SUK C. KIM v. JUNG HYUN CHANG
249 So. 3d 1300 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must provide legally sufficient evidence demonstrating that they suffered severe emotional distress, meaning distress of such intensity or duration that no ordinary person should be expected to endure it, and the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct alone is insufficient to satisfy this element.
Facts:
- Ms. Chang, originally from South Korea, moved to the United States in 1999 and lived with her sister, Sook Chang, and Sook's husband, Mr. Kim, in Tampa.
- Mr. Kim and Sook Chang adopted Ms. Chang's son to help him legally remain in the United States.
- In 2001, Ms. Chang loaned Mr. Kim $164,050, derived from her late husband's life insurance proceeds, for repairs and improvements to the grocery store Mr. Kim owned with Sook Chang, with an understanding that interest would accrue at the commercial bank rate and repayment would occur when Mr. Kim obtained a new bank loan.
- Mr. Kim secured a bank loan in February 2002, but Ms. Chang did not demand repayment at that time, possibly due to concerns about her legal permanent residency status.
- In 2008, Ms. Chang attempted to get Mr. Kim to repay the loan, which he declined, and Ms. Chang also alleged that Mr. Kim groped her and pressed his body against hers while she was working in his home kitchen.
- In May 2012, after Ms. Chang returned from an extended visit to South Korea and moved back in with Mr. Kim and Sook Chang, she argued with Mr. Kim and demanded repayment of the $164,050 loan.
- During the May 2012 argument, Mr. Kim pushed Ms. Chang down three stairs, and when she tried to get up, he pushed her down again.
- Following the incident, Mr. Kim called the police to evict Ms. Chang, telling them she should be arrested and deported to Korea, and Ms. Chang suffered pain and a bruise to her leg.
Procedural Posture:
- In November 2012, Mr. Kim filed a seven-count complaint against Ms. Chang in the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County (trial court/court of first instance) for declaratory relief and money damages on various theories, alleging Ms. Chang falsely claimed he was indebted to her, made false allegations in a dismissed domestic violence injunction petition, and converted/embezzled funds.
- Ms. Chang responded with eleven counterclaims against Mr. Kim and Sook Chang, later amending them to include nine monetary claims (contract, tort, equitable theories related to a loan) against both, and two tort claims (battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress) solely against Mr. Kim.
- Mr. Kim voluntarily dismissed his affirmative claims against Ms. Chang prior to trial.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial on Ms. Chang's counterclaims for breach of an oral loan agreement, unjust enrichment, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The jury returned a verdict in Mr. Kim's favor on Ms. Chang's claims for breach of an oral loan agreement and unjust enrichment, finding those claims barred by the statute of limitations.
- The jury returned a verdict in Ms. Chang's favor on her claims for battery, awarding $15,000, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, awarding $165,000.
- Mr. Kim appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, regarding the awards for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Ms. Chang cross-appealed the same judgment insofar as it denied her recovery on the oral loan agreement counterclaim and an award of punitive damages.
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 evidence of a defendant's outrageous conduct, without additional specific evidence regarding the plaintiff's actual emotional state and the severity of their distress, sufficiently establish the 'severe emotional distress' element of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Salario, Judge
No, evidence of outrageous conduct alone is not legally sufficient to prove the 'severe emotional distress' element of intentional infliction of emotional distress without specific evidence of the plaintiff's actual emotional state. The court affirmed Florida's adoption of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, which requires 'severe emotional distress' in addition to 'extreme and outrageous conduct.' 'Severe emotional distress' is defined as distress of such a substantial or enduring quality that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it. This element requires both a subjective finding that the plaintiff in fact suffered emotional distress and an objective finding that the distress was so intense or long-lasting that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it. While the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct is relevant evidence, it is not legally sufficient on its own to establish causation and severity for a particular plaintiff. The court noted that a high standard for severe emotional distress is necessary to prevent the tort from becoming a means for litigation over every emotional injury. In this case, Ms. Chang provided no testimony on how Mr. Kim's conduct made her feel, the duration of the impact, any psychological or physiological symptoms, or whether she sought professional help. Without evidence bearing on the actual effect of Mr. Kim's conduct on Ms. Chang's emotional state, a jury could only speculate about the severity of her distress, which is an impermissible basis for a civil judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the demanding standard for proving 'severe emotional distress' in intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims in Florida. It establishes that while a defendant's conduct may be undeniably outrageous, the courts require concrete, specific evidence of the plaintiff's subjective emotional suffering and its objective severity. The decision reinforces that IIED is reserved for truly extreme cases, preventing it from becoming a general remedy for any emotional upset resulting from offensive behavior. Plaintiffs in future IIED actions must diligently present testimony or other evidence directly addressing the intensity and duration of their distress, rather than relying solely on the nature of the defendant's actions.
