LANSING, Mich. (AP) – A private investigator’s surveillance for an insurance company does not constitute harassment under the state’s anti-stalking law, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

Private investigators, bail agents and those who serve subpoenas had argued that an earlier appeals court ruling could cripple the investigation industry.

The Supreme Court reversed that decision in a 5-2 ruling, finding that surveillance by private investigators is legitimate as long as it is used to obtain information.

Chief Justice Clifford Taylor wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Maura Corrigan, Stephen Markman, Elizabeth Weaver and Robert Young Jr. Justices Michael Cavanagh and Marilyn Kelly dissented.

The case involved Ronald Nastal, who sustained a head injury in a 1997 traffic accident. When Nastal sued the driver of the other vehicle, the driver’s insurer – doubting the seriousness of the injury – hired a private investigator to monitor Nastal’s activities.

Nastal found out he was being followed, but Henderson & Associates Investigations Inc. continued to conduct the surveillance. In one case, he confronted an investigator and asked if he was following him, but the investigator denied it.

In 2000, Nastal sued the company for stalking.

The issue was whether the private investigator, after being discovered by Nastal, harassed him by continuing to follow him.

The Wayne Court Circuit Court and Michigan Court of Appeals allowed Nastal’s suit to continue despite objections from Henderson & Associates, which argued that its conduct fit within an exception under the stalking law.

A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the private investigator.

Cavanagh and Kelly, however, said a jury should be able to decide whether the conduct was legitimate.

“I understand the importance of wanting to be as secretive as possible about the actual surveillance, but once plaintiff realized that someone was following him, I do not see how, in this case, the legitimate purpose was served by lying,” Cavanagh wrote.

The case is Nastal v. Henderson & Associates Investigations Inc.

On the Net:

Michigan Supreme Court: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt

PI Magazine has taken us from the gray area to black and white by conducting an excellent interview with Joel Winston, Associate Director of the FTC, Division of Financial Practices to address the legalities of pretexting and financial information. We HIGHLY recommend that all PIs in the US read the article. It will effect you and those private investigators you use as subcontractors.

View the article here.