Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress Claims in Maryland

If someone has wrongfully and intentionally caused you great emotional harm in Maryland, you may have a claim for the intentional inflection of emotional distress.

Maryland law, however, does not make it easy to bring an intention infliction of emotional distress claim. To bring this tort, the plaintiff must demonstrate a “truly devastating effect” from the defendant’s behavior. The emotional response must be so awful that “no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.”

It is also important to remember that emotional distress can be recovered as part of damages arising from tortious conduct but is not recognized as an independent tort. Emotional distress claims must be tied to another actionable tortious act.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Generally

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a tort claim that allows a plaintiff to recover damages from a defendant who intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress through extreme and outrageous conduct. Although distress claims can vary slightly depending on the jurisdiction, the following general elements must typically be established for a successful claim:

Outrageous and extreme conduct: The defendant’s conduct must be, in a word, awful. The conduct needs to be so extreme and outrageous that it goes beyond the bounds of decency and is considered intolerable in a civilized society. Mere insults, annoyances, or threats are unlikely to rise to this standard.
Intent or recklessness: The defendant must have intended to cause emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing such distress. This means that the defendant either knew their conduct would cause emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard for the potential consequences.
Causation: There must be a direct link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s emotional distress. The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was the actual and proximate cause of their emotional distress.
Severe emotional distress: The plaintiff must prove that they suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the defendant’s conduct. This distress must be more than minor or trivial discomfort or inconvenience. Instead, it must be so severe that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would be unable to cope with it. This usually requires the the need for mental health treatment.

What Are the Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in Maryland?

The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Maryland are: (1) the conduct is intentional or reckless; (2) the conduct is extreme and outrageous; (3) there is a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress is severe. In order for distress to be sufficiently severe to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, "the plaintiff must show that he suffered a severely disabling emotional response to the defendant's conduct, and that the distress was so severe that "no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.

Does Maryland Law Allow for Negligent Inflection of Emotional Distress Claims?

Maryland law does not recognize the independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. But emotional distress is part of the plaintiff's damages in any case where there is an underlying tort, such as negligence.

Sample Intentional Infection of Emotional Distress Lawsuit Language

Below is sample language to make an intentional inflection of emotional distress count in a Maryland lawsuit in a doctor sex abuse lawsuit:

Plaintiff sues Regina Henderson and, in support, states as follows:

Plaintiff Jennifer Taskey resides in Baltimore City, Maryland.
Defendant Regina Henderson is a newly licensed therapist who operates a private counseling practice in Baltimore City, Maryland.
Defendant provided both marital and individual counseling to the Plaintiff and her husband, Dirk Taskey, from December 3, 2023, to August 11, 2024.
Defendant was paid $250 per hour to provide professional therapy services to address issues within the Plaintiff’s marriage and her personal struggles.
Over the course of counseling, the Defendant counseled the Plaintiff to show patience and understanding toward her husband, particularly regarding intimacy. However, during individual sessions with Mr. Taskey, the Defendant began making unprofessional advances, including personal compliments, extended physical contact during “relaxation exercises,” and inappropriate inquiries into his marital dissatisfaction.
On or about July 7, 2023, the Defendant’s conduct escalated when she began initiating massages during individual therapy sessions under the pretense of relaxation and breathing techniques. These massages culminated in physical intimacy, including kissing and inappropriate touching.
On or about July 9, 2023, the Defendant advised the Plaintiff during a marital counseling session to “imagine a future where your needs come first,” subtly suggesting the dissolution of her marriage while continuing her clandestine relationship with Mr. Taskey.
On July 12, 2023, Mr. Taskey left the family home at 10:30 p.m., claiming he needed space to process their counseling sessions. He instead drove to the Defendant’s office, where they engaged in sexual intercourse on the same sofa used for counseling sessions with both Plaintiff and her husband.
Over the following weeks, the Defendant and Mr. Taskey met regularly for secret sexual liaisons, including encounters at hotels and, on several occasions, at the Plaintiff’s marital home while she was at work.
On August 20, 2023, the Plaintiff returned home early from a work event and found the Defendant partially undressed, sneaking out through the back door of the Plaintiff’s home. Upon confrontation, Mr. Taskey admitted to the affair and corroborated the details outlined herein.
Based on information and belief, Mr. Taskey has since left the marital home and is living with the Defendant.
The Defendant’s actions were malicious, reckless, willful, and intentional, constituting an egregious abuse of her fiduciary duty and professional ethics as a licensed therapist.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish. She has been unable to work, requires ongoing therapy, and faces significant financial hardship as a result of the Defendant’s actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Regina Henderson in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) in compensatory and punitive damages, plus interest and costs of this action.

