Court Opinion

ID: 9737043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:13:51.042067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:56.105078
License: Public Domain

Murphy, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent because I believe that Cooper’s comments asking plaintiff whether she considered having her leg amputated go well beyond being characterized merely as "insensitive.” Rather, in the context in which the comments were made, I believe they can be found by reasonable minds to be outrageous and recklessly made. Therefore, summary disposition of plaintiff’s claim is not only unjustified by the record developed by plaintiff below, but it improperly denies plaintiff her day in court where a jury should be allowed to assess the validity of her tort claim.
Indeed, in ruling on defendant’s motion for summary disposition, the lower court was required to give plaintiff the benefit of any reasonable doubt and then determine if the record which might be developed would leave open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ. Moreover, the court had to be satisfied that it would be impossible for the claim to be supported at trial because of some deficiency which could not be overcome. See Tidwell v Dasher, 152 Mich App 379; 393 NW2d 644 (1986). In addition, appellate courts in this state have been liberal in finding that a "genuine issue” *780does indeed exist. Rizzo v Kretschmer, 389 Mich 363, 372; 207 NW2d 316 (1973); Linebaugh v Berdish, 144 Mich App 750, 754; 376 NW2d 400 (1985).
With these standards in mind, I simply cannot agree with the majority that, as a matter of law, no reasonable minds could differ that plaintiff had not yet or would not be able to develop facts to support her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Although our Supreme Court in Roberts v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 422 Mich 594; 374 NW2d 905 (1985), did not formally adopt the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress into this state’s jurisprudence, the Court acknowledged that the tort had gained widespread acceptance, in a variety of factual contexts, in the courts of our sister states.1 The Court in Roberts held that the plaintiff in that case had failed to make out a prima facie claim for relief under the theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the Court proceeded to identify the four elements comprising a prima facie claim: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) intent or recklessness; (3) causation; and (4) severe emotional distress. The Court derived these elements from 1 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 46, pp 71-72, which states:
(1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such *781emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.
In discussing the first element, extreme and outrageous conduct, the Roberts Court quoted with agreement the following comment from 1 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 46, Comment d, pp 72-73:
Liability has been found only where the conduct has been 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 community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, "Outrageous!” [Roberts, supra, p 603.]
See also Deitz v WOMETCO West Michigan TV, Inc, 160 Mich App 367, 381; 407 NW2d 649 (1987); Margita v Diamond Mortgage Corp, 159 Mich App 181; 406 NW2d 268 (1987), and Early Detection Center, PC v New York Life Ins Co, 157 Mich App 618, 625-626; 403 NW2d 830 (1986).
The Restatement also discusses the second element of intent or recklessness:
The rule stated in this Section applies where the actor desires to inflict severe emotional distress, and also where he knows that such distress is certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct. It applies also where he acts recklessly ... in deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that the emotional distress will follow. [1 Restatement Torts, 2d, §46, Comment i, p 77. Emphasis added.]
It is unquestioned that the extreme and outrageous character of the challenged conduct may *782arise from the abuse of a relationship which puts the defendant in a position of actual or apparent authority over the plaintiff or gives a defendant power to affect a plaintiffs interest. Margita, supra; Warren v June’s Mobile Home Village & Sales Inc, 66 Mich App 386; 239 NW2d 380 (1976). In fact, a claims adjustor or supervisor who makes decisions regarding insurance benefits to which a claimant may be entitled, including medical care benefits, is in such an authoritative relationship with a claimant.
The record below sufficiently establishes that defendant’s agent was in some position of authority over plaintiff. Clearly, defendant’s decisions whether to pay plaintiff certain benefits had a strong impact on her day-to-day ability to deal with her leg injury. In addition, Wendall Cooper, as a claims supervisor, is presumably knowledgeable about claim procedures in general and aware of the expenses associated with various types of medical treatments. Moreover, he is most likely cognizant of the emotional and psychological concerns of seriously injured claimants and was apparently familiar with plaintiff’s claim file, including her long-term history of costly medical treatment. It is certainly conceivable that defendant would be responsible for fewer and less costly future medical expenses and related benefit expenses had plaintiffs leg been amputated.
The record also clearly shows that plaintiff has endured years of extreme pain and suffering from the numerous operations and the various forms of rehabilitation she has had to undergo in order to save her leg. She has been required to wear casts and braces on her leg and has found it necessary to use both crutches and a wheelchair. She has continuously fought infection at the site of the nonunion fracture and has been required to take a *783considerable amount of pain medication. Furthermore, at the time of the telephone conversation with Cooper, defendant had again been dilatory in the payment of benefits due plaintiff and she had been preparing herself both physically and mentally for yet another painful operation to save her leg.
In light of these facts, I believe that reasonable minds might agree that Cooper’s comments were, not only outrageous, but that they were made in deliberate disregard of the high degree of probability that emotional distress would follow. Therefore, in my opinion, summary disposition should not have been granted and plaintiff should be allowed her day in court. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.

 In fact, the Michigan Court of Appeals has recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and the Sixth Circuit, following Michigan law, has accepted the definition found in 1 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 46, pp 71-72. Coogan v City of Wixom, 820 F2d 170 (CA 6, 1987); see Bhama v Bhama, 169 Mich App 73; 425 NW2d 733 (1988); Dickerson v Nichols, 161 Mich App 103; 409 NW2d 741 (1987); Margita, supra; Rosenberg v Rosenberg Bros Special Account, 134 Mich App 342; 351 NW2d 563 (1984); Ledsinger v Burmeister, 114 Mich App 12; 318 NW2d 558 (1982); Frishett v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 3 Mich App 688; 143 NW2d 612 (1966), lv den 378 Mich 733 (1966).