florida law governing 911 systems); § 934.10(2)(c), Fla....

without stating the grounds for the dismissal. Section 934.10, Florida Statutes, states: Any person whose

WIGGINTON, Judge. Appellant, Mrs. Burgess, appeals from the order of the trial court reluctantly dismissing her cause of action for civil damages brought under Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979), as being precluded by Raisen v....

...phone lines in order to intercept and record Mrs. Burgess’ telephone conversations. He then allegedly played the recordings to neighbors, and used them to his advantage during the dissolution proceedings. Mrs. Burgess filed a complaint pursuant to Section 934.10 based on Mr....

...Practically speaking, insurance coverage is not available for intentional torts. Moreover, it is hard to believe that Mrs. Burgess colluded with her husband to have her private conversations recorded and played before her neighbors so that she might maintain a cause of action for damages under Section 934.10....

...certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as being one of great public importance: Does the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity bar a civil cause of action for money damages brought by one spouse against the other spouse, under Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979)? SHIVERS and SHAW, JJ., concur.

...However, the Florida Emergency Telephone Act is not an exception to the prohibitions found in the Florida Communications Act. Nevertheless, we hold that the City had a “good faith belief’ that the manner in which the instant playback system was installed in the PSAP was legal. § 934.10(2)(c), Fla....

...ividual. The statute in question here states “any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted ... in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts ... such communications ...” Fla.Stat. § 934.10....

...However, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the $35,000 punitive damages verdict. On this appeal appellant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence as to the $20,-000 award for unlawful interception of a communication under the wiretapping statute (section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1985))....