Price v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 692-12. |
| Citation | 878 F. Supp. 1567 |
| Parties | L. Earl PRICE, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Curtis Van Cheney, Jr., Reidsville, GA, Hal Timothy Peel, Hallmon & Associates, Claxton, GA, for plaintiff.
Arthur Martin Kent, Kent, Williamson & Brannon, Savannah, GA, for defendant.
On March 16, 1992, Plaintiff filed this suit, claiming intentional or, alternatively, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a vaguely stated general negligence claim. By Order of January 17, 1995, the Court rejected the notion of an independent tort for the negligent infliction of emotional distress, but allowed Plaintiff to proceed on claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and general negligence. On January 20, 1995, a trial was held, during which Defendant moved for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence. The motion was granted. The Court now supplements its ruling with this memorandum and order.
On November 9, 1990, Plaintiff's wife's truck was struck by another vehicle while parked in a garage. The driver of the errant vehicle, Marguerite Lawson, notified the Defendant — her insurance company — which then assigned the claim to Pat Parker, a claims adjuster. Mr. Parker and Plaintiff then had various conversations about repair of the truck. The discussions soon became increasingly combative, and Plaintiff allegedly warned the adjuster that he had a serious heart condition and wished to avoid stressful situations. On November 20, 1990, Plaintiff received a call from Parker during which the adjuster was allegedly quite abusive. At trial Parker denied acting belligerently during the conversation. Immediately following the call, Plaintiff had "an attack of accelerated angina," and was rushed to the hospital. He was released three days later.
The purpose of a directed verdict, recently renamed "judgment as a matter of law," is to facilitate the exercise by trial courts of their responsibility to assure the fidelity of court judgments to controlling precedent. Its new name, a result of the 1991 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is intentionally evocative of summary judgment standards. Rule 50(a)(1) of the Federal Rules states:
If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonably jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.
The Court may direct a verdict "as soon as it is apparent that either party is unable to carry a burden of proof that is essential to that party's case." 1991 Advisory Comm. Notes to Rule 50. Rule 50(a)(2) provides that motions for directed verdict may be made by a party at any time before submission of the case to the jury, and that the moving party must articulate the legal and factual basis for the motion. This requirement gives the opposing party an opportunity to remedy any overlooked deficiencies in its proof.
The Court should view all evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir. 1989); Thibodeau v. United States, 828 F.2d 1499, 1503 (11th Cir.1987). Directed verdicts should be granted only if "the facts and inferences point overwhelmingly in favor of one party such that reasonable people could not arrive at a contrary verdict." Id. If there is "substantial evidence" opposing the motion, whether made by a party or initiated by the Court, it should not be granted. Id.; Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc).1 See also Hasenfus v. Secord, 962 F.2d 1556, 1559 (11th Cir. 1992).
At trial, when asked by his own counsel to relate exactly what Pat Parker had said to him that caused such emotional trauma, Mr. Price stated simply that "he called me a liar." This appears to have been the full extent of the psychic blow that prompted Mr. Price to file a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. After Defendant moved for a directed verdict, Plaintiff's counsel argued to the Court that two factors exacerbated Mr. Parker's statements, propelling them over the threshold required to state a viable claim on this tort. Those factors were (a) that Parker and Price had a "special relationship," in which Parker enjoyed a position of power vis a vis Price, and (b) that Parker had "special knowledge" — knowledge of Price's heart condition and the concomitant dangers posed by extreme stress. Plaintiff's counsel argued that Parker's verbal abuse of Price, in the face of Parker's position and knowledge of Price's condition, was so wanton and cruel as to make it outrageous, and thus tortious.
Despite these circumstances the Court held that no reasonable trier of fact could find Plaintiff's conduct tortious as a matter of law. A review of the law in this area will show why the Court was and is firmly of this opinion. It is also intended to provide guidance to other potential plaintiffs.
