Since we agree with Justice LEVIN that "unjustified litigation" is a vice, and that "[o]nly by deciding specific cases can this Court give meaning to the words `intentional and outrageous conduct,'" we decline to yield to the temptation of engaging in a full blown discourse on the relative merits of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress or of a remedy for containing unfounded hypothetical future cases involving insurance practices. Any "boundaries or guidelines for the bench or bar" which might result from such obiter dictum in this case would yield only transitory and illusory assistance to the bench and bar. We note that recently adopted MCR 2.114 addresses the imposition of sanctions by trial courts. The trial bench and bar's implementation of this rule will provide this Court with the necessary experience to assess the need for further remedies.

The section provides, in relevant part:
"Personal protection insurance benefits are payable for the following:
* * *
(b) Work loss consisting of loss of income from work an injured person would have performed during the first 3 years after the date of the accident if he had not been injured and expenses not exceeding $20.00 per day, reasonably incurred in obtaining ordinary and necessary services in lieu of those that, if he had not been injured, an injured person would have performed during the first 3 years after the date of the accident, not for income but for the benefit of himself or of his dependent."

No order denying either the motion for summary judgment or the motion for reconsideration appears in the record on appeal. In denying defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment at trial, the trial judge indicated his reason for denying the earlier motion:
" The Court: As you've indicated, counsel, this matter has been considered by the Court previously, and nothing has happened to change my mind. I found then and find again that the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress was well pled and the Plaintiff may proceed with his proofs. Motion for summary judgment is denied."

See n 3.

Recovery of mental distress damages for breach of contract is nevertheless permissible if such damages can "reasonably be said to have been in contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was made." Kewin, supra, 409 Mich. 419.

See Kewin, supra, 409 Mich. 421. ("We express no opinion on the accuracy of the Court of Appeals observation that Michigan recognizes a tort action for the intentional infliction of mental distress.")

See also Holmes article, supra, p 359. ("Apparently, no court has found outrageous conduct without affirmative conduct. Thus, a mere denial of liability or refusal to pay, even though unreasonable and in bad faith, is not deemed outrageous.")

The receptiveness of our sister state courts to the tort of bad-faith breach of an insurance contract has been mixed. Compare Noble v National American Life Ins Co, 128 Ariz. 188; 624 P.2d 866 (1981) (tort recognized); Bibeault v Hanover Ins Co, 417 A.2d 313 (RI, 1980) (tort recognized), with D'Ambrosio v Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Ins Co, 494 Pa. 501; 431 A.2d 966 (1981) (tort rejected); Spencer v Aetna Life Casualty Ins Co, 227 Kan. 914; 611 P.2d 149 (1980) (tort rejected); Lawton v Great Southwest Fire Ins Co, 118 N.H. 607; 392 A.2d 576 (1978) (tort rejected). The adequacy of existing legislative remedies has been a primary factor in refusing to recognize the bad-faith tort. See D'Ambrosio, supra; Spencer, supra; Lawton, supra.
We express no opinion at this time whether existing legislative remedies should similarly preclude recognition of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in the insurance context.

Auto-Owners' "denial" of the replacement services claim actually took the form of a request for further verification:
Letter of January 8, 1980
"Bush, Luce, Henderson Bankson "Jan. 8, 1980 Attorneys at Law 412 Mich. Nat. Bank Bldg. Port Huron, Mi. 48060

"RE: Our insureds Ralph and Doloris [ sic] Roberts Claim X7-6004-79 Yours-Christine Rodzos

"ATTN: S. Keith Bankson
"Dear Mr. Bankson:
"This is to acknowledge receipt of your letters of November 19, 1979 and December 13, 1979.
"Under `Description of Services' in your affidavit, we would consider only two [ sic] and from the doctor and would need mileage verification in support. Under the medical portion of the No-Fault law, we would consider the other items under "Description of Services" in the affidavit only if verified by the doctor. These listed items do not come under the work loss portion of the No-Fault law (see Section #3107, part b). They come under Section #3107 part a.

"Very truly yours, "District Claim Office

"E.H. Selden "Claim Representative"

Although the letter is not a model of clarity, inasmuch as the claim for replacement services (under MCL 500.3107[b]; MSA 24.13107[b]) was treated by Auto-Owners as a claim for expenses (under MCL 500.3107[a]; MSA 24.13107[a]), the letter may reasonably be construed as a denial of the replacement services claim as submitted.
After plaintiffs received the foregoing letter, there was no further communication with Auto-Owners until this suit was instituted shortly thereafter. Thus, this was unlike the situation where an insurer through ongoing exchanges with the insured has knowledge of the necessity for payment, but adamantly and in bad faith denies liability — facts on which a claim of outrageous conduct might be based. See Eckenrode, supra.