Problems Getting Insurance Coverage

Claims or intentional infliction of emotional distress carry a significant risk that the defendant’s insurance coverage will not apply. This stems from the fact that almost every liability insurance policies explicitly exclude coverage for intentional acts. There is not value is getting a judgment if there is not assets available to pay that judgment.

Standard policy language typically provides that damages arising from willful, deliberate, or malicious conduct are excluded. This exclusion reflects public policy considerations—allowing defendants to shift liability for intentional wrongdoing to their insurers could undermine the deterrent purpose of such claims and encourage reckless behavior.

So plaintiffs’ attorneys must evaluate whether the defendant has sufficient personal assets to make pursuing the claim worthwhile, as a judgment against an uninsured defendant may not be collectible. Our firm has never had a lot of success getting money from individuals.

What Can You Do to Solve This Problem?

To mitigate the risks associated with insurance exclusions, plaintiffs often plead alternative or related claims, such as negligence or reckless infliction of emotional distress, which are more likely to fall within the scope of insurance coverage. Framing the defendant’s actions as reckless rather than intentional may preserve the possibility of insurance coverage while still allowing recovery for emotional distress.

Additionally, plaintiffs should push for settlements within the defendant’s policy limits. What you often see is insurers preferring settlement to prolonged (and expensive) litigation over coverage issues.

Key Maryland Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cases

Below are some key intentional infliction of emotional distress cases in Maryland that look at the inflection points on the viability of these cases.

Carter v Aramark Sports, 153 Md. App. 210, 835 A.2d 262 (2003): The plaintiff in this case worked for Aramark an usher at Orioles games at Camden Yards. Aramark believed he was stealing concession stand proceeds. A police officer who worked off-duty at Aramark led the effort for criminal charges against the plaintiff. She was found not guilty. After the verdict, she filed a civil lawsuit against Aramark. Her lawsuit alleged she suffered severe and extreme emotional distress” and that the conduct was “extreme and outrageous.” The court dismissed the count for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the pleadings did “not present the kind of factual detail that [the judge believed] the case law requires.” The Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed. It found that the defendant’s alleged conduct did not rise to the level of the extreme and outrageous conduct required for this cause of action. The court ruled that for the “conduct to meet the test of outrageousness, it must be so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” The key to this case is the lack of specificity in the pleadings.
Borchers v Hrychuk, 126 Md. App. 10, 727 A.2d 388 (1999). A woman went to her church pastor about problems she was having in her marriage. The pastor initiated a sexual relationship with the woman. Her husband sued. Plaintiff’s lawyer argued that Figueiredo-Torres, the next case below, stood for the principle that a therapist abusing his power by sleeping with the patient is enough for an intentional inflection of emotional distress. But the Court of Special Appeals did not see this as an “officially sanctioned treatment relationship” like the therapist-patient relationship in Figueiredo-Torres.
Figueiredo-Torres v Nickel, 321 Md. 642, 584 A.2d 69 (1991). A therapist in Montgomery County providing couples’ therapy was sleeping with the wife while counseling the husband that he should not be having sex with his wife. The Maryland high court found this twisted manipulation meet the bar for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The court underscored the importance of special relationship the psychologist had as the man’s therapist (as opposed to suing your best friend because he is having sex with your wife).
B.N. v K.K., 312 Md. 135, 538 A.2d 1175 (1988). A Johns Hopkins doctor was having sex with a nurse while knowing he had active herpes. Awful, right? The Maryland high court followed the majority rule that having sex with someone while having active herpes is outrageous enough to meet the high bar for this tort. The facts here are pretty twisted, too. Apparently, he told the plaintiff during therapy that he was “a codfish” and said his wife deserved a “fillet.” Seriously? (Maybe the most outrageous thing is the guy continued to work as a counselor and ultimately married the wife.)