Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 96166; Unpublished
Judges Sullivan, Hood, and Bruff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Extra Contractual / Mental Anguish Damages
CASE SUMMARY:
In yet another intentional infliction of emotional distress case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the insurance company's motion for summary disposition.
Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident which left her in a condition of permanent paraplegic. She claimed no-fault benefits with Michigan Mutual, and defendant Streby was the claims adjuster. A dispute arose concerning plaintiff’s entitlement to certain home modifications. The parties disagreed as to who should perform those modifications, and the expense involved. During the course of the dispute, the adjuster Streby allegedly telephoned plaintiff and threatened to stop paying for her daily nursing care unless she accepted the insurance company's position regarding the modifications. A letter containing the same threat was sent to plaintiff’s attorney.
Although the dispute concerning authorization for the home modifications was apparently resolved in a separate action, plaintiff brought this action against Streby and Michigan Mutual alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the defendants' actions in handling the claim.
The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary disposition, relying in part on the Court of Appeals decision of Roberts v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 135 Mich App 595 (1983). Following the Supreme Court's reversal of Roberts, 422 Mich 594 (1985), defendants' renewed motion for summary disposition was denied again by the trial court.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals recited the rule that intentional infliction of emotional distress requires "extreme and outrageous conduct." The court noted that plaintiff alleges that her life depended on nursing care and a threat to terminate that care was extreme and outrageous.
The Court of Appeals agreed that where defendants' abused their position of power over a dependent plaintiff, extreme and outrageous conduct may result. Margita v Diamond Mortgage Company, 159 Mich App 181 (1987). Given plaintiff’s position and dependence on nursing care, and the allegation that defendant Streby was trying to coerce plaintiff into accepting a lower bid for the modifications, the Court of Appeals agreed that the threshold for extreme and outrageous conduct was met. Further resolution of the issue was for the trier of fact.
