Moseng v. Frey, 822 N.W.2d 464

Karl Moseng and wife Vicki worked for Hartland Mutual Insurance Co.; Lynn Frey supervised Vicki from 1985–2008.
Karl alleged Frey used his supervisory role to arrange sexual liaisons between Frey and Vicki from 1988–1991.
Karl claimed Frey and Hartland concealed the affair and manipulated him via distant assignments to facilitate it.
Karl asserted negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from the affair and alleged employer conduct.
District court dismissed the claims as masked alienation of affections; the court held abolition statutes preclude such claims.
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding the claims were legally insufficient and not independent negligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the claims are disguised alienation of affections	Moseng argues not masked; duties breached by employer and supervisor	Frey and Hartland argue abolition of alienation of affections bars claims	Claims are masked alienation claims; barred
Whether abolition statutes bar the negligence claims	Abolition does not apply to independent negligence arising from employer conduct	Statute abolishes alienation-based claims;ks prevents relief	Statute bars the claims as pleaded
Whether any independent negligence existed beyond the affair	Alleges negligent task assignments and concealment caused damages	No articulated negligence apart from the affair	No independent negligence stated; claims legally insufficient

Gasper v. Lighthouse, Inc., 73 Md.App. 367, 533 A.2d 1358 (Md. Ct. App. 1987) (abolition of alienation of affections precludes refitting into negligence)
Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 696, 732 N.E.2d 330 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (legislature precludes emotional distress from adultery)
R.E.R. v. J.G., 552 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (aftermath of heart balm actions; damages from liaison barred)