Benedict v. State Farm Bank, FSB
309 Ga. App. 133
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Benedict sued State Farm Bank, FSB, alleging State Farm harassed him with over 100 telephone calls.
- State Farm moved to dismiss under OCGA 9-11-12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and to compel arbitration of its counterclaim.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint, granted arbitration, and later confirmed an arbitration award in State Farm's favor.
- State Farm asserted a $60,000 alleged debt was due and owing under Benedict's credit card, plus fees and costs.
- Benedict appealed, contending the complaint stated claims for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress and challenging arbitration.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Benedict failed to state a cognizable invasion of privacy or IIED claim and that arbitration was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the calls state an invasion of privacy claim | Benedict alleges repeated calls invaded privacy. | State Farm argues no actionable intrusion; calls were harassing but not surveillance. | No invasion of privacy claim stated. |
| Whether repeated calls support an IIED claim | Benedict claims intentional distress from harassing calls. | State Farm contends allegations lack humiliation or severe distress. | No IIED claim stated. |
| Whether Benedict was bound to arbitrate the counterclaim | No evidence Benedict agreed to arbitrate; need show of consent. | Issued credit card agreement with arbitration provision; Benedict accepted terms by receipt and use. | Arbitration compelled; enforceable agreement to arbitrate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190 (1905) (recognizes private right of action for invasion of privacy)
- Yarbray v. Southern Bell Tel., etc. Co., 261 Ga. 703 (1991) (intrusion includes private affairs; outlines intrusion framework)
- Udoinyion v. Re/Max of Atlanta, 289 Ga.App. 580 (2008) (harassing calls can be intrusion if surveillance or private focus)
- Anderson v. Mergenhagen, 283 Ga.App. 546 (2007) (requires physical intrusion or surveillance for intrusion claim)
- Ledford v. Meyer, 249 Ga. 407 (1982) (true test for pleading fair notice and elements of claim)
- Davis v. Discover Bank, 277 Ga.App. 864 (2006) (acceptance of credit card terms evidenced by retention and use)
- Ridley v. Johns, 245 Ga.App. 710 (2000) (repeated calls may be non-actionable when no legitimate purpose)
- Assn. Svcs. v. Smith, 249 Ga.App. 629 (2001) (surveillance/intrusion distinctions in invasion-of-privacy cases)
- Troncalli v. Jones, 237 Ga.App. 10 (1999) (intrusion elements and limitations in privacy claims)
- Volt Information Sciences v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468 (1989) (arbitration is a matter of consent; enforceability of arbitration agreements)