## Facts

- Myra E. Creel, a hospital employee, suffered serious injuries in a 1994 motor vehicle collision and received long-term disability benefits under a group plan.
- The insurer later terminated benefits and, during Myra’s administrative appeal, hired I.C.E. & Associates, Inc., a licensed private detective agency, to conduct surveillance to assess Myra’s claimed disability.
- The insurer instructed I.C.E. to videotape Myra during services at her husband Claude Creel’s church.
- An I.C.E. investigator attended public church services on two occasions (part of four surveillance dates total), entered through the open main entrance among approximately 140 congregants, and posed as an ordinary attendee.
- The investigator used a concealed camera (hidden by an arm sling) and recorded only public services and public areas of the church, capturing Myra playing piano on stage.
- The insurer denied Myra’s administrative appeal in part based on the surveillance video.
- The Creels sued I.C.E. for (1) invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) and (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

## Issues

1. Whether covert videotaping of Myra during church services open to the public constituted intrusion upon seclusion under Indiana law.
2. Whether the investigator’s concealment and recording in a place of worship amounted to extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support an IIED claim.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for I.C.E. on both claims.
- On intrusion upon seclusion, the court held the undisputed facts negated any intrusion into a private place or matter because the videotaping captured conduct exposed to the public during services open to anyone.
- On IIED, the court held the investigative conduct—quiet surveillance in a public setting without disruption, harassment, or humiliation—was not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion requires a physical or other intrusion into a place or matter where the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the intrusion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Observation or recording of activities exposed to public view in a public setting generally does not constitute intrusion upon seclusion, even if the observation is covert.
- IIED requires intentional or reckless conduct that is extreme and outrageous, going beyond all bounds of decency and regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
- Routine investigative surveillance in public venues, without aggravating conduct such as disruption, harassment, threats, or public humiliation, ordinarily does not satisfy the IIED outrage requirement.

## Conclusion

Because the surveillance occurred during public church services and recorded only what any attendee could observe, the Creels lacked a reasonable expectation of seclusion, and the investigator’s conduct—though concealed—was not extreme and outrageous; summary judgment for I.C.E. was therefore proper on both claims.


Creel v. I.C.E. & Assocs., Inc., 771 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)