Lexplug logoLexplug

Eckenrode v. Life of America Insurance Company

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
470 F.2d 1 (1972)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An insurer's bad-faith refusal to pay a legitimate policy claim, coupled with its use of economic coercion against a known financially distressed beneficiary to force a settlement, constitutes outrageous conduct sufficient to state a cause of action for the tort of intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.


Facts:

  • Life of America Insurance Company (Insurer) issued a life insurance policy to the plaintiff's husband, which promised to pay the plaintiff $5,000 immediately upon proof of his death from accidental causes.
  • On December 17, 1967, the plaintiff's husband was the victim of a homicide.
  • The plaintiff, the beneficiary, met all conditions of the policy and repeatedly demanded payment.
  • Following her husband's death, the plaintiff was left with several children, no property of value, and no money for funeral expenses.
  • The Insurer knew of the husband's accidental death and of the plaintiff's dire financial need.
  • The Insurer repeatedly and deliberately refused to pay the claim.
  • While aware of her worsening financial distress, the Insurer applied "economic coercion" by inviting the plaintiff to compromise her claim for less than the policy's face value, implying it had a valid defense.
  • As a result of the non-payment, the plaintiff was forced to borrow money and accept charity from relatives, which caused her to suffer severe mental distress.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff filed a three-count diversity complaint against Life of America Insurance Company (Insurer) in the United States District Court.
  • The district court dismissed Counts II (outrageous conduct) and III (fraud and economic coercion) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
  • The district court then dismissed Count I (recovery of policy proceeds) without prejudice.
  • The plaintiff subsequently settled the claim for the policy proceeds in a separate state court action.
  • The plaintiff appealed the federal district court's dismissal of Counts II and III to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an insurer's bad-faith refusal to pay a life insurance policy, while deliberately using the beneficiary's resulting financial distress as leverage to force a settlement, constitute outrageous conduct sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress under Illinois law?


Opinions:

Majority - Kiley, Circuit Judge

Yes. An insurer's bad-faith refusal to make payment on a policy, coupled with its deliberate use of economic coercion to force a settlement on a financially vulnerable beneficiary, rises to the level of outrageous conduct sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. The court, predicting how the Illinois Supreme Court would rule based on its decision in Knierim v. Izzo, formally recognized that the tort of intentional infliction of severe emotional distress can apply in the insurance context. The court adopted the four elements of the tort: 1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; 2) intent to cause, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; 3) plaintiff's suffering of severe emotional distress; and 4) proximate causation. The court reasoned that an insurer abuses its position of power when it employs 'bullying tactics' against a beneficiary it knows is in a vulnerable state. The very purpose of life insurance is to provide economic and mental welfare, so using the beneficiary's financial plight—the very risk insured against—as leverage is particularly outrageous. However, based on Illinois precedent in Knierim, the court held that punitive damages are not recoverable for this tort, as the compensatory damages for the outrageous conduct are considered sufficiently punitive.



Analysis:

This case is significant for extending the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) to the first-party insurance context, creating a powerful tort remedy for bad-faith claim denials. It establishes that an insurer's relationship with its insured is not merely contractual and that leveraging a beneficiary's known vulnerability can elevate a breach of contract to outrageous conduct. This decision incentivizes insurers to handle claims in good faith and provides a cause of action for policyholders who suffer severe emotional harm from wrongful denials, beyond just recovering the policy amount. It sets a precedent that an insurer's conduct can be judged not just by the validity of its legal defenses, but by the manner in which it asserts them, especially against vulnerable parties.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Eckenrode v. Life of America Insurance Company (1972) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Eckenrode v. Life of America Insurance Company