Opinion ID: 1695819
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Tort-of-Outrage Claim

Text: In American Road Service Co. v. Inmon, 394 So.2d 361, 365 (Ala.1980), this Court recognized that one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress and for bodily harm resulting from the distress. The emotional distress ... must be so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Any recovery must be reasonable and justified under the circumstances, liability ensuing only when the conduct is extreme.... By extreme we refer to conduct so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Smitherman, 872 So.2d 833 (Ala.2003), this Court held that the plaintiff's tort-of-outrage claim had been improperly submitted to the jury because the defendant in that case had acted within its right and the defendant's actions had not been accompanied with the sound of fury. Id. at 840 (quoting Harrell v. Reynolds Metals Co., 495 So.2d 1381, 1387 (Ala.1986)). As in Smitherman, the conduct alleged in this case does not even approximate the tort of outrage. In her second amended complaint, McDole alleged that Alfa's steadfast refusal to pay the claimed [uninsured-motorist] benefits in light of all the evidence available to [Alfa] constituted outrageous, malicious, and oppressive conduct on the part of [Alfa] and exhibited wanton and reckless disregard to the probability of causing severe emotional distress to [McDole]. However, we have already concluded that McDole is not entitled to uninsured-motorist coverage under the automobile-insurance policies issued to Johnson by Alfa. Thus, we cannot describe Alfa's denial of McDole's claim for those benefits as outrageous or extreme. We also note that McDole's complaint does not allege that Alfa took any malicious or oppressive actions in denying McDole's claim for benefits. We simply cannot find any allegations in McDole's complaint that would support her tort-of-outrage claim. As the Court noted in Smitherman: ` [I]t would be intolerable in a civilized society to hold that an employer is guilty of outrageous conduct for merely discharging an employee at will. That is what the plaintiff is asking this Court to do, for the termination is not for a reason which contravenes public policy, and there is no evidence that the termination was accompanied with the sound of fury.' Smitherman, 872 So.2d at 840 (quoting Harrell v. Reynolds Metals Co., 495 So.2d at 1387). The same could be said of an insurer's merely denying a claim. Alfa acted within its rights; there is no evidence indicating that its denial of McDole's claim was accompanied with the sound of fury. McDole's tort-of-outrage claim was properly dismissed.