SUK C. KIM v. JUNG HYUN CHANG
249 So. 3d 1300
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Suk C. Kim sued and Jung Hyun Chang counterclaimed; key counterclaims at trial were breach of an oral loan, unjust enrichment, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The trial focused largely on the loan claims.
- Chang loaned Kim $164,050 in 2001 (from life-insurance proceeds) for store improvements; parties disputed terms, modification, and statute-of-limitations defenses.
- In May 2012 Kim shoved Chang down stairs during a dispute about repayment; Chang suffered a bruise and later filed battery and IIED counterclaims against Kim.
- Jury found for Kim on the loan claims (statute of limitations) but awarded Chang $15,000 for battery and $165,000 for IIED.
- Kim moved for directed verdict and remittitur on the IIED claim; the appellate court reviewed denial of directed verdict de novo and addressed whether evidence proved both causation and "severe" emotional distress required for IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chang) | Defendant's Argument (Kim) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for IIED (outrageousness) | Kim's conduct (pushing a 64-year-old, evicting her, threatening deportation) was outrageous and supports IIED. | Even if conduct was outrageous, outrage alone cannot substitute for proof of causation and severe emotional distress. | Court assumed conduct could be outrageous but did not decide it definitively; focus was on insufficiency of other elements. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that IIED caused "severe" emotional distress | Outrageous conduct permits reasonable inference that Chang suffered severe distress (also pointed to prior 2008 incident). | Chang produced no testimony or other evidence showing how she felt, duration of distress, physiological/psychological symptoms, treatment, or functional impairment—so no legally sufficient proof of severe distress. | Reversed IIED judgment: evidence insufficient to prove Chang suffered severe emotional distress caused by Kim. |
| Denial of directed verdict on IIED | Jury verdict supported by evidence and inferences of distress. | Directed verdict should have been granted because plaintiff failed to present legally sufficient evidence on causation/severity. | Directed verdict should have been granted; appellate court reversed IIED award. |
| Other claims and damages (battery, loan claims, punitive damages) | Chang sought recovery on loan claims and punitive damages on IIED. | Kim contested liability and damages. | All other portions of the final judgment affirmed (battery award and dismissal of loan claims by statute of limitations); punitive damages issue not reached because IIED liability reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1985) (Florida Supreme Court adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts §46 for IIED elements)
- Sims v. Cristinzio, 898 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (standard for directed verdictreview)
- Winter Haven Hosp., Inc. v. Liles, 148 So. 3d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (lists IIED elements including requirement of "severe" emotional distress)
- Kraeer Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Noble, 521 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (definition/standard for "severe" emotional distress)
- R.J. v. Humana of Fla., Inc., 652 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1995) (IIED allows recovery for emotional injury without physical impact)