In fact, penalties of $57.96 in interest for overdue payment (under MCL 500.3142[3]; MSA 24.13142[3]) and $5,880 in attorney fees (under MCL 500.3148[1]; MSA 24.13148[1]) were assessed against Auto-Owners in the judgment.

The majority states that "we are constrained from reaching the issue as to whether this modern tort should be formally adopted into our jurisprudence" (emphasis added) and later suggests that although limited, there is a range of circumstances in which a prima facie showing of outrageousness can be made in the insurance context.

The courts of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, and the District of Columbia have declined to recognize a cause of action in tort for emotional distress when the gravamen of the complaint was the insurer's delay or refusal to pay.
The Alabama Supreme Court, in Vincent v Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc, 373 So.2d 1054 (Ala, 1979), found the evidence insufficient to support the claim of the insureds for intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from the insurer's initial disallowance of claims under a preexisting condition exclusion and rude treatment of the insureds. But see also National Security Fire Casualty Co v Bowen, 447 So.2d 133 (Ala, 1983), n 21 infra, where the insured recovered damages on more egregious facts.
In Davis v First National Bank of Arizona, 124 Ariz. App. 458; 605 P.2d 37 (1979), the Arizona intermediate appellate court concluded that a bank and insurer were not liable for emotional distress alleged to have resulted from attempts to rescind a loan contract, delays in payment of disability benefits, and attempts to restrict coverage of disability benefits.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the district court holding that a deceased had a civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress sufficient to support an action for wrongful death, where the insurance company demanded proof of eligibility and withheld payments of benefits, even though lack of money forced the removal of deceased to a nursing home, the stress of which probably contributed to her death. Metropolitan Life Ins Co v McCarson, 467 So.2d 277 (Fla, 1985).
In Robertson v Travelers Ins Co, 95 Ill.2d 441; 448 N.E.2d 866 (1983), the Illinois Supreme Court held that vexatious delay alone will not support an action for the tort of outrage. And in Tobolt v Allstate Ins Co, 75 Ill. App.3d 57; 393 N.E.2d 1171 (1979), an insurer's refusal to pay proceeds under a homeowner's policy was not outrageous conduct even though the insureds were rendered indigent as a result of the fire loss and were unable to provide the necessities of life for themselves and their son.
An insurer's failure immediately to pay on a fire insurance policy did not even "begin to approach outrageous conduct" where the delay was due to an arson investigation in the Iowa Supreme Court case of Amsden v Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co, 203 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa, 1972).
The Minnesota Supreme Court, in Haagenson v National Farmers Union Property Casualty Co, 277 N.W.2d 648, 652 (Minn, 1979), held, notwithstanding the jury's finding that an insurer's conduct in delaying payment of no-fault benefits was "intentional, malicious and in bad faith," that emotional and punitive damages were not recoverable for bad-faith breach of contract and stated that a malicious motive did not convert a contract action into a tort action.

In the New York case of Riffat v Continental Ins Co, 104 A.D.2d 301; 478 N.Y.S.2d 635 (1984), the intermediate appellate court concluded that an insurer's refusal to pay accidental dismemberment benefits did not state a cause of action in tort; the remedy was an action for breach of contract. Accord Bruno v Home Mutual Ins Co of Binghamton, 91 A.D.2d 1169; 459 N.Y.S.2d 136 (1983); Manolis v International Life Ins Co of Buffalo, 83 A.D.2d 784; 443 N.Y.S.2d 461 (1981).

In Sere v Group Hospitalization, Inc, 443 A.2d 33 (DC App, 1982), cert den 459 U.S. 912 (1982), the court concluded that a directed verdict on the issue of "extreme and outrageous conduct" was proper where the insurer failed to pay because the request for additional information from insured was not honored.

