Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED)

Holding that the trial court properly granted defendant summary disposition of plaintiff’s IIED and NIED claims, the court affirmed. Plaintiff “purchased a vehicle service contract (VSC) from defendant for” his vehicle. Defendant later refused to pay his claim for repairs on the basis they were excluded from coverage under the VSC. His breach of contract claim in small-claims court was dismissed and the dismissal affirmed by the district court. Plaintiff then filed the complaint in this case pro per. On appeal, the court found that his IIED claim did “not allege any conduct by defendant that would rise to a level of outrageous and extreme to support” such a claim. “The only conduct committed by defendant and alleged by plaintiff is defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s claim for benefits under the VSC. Regardless of whether plaintiff had a good-faith argument about whether there was a preexisting condition precluding payment, defendant’s refusal to pay under the VSC amounts to, at most, an ordinary contract dispute. If defendant’s actions were held to be extreme and outrageous, then it is hard to imagine what contract dispute would not likewise qualify, and that is plainly not the law.” As to his NIED claim, the negligent injury he alleged was “the payment his father made for the repairs and the financial difficulty that resulted. This is clearly not the type of significant and material injury contemplated for this cause of action.”