Interest of T.M.
2012 ND 212
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Karl Moseng and his wife Vicki Moseng were employed by Hartland Mutual Insurance Company.
- Lynn Frey was Vicki Moseng’s supervisor from 1985 to 2008.
- Karl Moseng alleges Frey used his supervisory position to arrange sexual liaisons between Frey and Vicki from 1988 to 1991.
- Moseng claims Frey and Hartland used their positions to conceal the affair and facilitate the liaisons by sending Karl on geographically distant tasks.
- Moseng asserted negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress; the district court dismissed the claims under 12(b)(6) prior to trial with prejudice on March 2, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the negligence/NIED claims are legally sufficient or barred as disguised alienation of affections. | Moseng argues the claims are not masked alienation; defendants violated employment duties. | Frey and Hartland contend the claims are barred by abolition of alienation of affections. | Claims are legally insufficient; they are masked alienation of affections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasper v. Lighthouse, Inc., 533 A.2d 1358 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1987) (abolition does not preclude all claims but bars refitting into other torts or contracts)
- Quinn v. Walsh, 732 N.E.2d 330 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (legislature precludes emotional distress from adultery when abolishing heart balm torts)
- R.E.R. v. J.G., 552 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (emotional distress damages arising from spouse’s infidelity barred)
- Hale v. State, 2012 ND 148, 818 N.W.2d 684 (North Dakota 2012) (12(b)(6) standard: accept factual allegations as true and look for potential to prove claim)