See Strader v Union Hall, Inc, 486 F. Supp. 159 (ND Ill, 1980), where the court declined to dismiss by summary judgment a claim based on an insurance company's failure to investigate the merits of the claim and alleged misrepresentation of the nature of coverage, stating that this constituted the type of abusive behavior that gives rise to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional harm. Contrast Sigler v Mutual Benefit Life Ins Co, 506 F. Supp. 542 (SD Iowa, 1981), aff'd 663 F.2d 49 (CA 8, 1981), where an insured's contentions that an insurance company acted maliciously by failing to investigate a claim for accidental death benefits and by forcing the plaintiff to initiate legal action, thereby exposing her to public embarrassment because of her husband's death from an autoerotic experience, were found not to be supported by the evidence and summary judgment was granted.

In Eckenrode v Life of America Ins Co, 470 F.2d 1 (CA 7, 1972) (applying Illinois law), a cause of action for severe emotional injury was stated where an insurer "invited" compromise of a claim by falsely implying it had a valid defense to payment — a police investigation — in the face of a clear duty to pay. Cf. Othman v Globe Indemnity Co, 759 F.2d 1458 (CA 9, 1985) (applying California law), where the court concluded that the evidence did not support a cause of action for "outrageous conduct," but the insurer's unreasonable actions before denying reconsideration of the claim — in handling the claim with intent to entice the insured to lose his rights through the application of the statute of limitations — would raise a question for the jury of bad faith under Gruenberg v Aetna Ins Co, 9 Cal.3d 566; 108 Cal.Rptr. 480; 510 P.2d 1032 (1973).

See Sigler v Mutual Benefit Life Ins Co, n 3 supra. In Debolt v Mutual of Omaha, 56 Ill. App.3d 111; 371 N.E.2d 373 (1978), thE insurer delayed and ultimately ceased payment of disability income forcing the plaintiff to employ counsel and file a lawsuit. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

See Illustration Number 2:
"A, the president of an association of rubbish collectors, summons B to a meeting of the association, and in the presence of an intimidating group of associates tells B that B has been collecting rubbish in territory which the association regards as exclusively allocated to one of its members. A demands that B pay over the proceeds of his rubbish collection, and tells B that if he does not do so the association will beat him up, destroy his truck, and put him out of business. B is badly frightened, and suffers severe emotional distress. A is subject to liability to B for his emotional distress, and if it results in illness, A is also subject to liability to B for his illness."

See Illustration Number 7:
"A, a creditor, seeking to collect a debt from B, sends B a series of letters in lurid envelopes bearing a picture of lightning about to strike, in which A repeatedly threatens suit without bringing it, reviles B as a deadbeat, a dishonest man, and a criminal, and threatens to garnish his wages, to bother his employer so much that B will be discharged, and to "tie B up tight as a drum" if he does not pay. B suffers severe emotional distress. A is subject to liability to B."

See Illustration Number 1:
"As a practical joke, A falsely tells B that her husband has been badly injured in an accident, and is in the hospital with both legs broken. B suffers severe emotional distress. A is subject to liability to B for her emotional distress. If it causes nervous shock and resulting illness, A is subject to liability to B for her illness."

See Illustration Number 5:
"A, a private detective, calls on B and represents himself to be a police officer. He threatens to arrest B on a charge of espionage unless B surrenders letters of a third person which are in her possession. B suffers severe emotional distress and resulting illness. A is subject to liability to B for both."
and see Illustration Number 6:
"A, the principal of a high school, summons B, a schoolgirl, to his office, and abruptly accuses her of immoral conduct with various men. A bullies B for an hour, and threatens her with prison and with public disgrace for herself and her parents unless she confesses. B suffers severe emotional distress, and resulting illness. A is subject to liability to B for both."

See Illustration Number 3:
"A is invited to a swimming party at an exclusive resort. B gives her a bathing suit which he knows will dissolve in water. It does dissolve while she is swimming, leaving her naked in the presence of men and women whom she has just met. A suffers extreme embarrassment, shame, and humiliation. B is subject to liability to A for her emotional distress."
"A, an eccentric and mentally deficient old maid, has the delusion that a pot of gold is buried in her back yard, and is always digging for it. Knowing this, B buries a pot with other contents in her yard, and when A digs it up causes her to be escorted in triumph to the city hall, where the pot is opened under circumstances of public humiliation to A. A suffers severe emotional disturbance and resulting illness. B is subject to liability for both."

The illustrations in the commentary to the Restatement Torts, 2d, § 46, are for the most part not based on insurance cases. The two exceptions are Illustrations Nos. 7 and 12, which indicate that extreme and outrageous conduct may be found on the basis of an abuse of a position which gives the actor authority or power over the other (comment e) or on the basis of the actor's knowledge that the other is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress (comment f).
The reporter's notes to Illustration No. 7 — the bullying tactics of creditors — cites the analogous behavior of insurance adjusters in two Oklahoma and one Mississippi case. In National Life Accident Ins Co v Anderson, 187 Okla. 180; 102 P.2d 141 (1940), an insurance agent's behavior at an insured's home — berating her in uncomplimentary language, and charging that she was not sick — caused physical injury as a result of mental shock and was sufficient to defeat a motion for directed verdict. The judgment for the plaintiff, however, was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial because of erroneous jury instructions. Accord Pacific Mutual Life Ins Co of California v Tetirick, 185 Okla. 37; 89 P.2d 774 (1938). In Continental Casualty Co v Garnett, 173 Miss. 676; 161 So. 753 (1935), a jury verdict for wilful and wanton conduct was affirmed where an insurance agent went to the home of an insured and denied a claim for compensation under a health policy and used insulting and abusive language in charging that the insured was presenting a false and fraudulent claim.
Illustration No. 12 is drawn largely from the Georgia case of Interstate Life Accident Co v Brewer, 56 Ga. App. 599; 193 S.E. 458 (1937). There the plaintiff recovered damages where an insurance representative, with knowledge of an insured's physical condition, went to her sick room and persisted in forcing a settlement upon her by throwing a handful of coins in her face and yelling that "[y]ou don't need a doctor; you ought to die. . . ."

Illustration No. 14.

In Smith v Allendale Mutual Ins Co, 410 Mich. 685, 712-713; 303 N.W.2d 702 (1981), this Court said
"that the application of a common-law rule to a particular set of facts does not turn upon whether those facts can be characterized in the language of the Restatement section corresponding to the common-law rule. Unlike a statute, which expresses a legislative directive for the treatment of future cases, the Restatement seeks primarily to distill the teachings of decided cases and is descriptive. While its drafters may sometimes strive to choose `the better rule' or to predict or shape the development of the law, its influence depends upon its persuasiveness. Even where a particular Restatement section has received specific judicial endorsement, cases where that section is invoked must be decided by reference to the policies and precedents underlying the rule restated. Textual analysis of the Restatement is useful only to the extent that it illuminates these fundamental considerations."

Cf. Gruenberg v Aetna Ins Co, 9 Cal.3d 566; 108 Cal.Rptr. 480; 510 P.2d 1032 (1973), in which the California Supreme Court developed a tort cause of action for bad-faith breach of an insurance contract.

In the absence of a settled question of state law, a federal court will make an educated "guess" of what the highest court of the state would conclude if faced with the same question. But the conclusion of the federal court, even several like holdings, does not constitute state law.

The Illinois appellate courts have consistently rejected claims alleging "outrageous" conduct in the handling of insurance claims. In McCall v Health Care Service Corp, 117 Ill. App.3d 107; 452 N.E.2d 893 (1983), the court said that delays in paying hospitalization benefits and failure to provide the plaintiff with accurate information regarding the status of her claim, which resulted in an action by a hospital against an insured and garnishment of her wages, was not conduct so "outrageous or severe" as to amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress. See also Tobolt v Allstate Ins Co, n 2 supra, and Debolt v Mutual of Omaha, n 5 supra.

See Tobolt v Allstate Ins Co, n 2 supra, and Debolt v Mutual of Omaha, n 5 supra.
The Illinois courts distinguish the California cases such as Fletcher v Western National Life Ins, 10 Cal.App.3d 376; 89 Cal.Rptr. 78 (1970), on which plaintiffs relied for the theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress, on the basis that California did not have a statutory provision analogous to the Illinois provision which permits an insured to recoup additional costs ( e.g., attorney fees) where an insurer's refusal to pay has been vexatious and unreasonable. Tobolt v Allstate Ins Co, 75 Ill. App.3d 71.

See Anderson v Mutual of Omaha Ins Co, 594 F. Supp. 726 (SD Ill, 1984). Robertson, in declining to allow recovery in tort for emotional distress, relied on a similar remedial provision for vexatious or frivolous delay in the payment of workers' compensation benefits.
The analogous Michigan legislative provision is discussed in n 27.

Amsden v Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co, n 2 supra. The plaintiffs, in Higgins v Blue Cross of Western Iowa South Dakota, 319 N.W.2d 232 (Iowa, 1982), did not challenge on appeal the trial court's ruling of insufficient evidence of emotional distress where an insurance company had rescinded a contract for hospital services because of a failure to disclose a preexisting condition.

Fletcher is regarded as the landmark first-party case holding that an insurer's bad-faith refusal to make payments under a disability policy gives rise to a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. There the insurer discontinued disability payments by seizing on (and misinterpreting) certain medical statements to conclude that Fletcher was suffering from a condition which he may have contracted from a horse (and therefore could only be paid under the more limited provision for sickness payments), and later by contending that Fletcher's condition was congenital rather than a result of recent injury. No investigation was undertaken regarding this congenital defect. The company then "embarked upon a concerted course of conduct" to persuade Fletcher to surrender his policy or otherwise enter into a disadvantageous settlement through economic coercion (he was disabled and destitute). The insurance company conceded that its behavior was "outrageous," but claimed that it was privileged because it was engaged in settlement negotiations and there was no evidence of severe emotional distress.
The California court allowed recovery in tort on two theories: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress and (2) "tortious interference with a property interest of its insured" — later to become bad-faith breach of contract sounding in tort.
The California Supreme Court, in another leading first-party case, developed an action in tort for bad faith withholding of insurance benefits. In Gruenberg v Aetna Ins Co, 9 Cal.3d 566; 108 Cal.Rptr. 480; 510 P.2d 1032 (1973), the insured was allowed to recover all damages, including for mental distress, caused by the insurer's scheme to deprive the insured of benefits due on a fire insurance policy. The agent encouraged the bringing of criminal charges against the insured by falsely implying that he had a motive to commit arson, and, knowing that the insured would not appear for an insurance examination during the pendency of criminal charges, the insurer relied on the failure to appear as a pretense for denying liability on the policy. This Court in Kewin expressly declined to follow Gruenberg.

Despite numerous claims asserting that an insurer's behavior was outrageous and inflicted emotional distress, there are relatively few cases in which the claim survived a motion for summary judgment and even fewer in which damages have been awarded. In addition to California, recovery has been allowed in Alabama, Indiana, Florida, and Washington, and in federal courts in perceived application of Virginia, Oregon, and Illinois law.
The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a jury verdict on claims of malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress in National Security Fire Casualty Co v Bowen, 447 So.2d 133 (Ala, 1983). The conduct of the private investigators hired by National Security to investigate the fire loss of equipment included flashing their badge, bribing or threatening persons they interrogated to implicate the insured in arson, and physically threatening the insured at gunpoint after forcing him off the road. The court characterized such conduct as "so atrocious and so barbaric . . . that no civilized person could be expected to endure the acts committed without suffering mental distress."
In Vernon Fire Casualty Ins Co v Sharp, 264 Ind. 599; 349 N.E.2d 173 (1976), the Indiana Supreme Court found that the insurer's attempt to exact additional consideration from the plaintiff with regard to a separate lawsuit before performing its obligations under the contract was "intentional and wanton" conduct and affirmed a jury award of punitive damages.
The complaint in Dominguez v Equitable Life Assurance Society, 438 So.2d 58 (Fla App, 1983), aff'd 467 So.2d 281 (Fla, 1985), stated a cause of action for outrageous conduct where the insured alleged that the insurer's agent falsely represented that she had a letter from a doctor saying that the plaintiff was not disabled and that coverage of the policy was no longer in force and attempted to obtain the plaintiff's signature surrendering the policy. In World Ins Co v Wright, 308 So.2d 612 (Fla App, 1975), cert den 322 So.2d 913 (Fla, 1975), the court affirmed a jury award for intentional infliction of emotional distress where an insured's bad-faith conduct included attempts to "buy up" the policy. No additional facts were given. And in Miller v Mutual of Omaha Ins Co, 235 So.2d 33 (Fla App, 1970), cert den 238 So.2d 423 (Fla, 1970), a jury verdict was affirmed, and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict reversed, on a count of intentional infliction of emotional distress where an insurer's salesman went to the plaintiff's home after she became ill and charged that she had taken out the policy with knowledge of prior illness. The agent then physically took the policy from the plaintiff and walked out the door.
In Rounds v Union Bankers Ins Co, 22 Wn. App. 613; 590 P.2d 1286 (1979), the Washington intermediate appellate court affirmed a denial of a motion to dismiss a claim for emotional distress for cancellation of a hospital policy.
A United States district court in Virginia held that allegations that an insurer issued an insurance policy without the intent to perform, and in bad faith refused to pay cancer benefits, stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Morgan v American Family Life Assurance Co of Columbus, 559 F. Supp. 477 (WD Va, 1983).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying Oregon law, affirmed a jury's conclusion in Green v State Farm Fire Casualty Co, 667 F.2d 22 (CA 9, 1982), that the behavior of a State Farm agent was "outrageous" where, after the State Farm adjuster knew that the state police had abandoned the investigation of Green for arson, the adjuster identified himself as a policeman and questioned Green's neighbors about the fire, implying that Green had set it and told Green that he would be charged with arson if he pressed his claim against State Farm.
The decision of the United States district court in Illinois in Strader v Union Hall is discussed in n 3 supra, and the Seventh Circuit's application of Illinois law in Eckenrode v Life of America is discussed in n 4 supra.
In many of the cases where recovery of emotional distress damages against an insurance company was not allowed, the courts, in dicta, indicated that recovery might be allowed in another case. See, for example, Jarvis v Prudential Ins Co of America, 122 N.H. 648; 448 A.2d 407 (1982), n 22 infra, Metropolitan Life Ins Co v McCarson, n 2 supra, and Employers' Fire Ins Co v Love It Ice Cream Co, 64 Or. App. 784; 670 P.2d 160 (1983), stating that an insurer's egregious conduct amounting to outrageous conduct — independent of bad-faith refusal to pay — could give rise to a tort action.

