Opinion ID: 1224814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NIED/IIED Claims

Text: The Dixons argue that emotional distress damages are not sustainable because Lee has failed to prove that she suffered a physical injury; however, Lee also asserted a claim for IIED, which does not require proof of physical injury. The elements of IIED are: (1) that the act allegedly causing harm was intentional; (2) that the act was unreasonable [or outrageous [12] ]; and (3) that the actor should have recognized that the act was likely to result in illness.  Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw.App. 21, 38, 821 P.2d 937, 947 (1991) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). As previously discussed, we believe that there was substantial evidence that the Dixons intentionally interfered with the settlement agreement. We also believe, based on our review of the record, that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Lee suffered emotional distress. With respect to the Dixons' conduct, the jury was presented with the following evidence: (1) Pearson-Dixon's letter to Lee (a) informing Lee that the Dixons now owned half of her home, (b) cautioning Lee to continue paying the mortgage or risk foreclosure, (c) instructing Lee not to commit waste, and (d) suggesting that Lee lower her selling price in order to accomplish a faster sale. The evidence also established that Aiu had related to Dixon that Aiu wished to leave Lee because she had changed since having been diagnosed with breast cancer and undergoing chemotherapy and that Aiu found it unbearable to live with her. Based on such evidence, and on the present record, it was reasonable for the jury to have found that the Dixons' conduct was outrageous and that such conduct was likely to result in illness. Id.