Opinion ID: 6713
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the resulting emotional distress was severe.

Text: 39 Id. at 621; Wornick Co. v. Casas, 856 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex.1993). 40 Outrageous conduct is that which (goes) beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Wornick, 856 S.W.2d at 734. (citing Restatement (Second) Sec. 46 cmt. d) 9 . Relying further on the Restatement (Second) Sec. 46 and comments contained therein, the Texas Supreme Court has stated: It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may be reasonably regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery.... Id. (citing Restatement (Second) Sec. 46 cmt. h). 41 The Kerr County court determined that Equitable behaved reasonably and in good faith in not delivering the disputed funds to Daniels. In light of this determination, the court below properly found that Equitable's conduct could not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Kerr County court's findings, which were essential to the outcome, preclude a finding that Equitable's actions were so outrageous or extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. Accordingly, this Court finds that Daniels' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is also barred on collateral estoppel grounds.