State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Novotny - 657 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Rule:

The elements of a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) the wrongdoer's conduct is intentional or reckless, i.e., he intends his behavior when he knows or should know that emotional distress will likely result; (2) the conduct is outrageous, i.e., beyond all bounds of decency, atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct causes emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress is severe.

Facts:

Appellee employee worked for appellant employer as a claims adjuster. Appellee filed a claim with employer, who was also her insurer, for damage to the fender and door of her car. A co-worker arranged for the body shop to paint the entire car at no extra charge. When appellant discovered the free paint job, it interviewed appellee at a nearby motel. Appellee admitted that she had accepted the work and appellant told her that she could resign or be fired. Appellee resigned and brought an action against appellant for intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent misrepresentation. Appellee was awarded damages on both claims. Appellant employer sought a review of the judgment. 

Issue:

Was the appellant employer’s conduct sufficient to support the appellee employee’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraudulent misrepresentation? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the appellant had a legal right to fire appellee employee. The court found that appellant performed a legal act in a permissible way and that appellant's actions did not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court also found that appellant's conduct was not sufficiently egregious to support liability and that there was no evidence in the record to support a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation.