A man claimed on an insurance policy covering him for disability. The policy provided that the insurance company would pay his mortgage if the disability lasted for a certain time. This time had elapsed. The company had some doubts about the claim and engaged private investigators to look into the matter.

The private investigators twice visited the claimant's house. On the first visit, the investigator noticed a 'for sale' sign outside the house and, purporting to be a potential buyer, asked if he could bring his father-in-law back to view the property. He said his wife was out of town and was waiting for him to buy a house for them to move into. The claimant agreed.

The private investigator returned a few days later, accompanied by a man who was introduced as his father-in-law. This man had a video camera and asked if he could make a video of the interior of the house for his daughter. The claimant agreed. The videotape showed the claimant showing his visitors around the house. It was subsequently used by the insurance company in an attempt to refute his claim of permanent disability.

The claimant alleged that the means of collection were unfair and intruded to an unreasonable extent into his personal affairs. The claimant complained to the Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards about the private investigators, so I limited my investigation to the insurance company's actions and did not have to consider whether the action was unlawful.

I first had to consider whether the insurance company was liable for the actions of the private investigators. Section 126(2) provides that:

Anything done ... by a person as the agent of another person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as done ... by that other person as well as by the first-mentioned person, unless it is done ... without that other person's express or implied authority, precedent or subsequent.

I learned that the private investigators informed the insurance company of their intention to return to the claimant's house. They asked if the insurance company wanted a videotape and the insurance company confirmed that it did. I accepted that the private investigators had acted as agents for the insurance company, so the insurance company was liable for their actions.

This complaint raised issues under principle 4, which prohibits the collection of personal information:

(a) By unlawful means; or

(b) By means that, in the circumstances of the case, -

(i) Are unfair; or

(ii) Intrude to an unreasonable extent upon the personal affairs of the individual concerned.'

I formed the provisional opinion that the insurance company's actions in collecting information about the claimant breached principle 4. The claimant invited the private investigator and his associate into the house, gave them an extensive tour of the premises, and allowed them to film in the belief that they were considering purchasing the house. Because of this ruse, the investigator was admitted to areas of the house denied to casual visitors, and gained a permanent record in the form of a video recording. I considered that this means of collection was unfair and intruded to an unreasonable extent upon the claimant's affairs.

The claimant and insurance company reached a settlement before it was necessary for me to form a final opinion. The insurance company advised that it had decided not to accept video recordings from private investigators in the future. In view of this, and because the claimant did not wish me to take any further action, I discontinued my investigation.

December 1997

Indexing terms: Collecting personal information - Insurance company - Video recording by private investigators - Whether private investigators were agents of insurance company - Privacy Act 1993, s 126(2) - Information privacy principle 4