B. [§ 3.8] Cases and Facts Not Constituting Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

B. [§ 3.8] Cases and Facts Not Constituting Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

In Hines v. French, 157 Md. App. 536, 852 A.2d 1047 (2004), the Court considered conclusory allegations of intentional conduct, holding that they did not properly allege a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Although appellants make use of the phrase "intentional, extreme and outrageous," their claim centers on Jane Doe's "fail[ure] to investigate the veracity" of the information to Deputy French and, thus, the appropriate common law claim is negligence. Simply including the signature language of an intentional tort does not cause a negligence claim to transform into an intentional tort. Moreover, there are no other averments contained in the complaint which explain how Jane Doe's conduct constituted an intentional act. Consequently, we shall review the granting of the motions to dismiss . . . on the premise that appellant's cause of action against Jane Doe was for negligence.

Hines, 157 Md. App. at 558-59, 852 A.2d at 1059-60.

Cases abound in which the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant. See, e.g., Charette v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. CV CCB-19-0033, 2021 WL 1102361, at *9 (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2021) ("On the facts alleged, the court cannot conclude that the denial of medical care plausibly exceeded 'all possible bounds of decency' or that it is 'to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'") (quoting Lasater, Md. App. at 448); see also, e.g., Cherdak v. ACT, Inc., 437 F. Supp. 3d 442, 467 (D. Md. 2020), appeal dismissed sub nom. Harrison Morgan Cottone Cherdak v. Act, Inc., No. 20-1335, 2020 WL 5543720 (4th Cir. July 2, 2020) (holding that the "upsetting and highly stressful" event of having the ACT standardized testing company question the validity of a student's test score constituted severe emotional distress); see also, e.g., Tolliver v. Eleven Slade Apartment Corp., No. CV CCB-19-2478, 2020 WL 6450282, at *3 (D. Md. Nov. 2, 2020) ("Tolliver claims, without supporting evidence, that after she disclosed she had cancer, her hours were decreased and she lost her medical benefits, causing severe emotional harm. [] Even assuming these allegations are true, they do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as the conduct alleged to have occurred does not...