Epstein Secrets

f mental suffering; (2) outrageous conduct; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the distress was severe. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 1985). Whether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a ques

133 17 01316 EFTA00234240 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 0721:2008 Page 18 of 100 DCA 1998) (approving reasoning in Feld & Sons, holding that "no public policy should allow [a plaintiff] to recover damages as a result of engaging in criminal conduct" where the plaintiff had

f mental suffering; (2) outrageous conduct; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the distress was severe. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 1985). Whether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a ques

are against public policy"). Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover dama

f mental suffering; (2) outrageous conduct; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the distress was severe. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 1985). Whether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a ques

against public policy"). Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff cannot blame someone else ( ) for the consequences of her own criminal conduct. Cf. Feld & Sons, Inc. v. Pechner, Dorfman, Wolffe, Rounick and Cabot, 458 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983) (holding that law-firm clients could not recover dama