## Facts

- Frederick Nordstrom injured his back while working for the Connecticut Department of Correction and filed a workers’ compensation claim.
- The Department’s claim was administered by GAB Robins North America, Inc. (GAB).
- In investigating the claim, GAB arranged surveillance of Frederick, and the surveillance extended to his wife, Melissa Nordstrom.
- Melissa alleged that, while she was driving with her daughter and grandfather, an investigator followed her aggressively in a manner that became a high-speed chase.
- Melissa alleged that the surveillance continued over several months and included being followed to a family camping trip where photographs were taken.
- Melissa also alleged repeated surveillance near or at her home, including photographs of her at home.
- Melissa claimed that the surveillance tactics and their duration caused her emotional distress.
- Melissa filed a diversity action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut asserting Connecticut-law claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- GAB moved for summary judgment, arguing that (among other arguments) the Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision barred the suit and that the record could not support NIED or IIED.

## Issues

1. Whether Connecticut workers’ compensation exclusivity bars an injured worker’s spouse from bringing tort claims against a third-party claims administrator for emotional distress allegedly caused by surveillance conducted during investigation of the worker’s claim.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record presented genuine disputes of material fact on Melissa Nordstrom’s NIED and IIED claims arising from the manner, scope, and duration of the surveillance.

## Decision

- The court denied GAB’s motion for summary judgment on Melissa Nordstrom’s emotional-distress claims.
- The court declined to rule, as a matter of law, that workers’ compensation exclusivity barred the spouse’s tort claims based on the alleged surveillance.
- The court held that a reasonable jury could find the alleged surveillance conduct sufficiently improper to support liability for emotional distress, making summary judgment inappropriate.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation exclusivity generally limits civil suits for work injuries, but it does not automatically bar every tort claim connected to the administration or investigation of a claim, especially where the plaintiff is a non-employee spouse.
- A carrier or third-party administrator may share some statutory protection when acting within the workers’ compensation process, but that protection is not a blanket shield for all conduct in claim handling.
- Surveillance to investigate a workers’ compensation claim is not automatically unlawful; liability may arise if the methods used are found unreasonable, dangerous, or extreme when applied to the facts.
- On summary judgment, the court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and decide only whether a reasonable jury could find for that party, not which side’s version is more credible.

## Conclusion

Nordstrom v. GAB Robins North America, Inc. held that Connecticut workers’ compensation exclusivity did not entitle a claims administrator to summary judgment against a non-employee spouse’s NIED and IIED claims where the spouse alleged an aggressive high-speed pursuit and months of intrusive surveillance connected to the worker’s claim; factual disputes about the nature and limits of that conduct required a jury’s resolution.


Nordstrom v. GAB Robins North America, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46148 (2012)