Summary
This Illinois Appellate Court opinion reviews an interlocutory appeal from the dismissal of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a bank serving as personal representative and trustee. The court examines whether the claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations under the continuing-tort doctrine and whether the remaining allegations adequately state a cause of action. The court affirms the trial court's dismissal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the two‑year statute of limitations bars the plaintiffs’ claims, including application of the continuing‑tort doctrine.
- Whether the complaint states a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Holdings
- The trial court’s dismissal as time‑barred is affirmed; the continuing‑tort doctrine does not apply to the alleged conduct before June 29, 2021, so only the four acts after that date are within the limitations period and those acts are insufficient to sustain the claim.
- The complaint fails to state a cause of action because the alleged post‑June 2021 conduct—changing a trust, altering IRA beneficiaries, and omitting a name on a headstone—does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required by Illinois law.
Key quotations
“A continuing violation or tort is occasioned by continuing unlawful acts and conduct, not by continual ill effects from an initial violation.” (¶ 38)
“The defendant is not liable where he has done no more than to insist upon his legal rights in a permissible way, even though he is well aware that such insistence is certain to cause emotional distress.” (¶ 53)
“To state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must plead that (1) the defendant’s conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as intolerable in a civilized community, (2) the defendant either intended to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that there was at least a high probability that his conduct would cause severe emotional distress, and (3) the defendant’s conduct did in fact cause severe emotional distress.” (¶ 49)
Factual background
The plaintiffs are adult children of the deceased William P.E. They alleged that William engaged in a long pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse toward them from childhood through adulthood, and later altered his trust, changed IRA beneficiaries, and omitted mention of their mother on a headstone in ways they claimed were intended to cause emotional distress.
Procedural history
The Circuit Court of Lake County dismissed count I of the plaintiffs' amended complaint for being time‑barred and for failing to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs appealed.