N.W.2d at 799, resolving ambiguities against the Insurers and in favor of Autopia, Nathe Bros., 615 N.W.2d at 344. The Eighth Circuit has determined that “[ljooking at how Congress described unsolicited fax advertisements, it is clear that Congress viewed vi the “right of privacy” under the ordinary meaning of that phrase. The Insurers further contend, however, that even if an invasion of privacy were alleged in the underlying lawsuit, it cannot give rise to coverage because of the type of privacy invasion at issue. The legal concept of privacy encompasses interests in both secrecy and seclusion. E.g., Park Univ. Enters., Inc. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, PA, 442 F.3d 1239, 1248 (10th Cir.2006) (citations omitted); accord Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Minn.1998) (<HOLDING>). In the Insurers’ view, unsolicited faxes
recognizing four different privacy torts under minnesota law appropriation publication of private facts falselight publicity and intrusion upon seclusion recognizing torts of negligent hiring supervision and retention recognizing private right of action holding that a plaintiff could not add civil claim based upon different facts that are separate and distinct both qualitatively and temporally  and relate to the conduct of different individuals from facts in administrative charge holding that a states law is materially different from california law if application of the other states law leads to a different result