In some cases where the conduct was more egregious than the simple nonpayment or denial of benefits, the courts have denied recovery in tort.
In Cluff v Farmers Ins Exchange, 10 Ariz. App. 560; 460 P.2d 666 (1969), the Arizona intermediate appellate court concluded that an insured failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the actions of an insurance adjuster who attempted to "threaten and cajole" the insured to accept a settlement for the wrongful death of her son without the benefit of counsel. The Illinois intermediate appellate court concluded that an insurer's denial of liability under a disability policy, referral of the claim between offices and offer to repurchase the policy in settlement of a disputed claim did not state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Debolt v Mutual of Omaha, n 5 supra. In Jarvis v Prudential Ins Co of America, n 21 supra, an insurance company terminated reimbursement for nursing services in disregard of a provision in a policy indicating that some services were indeed compensable; the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded, as a matter of law, that this was not "outrageous conduct." And in Farris v United States Fidelity Guaranty Co, 284 Or. 453; 587 P.2d 1015 (1978), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that an insurer's refusal to defend its insured under a liability policy, with knowledge that it has no good reason not to perform, did not justify recovery for emotional distress or punitive damages.

The Court of Appeals has generally concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress. See Butler v DAIIE, 121 Mich. App. 727; 329 N.W.2d 781 (1982), where the Court concluded that the plaintiff pled nothing more than a breach of an insurance contract. In Harris v Citizens Ins Co, 141 Mich. App. 110; 366 N.W.2d 11 (1983), where plaintiff sought recovery on the ground that the insurance agent had intentionally inflicted emotional distress by unreasonably refusing to pay or unreasonably delaying payment of certain no-fault benefits, the Court of Appeals concluded that the "complained-of conduct . . . does not, as a matter of law, rise to the level of `extreme and outrageous' conduct." See also Butt v DAIIE, 129 Mich. App. 211, 219; 341 N.W.2d 474 (1983), holding that the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complained-of conduct — requests for verification of replacement service before payment of benefits — "falls far short of the conduct which is considered tortiously outrageous." The plaintiff, in Hall v Citizens Ins Co, 141 Mich. App. 676; 368 N.W.2d 250 (1985), failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress where the insurer erroneously pursued a subrogation claim against the wrong Patricia Hall, resulting in the garnishment of her paycheck. Most recently, in Hajciar v Crawford Co, 142 Mich. App. 632; 369 N.W.2d 860 (1985), it was alleged that workers' compensation benefits were terminated to coerce the worker into accepting a lump-sum payment which he had previously refused. The Court of Appeals, recognizing that the intentional infliction of emotional distress constitutes a distinct and separate cause of action, concluded that the plaintiff did not allege conduct that might properly be characterized as outrageous and atrocious.
Statements in decisions of the Court of Appeals indicating that it has adopted the definition set forth in Restatement Torts, 2d, § 46, providing that a cause of action is made out by proof of "extreme and outrageous conduct [which] intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another," do not indicate that such a cause of action could be established on evidence of an insurer's dilatory handling of a claim. This appears on a comparison of the facts in often cited Court of Appeals cases. In Warren v June's Mobile Home Village Sales, Inc, 66 Mich. App. 386; 239 N.W.2d 380 (1976), the Court of Appeals quoted extensively from both the Restatement of Torts and the accompanying commentary defining the type of situations where liability may result. The Court held that a landlord's actions in verbally harassing the plaintiff in retaliation for her complaints about electric bills, and his attempts to defeat plaintiff's sale of her mobile home, did not constitute the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court said, in part, that the defendant may have simply been relying on his legal right to refuse a prospective tenant in the trailer park he owned. