## Facts

- Linda Hawkins suffered injuries in two automobile accidents in July 1987 and sued the motorists; the suits were consolidated and she obtained a verdict exceeding $400,000.
- In connection with the personal-injury litigation, insurers and defense counsel retained private investigators to gather information about Hawkins and her claimed injuries.
- Hawkins alleged the investigators made defamatory accusations to third parties during the investigation, including that she was an unfaithful spouse, an insurance cheat, and someone who paid others to lie.
- Specific alleged statements included: suggesting to a health-club attendant that the attendant was having an affair with Hawkins; telling Hawkins’s minister that Hawkins and her husband were committing insurance fraud; and asking Hawkins’s housekeeper how much Hawkins was paying her to lie.
- Hawkins filed a multi-count civil action against investigators, insurers, and attorneys asserting defamation and other torts, including invasion of privacy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy.

## Issues

1. Whether the absolute judicial-proceeding privilege bars defamation claims based on allegedly defamatory statements made by private investigators retained in connection with pending or contemplated litigation.
2. Whether, and to what extent, the privilege also bars related tort claims (e.g., invasion of privacy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy) when those claims are based on investigators’ conduct during litigation-related investigations.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the absolute judicial-proceeding privilege extends to relevant statements by private investigators retained by parties or their representatives when the statements have a sufficient nexus to pending or contemplated litigation.
- The Court ruled that defamation claims predicated on investigators’ litigation-related communications were barred and properly dismissed.
- The Court permitted privacy-based and similar claims to proceed only insofar as they were based on non-communicative, intrusive investigative conduct rather than on privileged communications.
- The Court affirmed in part and modified in part the Appellate Division’s disposition consistent with these distinctions.

## Legal Principles

- Absolute judicial-proceeding privilege immunizes from defamation liability statements made in the course of judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceedings when made by a participant, in furtherance of the litigation, and with a logical relation to the proceeding.
- “Participant” is construed functionally to include non-lawyer agents, such as private investigators, when performing tasks integral to preparing and trying a case.
- The privilege is absolute as to qualifying communications; it applies regardless of alleged malice or falsity if the relevance/nexus requirement is satisfied.
- The privilege bars tort claims that depend on the content of privileged communications, but does not necessarily bar claims grounded in non-communicative misconduct (e.g., intrusive surveillance or harassment) that is independently actionable.

## Conclusion

The court extended absolute judicial-proceeding privilege to litigation-related statements made by private investigators acting as agents of parties or counsel, barring defamation and communication-based tort theories, while leaving room for liability based on intrusive, non-communicative investigative conduct.


Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207, 661 A.2d 284 (N.J. 1995)