Court Opinion

ID: 9933994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:42:46.809894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:46.760665
License: Public Domain

I concur only because the Workers' Compensation Act does not bar Jones's tort claims of outrage and invasion of privacy. Garvin v. Shewbart, 442 So.2d 80 (Ala. 1983). In its motion for summary judgment, Colonial argued only that the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act barred Jones's tort claims. Colonial did not argue that Jones had failed to present substantial evidence supporting her outrage and invasion-of-privacy claims. If Colonial had argued the merits of Jones's tort claims in its summary judgment motion, I would conclude that Jones's allegations failed to state claims of outrage and invasion of privacy as outlined inBusby v. Truswal Systems Corp., 551 So.2d 322 (Ala. 1989).