Opinion ID: 655071
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress

Text: 41 We have reviewed Michigan law on emotional distress as discussed in Pratt v. Brown Machine Co., 855 F.2d 1225 (6th Cir.1988). The Michigan Supreme Court has not recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the Michigan Court of Appeals in Roberts v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 374 N.W.2d 905 (Mich.Ct.App.1985), adopted it as it appears in section 46, Restatement (Second) of Torts. The latter provides that one is liable for extreme and outrageous conduct which intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another. The comments to the Restatement make it clear that mere insults or indignities are not enough to constitute outrageous conduct. 42 A plaintiff must establish four elements to prevail on such a claim, including extreme and outrageous conduct, intent, causation, and severe emotional distress. Pratt, 855 F.2d at 1239. Tap's comments could not, as a matter of law, reach a level of extreme and outrageous conduct, nor could the plaintiff show any physical signs of emotional distress. The plaintiff claims that he separated from his wife because of the emotional distress and that he lost motivation to seek additional employment after being fired by the hotel. He further claimed loss of sleep, insomnia, and nightmares. We find that these claims fail to satisfy the elements of emotional distress under Michigan law. 43 In Roberts, the plaintiffs were disappointed, mad, and upset. Roberts, 374 N.W.2d at 912. The Michigan court decided that this kind of conduct producing such reaction did not constitute actionable emotional distress. The district court properly granted the defendants summary judgment on this issue. 44