Cases

The question in this case related to whether the workers’ compensation carrier and handling adjuster could be guilty of an intentional tort creating an exception to the exclusive remedy doctrine when benefits were denied to an injured worker notwithstanding a JCC’s order that had awarded such benefits. Court determined that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act would preclude liability for mere negligent conduct or simple bad faith by the carrier in minor delays for the payment of benefits. However, such immunity does not extend to an insurance carrier’s intentional tortuous conduct in the handling of a workers’ compensation claim.

 

In applying the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress as defined in Section 46, Restatement (second) of Torts (1965), the court determined that the allegations in this instance based on the court’s evaluation of the alleged conduct (not the person who is the target of the actor’s conduct) controls in determining whether such allegations are so outrageous as to create an independent intentional tort. Such determination is a question of law, not a question of fact. Court determined in this instance that the allegations of misconduct rose to the level of outrageous acts warranting a determination of intentional misconduct precluding the granting of a motion to dismiss in favor of the carrier.

 

The standard of review in evaluating the motion to dismiss is de novo. However, the question of whether the conduct of the parties in this case was outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law.