559 S.W.3d 645
Tex. App.2018Background
- Bushman acquired property adjacent to the Moores after prior litigation; hostility continued between the parties.
- The Moores sued Bushman and Integrity Land Services & Investments, LLC for: invasion of privacy (camera surveillance), tortious interference with an insurance contract, abuse of process (David’s arrest), and civil conspiracy (with William McCarty).
- Bushman moved for summary judgment (no-evidence and traditional); the trial court granted the no-evidence motion only.
- Moore evidence: Lisa Moore affidavit alleging cameras pointed at a private area; insurance adjuster Ronald Lopez’s notes showing multiple calls from Bushman and McCarty disparaging the Moores; criminal indictment and State’s motion to dismiss for the arrest claim.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on all claims; on appeal the court reviewed de novo and evaluated whether the Moores produced more than a scintilla of evidence for each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) | Camera was intentionally pointed at a private, secluded area of their property to spy on them | No evidence camera intruded into an area where Moores had a reasonable expectation of privacy | Affirmed — no more than a scintilla; affidavit lacked facts showing expectation of privacy |
| Tortious interference with contract | Bushman called State Farm and Lopez repeatedly, urging denial of Moores’ claim, causing legal fees and interference | No evidence of willful, intentional interference or damages | Reversed — Moores produced more than a scintilla (affidavits and adjuster notes create fact issues) |
| Abuse of process | Bushman caused David’s arrest to pressure settlement in prior litigation | Arrest/indictment was the process; Moores offered no evidence process was misused after issuance (allege improper issuance → malicious prosecution) | Affirmed — claim fails because alleged wrongful purpose was in issuance (malicious prosecution), not subsequent misuse |
| Civil conspiracy | Bushman and McCarty acted in concert to commit underlying torts (surveillance, interference, wrongful arrest) | Conspiracy derivative on underlying torts; if underlying claims fail, conspiracy fails | Reversed in part — because tortious interference survived, summary judgment on conspiracy reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Cura-Cruz v. CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec., LLC, 522 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017) (standard for reviewing summary judgment favoring nonmovant)
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (no-evidence summary judgment framework)
- Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 S.W.2d 512 (Tex. 1993) (elements of intrusion-upon-seclusion)
- Vaughn v. Drennon, 202 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (no privacy expectation when observing from own property/public street)
- GTE Mobilnet of S. Tex. Ltd. P’ship v. Pascouet, 61 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (video/observation and privacy analysis)
- Clayton v. Richards, 47 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (video recordings can support invasion of privacy claim)
- Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. 2003) (more-than-a-scintilla evidence standard)
- Holloway v. Skinner, 898 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. 1995) (elements of tortious interference)
- Tilton v. Marshall, 925 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. 1996) (civil conspiracy is derivative tort requiring underlying actionable conduct)