The current framework of this tort within Georgia law is as follows: Plaintiffs may recover if a "defendant's actions were so terrifying or insulting as naturally to humiliate, embarrass or frighten the plaintiff." Moses v. Prudential Ins. Co., 187 Ga.App. 222, 226, 369 S.E.2d 541 (1988). This standard has three prongs. Plaintiffs must show:
(1) that the defendant's behavior was willful and wanton and intentionally directed to harming the plaintiff; (2) that the actions of the defendant were such as would naturally humiliate, embarrass, frighten, or outrage the plaintiff; and (3) that the conduct caused mental suffering or wounded feelings or emotional upset or distress to the plaintiff.
Coleman v. Housing Auth., 191 Ga.App. 166, 170, 381 S.E.2d 303 (1989).2
Most decisions on emotional distress claims are sure to mention (a) that to rise to the requisite level of outrageousness, the acts complained of "must be sufficiently egregious or outrageous to result in severe fright, humiliation, embarrassment, or outrage which no reasonable person can be expected to endure," Kornegay v. Mundy, 190 Ga.App. 433, 434, 379 S.E.2d 14 (1989); and (b) that liability "does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities." Jenkins v. General Hospitals of Humana, Inc., 196 Ga. App. 150, 152, 395 S.E.2d 396 (1990). These two statements have attained boilerplate status within the common law. Some courts even cite commentary on the Second Restatement of Torts to further buttress the position that this claim is not the salve for every social wound. See, e.g., Moses, 187 Ga.App. at 225, 369 S.E.2d 541 ().
Of course, these exhortations have not deterred some from suing when they get scratched by one of these "rough edges," be those edges employers rude enough to fire them, Beck v. Interstate Brands, 953 F.2d 1275, 1276 (11th Cir.1992) (claim denied); employers who make them work too hard, Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Spence, 210 Ga.App. 284, 285, 435 S.E.2d 680 (1993) (claim denied); employers so insensitive as to not hire them in the first place, Ward v. Papa's Pizza to Go, Inc., ___ F.Supp. ___, Civil Action No. 694-041 (S.D.Ga., Jan. 10, 1995) (claim denied); co-workers who subject them to pipe smoke, Hennly v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 355, 356, 444 S.E.2d 317 (1994) (claim denied); dry cleaners who lose their wedding dresses, Evans v. Willis, 212 Ga.App. 335, 336, 441 S.E.2d 770 (1994) (claim denied); adoption agencies who question the paternity of their children, Families First v. Gooden, 211 Ga.App. 272, 276, 439 S.E.2d 34 (1993) (claim denied); insurance companies that refuse to pay their claims, Steptoe v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 210 Ga.App. 756, 757, 437 S.E.2d 626 (1993) (claim denied); claim adjusters who call them names and accuse them of deception, Bekele v. Ryals, 177 Ga. App. 445, 446, 339 S.E.2d 655 (1986) (claim denied); or other such persons — like Pat Parker — who have the unmitigated gall to question their integrity.3
Like the behavior described above, being called a "liar," without more, simply is not tortious. The recent torrent of such claims, however, threatens to wash away the historical foundations on which the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is built. Appreciation of those moorings is what safely guides jurists in its application.
Claims for mental damages of any kind remained unrecognized under the common law, e.g., Lynch v. Knight, 9 H.L.C. 577, 598 (Eng.1861), until approximately the turn of this century. See Wilkinson v. Downton, 2 Q.B.D. 57 (Eng.1897) (). The concept was also slow to take root in American law, due in part to the inherently "metaphysical," i.e., unverifiable, nature of mental injury. See Mitchell v. Rochester Ry. Co., 151 N.Y. 107, 45 N.E. 354 (N.Y.1896). At first, compensatory mental damages were allowed, but only if an independent tort was proved, such as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giovine v. Giovine
...to the target to give rise to a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, see Price v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 878 F.Supp. 1567 (S.D.Ga.1995); Jean C. Love, Discriminatory Speech and the Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, 47 Wash & Lee L.Re......