Capital City Renewables, Inc. v. Lily Birgitta Piel

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment for Piel on all claims brought by Lozanov and CCR. It held that the record showed no contractual or tort duty owed to CCR, that CCR's damages were too remote, that Lozanov lacked admissible evidence connecting Piel's disclosure to his claimed damages, and that the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim failed because the circumstances did not establish a highly offensive intrusion into a privately occupied space. The court also concluded that public policy would bar recovery based on efforts to conceal assets relevant to child-support proceedings.