Opinion ID: 1918602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nature of the Injury

Text: [¶ 9] Because only personal injuries come within the Act, we first look to the nature of the injury suffered by Hawkes to determine if it is a personal injury. Following the trial court's decision on summary judgment, the claims remaining against Commercial Union are trespass to property, intrusion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The last claim is for a personal injury. In Cole we noted that we have previously held that mental injuries are personal injuries. See Cole, 2000 ME 104, ¶ 13, 752 A.2d at 1196. [¶ 10] Trespass, however, is not a personal injury; rather, an action for trespass seeks recompense for damages to property. Trespass protects possession of land. JACK H. SIMMONS, ET AL., MAINE TORT LAW 77 (1999). The Workers' Compensation Act is not applicable to Hawkes' trespass claim. [¶ 11] Intrusion of privacy, a tort which we adopted in Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, 365 A.2d 792, 794-95 (Me.1976), is a claim that is broad enough to include recovery for economic injuries, as well as mental or physical injuries. Cole, 2000 ME 104, ¶ 13, 752 A.2d at 1196. Insofar as it covers economic injuries, intrusion of privacy is not a personal injury and not within the ambit of the Workers' Compensation Act. Because neither trespass nor economic injuries from intrusion of privacy are personal injuries, Hawkes' action for damages for these two torts is not barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.