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, applying Michigan law in Ross v Burns, 612 F.2d 271 (CA 6, 1980), looked to the standards of § 46 to determine that a newspaper's publication of photographs of an undercover police officer in a public place, along with his identity, did not amount to "extreme and outrageous conduct." Similarly, in Fry v Ionia Sentinel-Standard, 101 Mich. App. 725; 300 N.W.2d 687 (1980), the Court held that a newspaper report of the accidental death of the plaintiff's husband and that a female body was found with his, did not constitute "outrageous" conduct. Cf. Ledsinger v Burmeister, 114 Mich. App. 12; 318 N.W.2d 558 (1982), where the Court concluded that the plaintiff stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress on allegations of racial epithets uttered by a retail merchant while ejecting Ledsinger from his place of business. And in Rosenberg v Rosenberg Bros Special Account, 134 Mich. App. 342; 351 N.W.2d 563 (1984), the Court concluded that a widow's complaint that her deceased husband's brother engaged in a course of extreme and outrageous conduct to inflict severe emotional distress on her for the purpose of forcing her to sell her interest in her deceased husband's business stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
In often cited Frishett v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 3 Mich. App. 688; 43 N.W.2d 612 (1966), lv den 378 Mich. 733 (1966), the plaintiff alleged that agents of an insurance company made false statements, unjustly withheld payment of benefits, and misused private information, and as a result the plaintiff became distressed and suffered emotional upset. The Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment for the defendant, granted on the basis that Michigan courts do not allow recovery for mental distress unless accompanied by a physical injury, and stated that "the law of Michigan as set forth in Stewart v Rudner [ 349 Mich. 459; 84 N.W.2d 816 (1957)] and Carter v General Motors Corp [ 361 Mich. 577; 106 N.W.2d 105 (1960)] is consistent with the principles enunciated in the Restatement of the Law 1948 Supp, Torts § 46. . . ." In Stewart v Rudner, this Court affirmed a jury verdict against the defendant doctor for mental distress damages arising out of the breach of a contract to perform a Caesarean section. This Court has said that an exception, allowing the recovery of mental distress damages, to the general limitation on the damages recoverable for breach of contract was made in Stewart because of the "personal nature" of the contract. Kewin v Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins Co, supra, 409 Mich. 415-416. At the same time this Court in Kewin held that insurance contracts are commercial in nature and do not come within the reach of Stewart. In Carter v General Motors, this Court recognized that mental injury may result from emotional stress although there was no physical effect and permitted recovery of workers' compensation benefits under the circumstances. Neither Stewart nor Carter relied on § 46 or the concept of "outrageous conduct," nor did either case involve the dilatory handling of an insurance claim.
Finally, the Court of Appeals said in Holmes v Allstate Ins Co, 119 Mich. App. 710, 714; 326 N.W.2d 616 (1982):
"Although there has been confusion regarding a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, as distinguished from damages for mental anguish incident to an independent tort, and the Michigan Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue, the Michigan Court of Appeals has delineated intentional infliction of emotional distress as a separate cause of action which is not necessarily parasitic to another cause of action as an aggravating element of damages."
On the basis of the standards set forth in the Restatement Torts, 2d, § 46, the Court agreed with the trial judge that the erroneous termination of plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits when he failed to attend vocational rehabilitation and failure to give permission for treatment of plaintiff's back did not present evidence of an intent to cause plaintiff severe emotional distress, nor was there any conduct that could be viewed as "extreme and outrageous." Defendant's motion for directed verdict was properly granted.

