Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 95575; Published
Opinion by Judge Gillis; 2-1 (with Judge Murphy Dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 171 Mich App 771; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Extra Contractual / Mental Anguish Damages
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 decision by Judge Gillis, the Court of Appeals affirmed a dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff was seriously injured in 1975, resulting in a non-union fracture of her right tibia. The insurance company defendant had paid benefits to plaintiff in an amount over $100,000. During the course of a telephone conversation with plaintiff, an insurance adjuster for defendant told plaintiff that she should consider having her leg amputated and acquiring an artificial leg. Plaintiff claimed that the conduct of the insurance adjuster was extreme and outrageous entitling her to damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court held that, as a matter of law, the remarks of the insurance adjuster did not go beyond all possible bounds of decency and should not be regarded as atrocious or utterly intolerable in a civilized society. The trial court's decision was affirmed.
In his dissent, Judge Murphy stated that the adjuster's comments were well beyond what could be characterized as merely "insensitive." Judge Murphy felt that these comments could be "found by reasonable minds to be outrageous and recklessly made, and therefore, the summary disposition improperly denied plaintiff her day in court." Judge Murphy noted that it is unquestioned that the extreme and outrageous character of challenged conduct may arise from the abuse of a relationship which puts the defendant in a position of actual or apparent authority over the plaintiff. A claims adjuster who makes decisions regarding insurance benefits is in such an authoritative relationship with a claimant. Moreover, the adjuster is most likely cognizant of the emotional and psychological concerns of seriously injured claimants. Judge Murphy noted that it was also certainly conceivable that the insurance company would be responsible for fewer and less costly future medical expenses if plaintiff had accepted the adjuster's advice to amputate her leg.
