Brengle v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39850
D. Maryland2011Background
- Plaintiff Darlene Brengle, a 54-year-old disabled woman, resides in Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI) community; income from Social Security Disability.
- GHI is a nonprofit housing cooperative with about 1,600 homes in Greenbelt, Maryland.
- Brengle had informed GHI of her disabilities and health risks, and prior to moving, obtained assurances that pesticides causing health harm would not be used.
- In Oct–Nov 2007 Brengle submitted a doctor’s letter warning that exposure to pesticides could jeopardize her health, and she engaged neighbors regarding potential chemical use.
- On May 20, 2009 a contractor applied Phantom near Brengle’s unit without advance notice; Brengle experienced severe health reactions and hospitalization.
- Brengle filed an amended complaint with three counts; count III alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress; GHI moved to dismiss only count III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intentional or reckless conduct | Brengle alleges GHI knew risks and acted with reckless disregard. | GHI contends no facts show intentional/reckless conduct. | Pleadings plausibly show intentional/reckless conduct |
| Outrageous or extreme conduct | GHI’s conduct after warnings was extreme and outrageous. | GHI argues conduct not beyond bounds of decency. | Allegations rise above mere insults; sufficient at pleading stage |
| Severe emotional distress | Brengle alleges debilitating distress, isolation, and inability to obtain stable housing. | GHI argues distress not shown as severely disabling. | Allegations exceed mere conclusory assertions; plausibly severe distress |
| Pleading standard | Complaint contains facts explaining the extent of distress and context. | Pleading should be more limited to bare assertions. | Complaint satisfies Rule 8 plausibility with non-conclusory details |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 380 A.2d 611 (Md. 1977) (four elements of IIED; severest liability reserved)
- Moniodis v. Cook, 64 Md.App. 1, 494 A.2d 212 (Md. App. 1985) (illustrates severe distress showing evidence beyond mere upset)
- Figueiredo-Torres v. Nickel, 321 Md. 642, 584 A.2d 69 (Md. 1991) (demonstrates level of severe emotional distress required)
- B.N. v. K.K., 312 Md. 135, 538 A.2d 1175 (Md. 1988) (existing authority on extreme and outrageous conduct)
- Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden, 330 Md. 632, 625 A.2d 959 (Md. 1993) (contrast showing what is not severely distressing)