"Section 4. Unfair Methods of Competition and Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices Defined.
The following are hereby defined as unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance:
* * *
"(9) Unfair Claim Settlement Practices.
Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following.
(a) misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue;
(b) failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies;
(c) failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies;
(d) refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information;
(e) failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed;
(f) not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear;
(g) compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insureds;
(h) attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application;
(i) attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of the insured;
(j) making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied by statement setting forth the coverage under which the payments are being made;
(k) making known to insureds or claimants a policy of appealing from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration;
(l) delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured, claimant, or the physician of either to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal proof of loss forms, both of which submissions contain substantially the same information;
(m) failing to promptly settle claims, where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage;
(n) failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement." An Act Relating to Unfair Methods of Competition and Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices in the Business of Insurance, § 4(9), in Ashley, Bad-Faith Actions Liability and Damages, Appendix I, pp 2, 6-7.

The Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, and the intermediate appellate courts of Illinois, and federal district courts in perceived application of Illinois law, have relied on statutory provisions in declining to award emotional distress damages or to recognize a common-law cause of action.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in D'Ambrosio v Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Ins Co, 494 Pa. 501, 507-509; 431 A.2d 966 (1981), said that the insured may not supplement remedies in the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practice Act by an action to obtain damages for emotional distress.
In Kansas, the legislative provisions authorizing certain penalties, including imposition of costs and attorney fees, against an insurer for lack of good faith were seen as sufficient remedies and as an indication that the legislature did not intend damages for emotional suffering to be recoverable by an insured through a tort action for bad faith. See Spencer v Aetna Life Casualty Ins Co, 227 Kan. 914, 923-924; 611 P.2d 149 (1980).
The Minnesota Supreme Court, in Haagenson v National Farmers Union Property Casualty, n 2 supra, denied emotional distress damages, but the insured was entitled to recover the ten percent statutory penalty for delay in payment of no-fault benefits.
In Lawton v Great Southwest Fire Ins Co, 118 N.H. 607, 613-615; 392 A.2d 576 (1978), the availability of legislative remedies militated against the recognition of an independent action in tort for an insurer's wrongful refusal to settle or delay in settling a first-party insurance claim.
The Oregon Supreme Court rejected a claim for emotional distress damages in the third party context saying "[i]t was certainly not intended by the legislature that additional pressure to perform the contract be exerted by allowing the recovery of damages for emotional distress, since the statute provides for civil damages recoverable by the state for that purpose." Farris v United States Fidelity Guaranty Co, 284 Or. 453, 458; 587 P.2d 1015 (1978).
And the Illinois appellate court said, "[W]here the legislature has provided a remedy on the subject matter we are not only loathe but in addition harbor serious doubts as to the desirability and wisdom of implementing or expanding the legislative remedy by judicial decree." Debolt v Mutual of Omaha, n 5 supra. Accord Smith v Metropolitan Life Ins Co, 550 F. Supp. 896, 899-900 (ND Ill, 1982); Anderson v Mutual of Omaha Ins Co, 594 F. Supp. 726 (SD Ill, 1984).

"Sec. 2026. (1) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance, other than isolated incidents, are a course of conduct indicating a persistent tendency to engage in that type of conduct and include:
(a) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue.
(b) Failing to acknowledge promptly or to act reasonably and promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies.
(c) Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims arising under insurance policies.
(d) Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon the available information.
(e) Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after proof of loss statements have been completed.
(f) Failing to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.
(g) Compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts due the insureds.
(h) Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would believe the claimant was entitled, by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application.
(i) Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.
(j) Making a claims payment to a policyholder or beneficiary omitting the coverage under which each payment is being made.
(k) Making known to insureds or claimants a policy of appealing from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration.
(l) Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured, claimant, or the physician of either to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring subsequent submission of formal proof of loss forms, seeking solely the duplication of a verification.
(m) Failing to promptly settle claims where liability has become reasonably clear under 1 portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy.
(n) Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement." MCL 500.2026(1)(a)-(n); MSA 24.12026(1)(a)-(n).

Friedman v Dozorc, supra, p 57 (LEVIN, J., concurring).

"(D) Effect of Signature. The signature of an attorney or party, whether or not the party is represented by an attorney, constitutes a certification by the signer that
"(1) he or she has read the pleading;
"(2) to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the pleading is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; and
"(3) the pleading is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
"(E) Sanctions for Violation. If a pleading is signed in violation of this rule, the court, on the motion of a party or on its own initiative, shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, including reasonable attorney fees." MCR 2.114.

The present rule speaks of an "appropriate sanction." See n 28 for text. Arguably this might comprehend "all actual pecuniary loss."

Friedman v Dozorc, supra, pp 61-62 (LEVIN, J., concurring).