Aрpellee-plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. James Mundy filed suit against appellant-defendants H. Street Kornegay and Anchor Savings Bank (Anchor). The complaint alleged thаt Kornegay had, with the full knowledge of his employer, Anchor, intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Mrs. Mundy and that he had also tortiously interfered with her business rеlations. Mrs. Mundy sought to recover damages for the alleged torts and Mr. Mundy sought to recover for the loss of his wife’s consortium. Appellees answered, denying the material allegations of appellants’ complaint.
Following extensive discovery, appellants moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, thе trial court denied the motions, but certified its orders for immediate review. Pursuant to our grant of their applications for interlocutory appeаl, Kornegay appeals from the denial of his motion for summary judgment in Case No. 77702 and Anchor appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion for summаry judgment in Case No. 77703.
Case No. 77702
1. Kornegay enumerates as error the trial court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment, urging that no genuine issue of material fact remains as to his liability.
The evidence of record shows that both Mrs. Mundy and Kornegay were, at the times relevant to this appeal, employees of Anchor. Mrs. Mundy was еmployed as the manager of an Anchor branch bank in Hapeville. Kornegay was employed as an Anchor public relations officer. Neithеr had direct managerial or supervisory authority over the other. In denying the motion for summary judgment, the trial court found that the following alleged incidents would аuthorize a jury to find that Kornegay had intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Mrs. Mundy and that he had tortiously interfered with her business relations: “1) Several commеnts made by Kornegay in the presence of others to the effect that he was not sure of what color her hair was, and that he had known her when it was blаck. 2) Kornegay asked [Mrs.] Mundy’s age and when she refused, he asked her husband what was her age. 3) The Mundys maintained a boat at a marina at Lake Jackson where Kornegay owns a home. [Mrs.] Mundy’s discomfort around Kornegay caused her to sell her boat. 4) Kornegay allegedly interfered with bank operations by wаlking behind the teller lines over [Mrs.] Mundy’s objections. 5) Kornegay allegedly tampered with the wheels on [Mrs.] Mundy’s chair causing her to fall to the *434 floor when she sat down. 6) Kornegay allegedly plundered through [Mrs.] Mundy’s purse, desk and office and removed files and records from her office. 7) Kornegay allegedly interrupted [Mrs.] Mundy over an eight-month period while [Mrs.] Mundy was consulting with customers about their problems. 8) Kornegay allegedly interfered with the performance of bank tellers in violation of Anchor’s policy. 9) Kornegay alleged that [Mrs.] Mundy was responsible for an employee by the name of Tom Sawyer being fired at the Hapevillе Anchor Branch. 10) Kornegay stated that ‘no woman was capable of managing the Hapeville branch office.’ 11) Kornegay allegedly showed аccount balances to persons other than the owner of the account. 12) Kornegay allegedly violated the Safety Deposit Box pоlicies by allowing access to safety deposit boxes by non-owners of the boxes and allegedly destroyed safe deposit signature cards. 13) Kornеgay allegedly approved share loan rates at other than the regulated interest rate charged, issued illegal share notes, cashed certificates early without penalty and allowed loans to be collateralized by property other than that of the obligor. 14) Kornegay allegedly swept objects off [Mrs.] Mundy’s desk to the floor while she was on the telephone.”
By way of response to at least two of these alleged incidеnts, Numbers 5 and 6, Kornegay offered his sworn denial of any involvement. No one witnessed these acts and appellees failed to offer any evidenсe to support their allegations other than their mere
suspicion
that Kornegay was involved. Once the pleadings have been pierced, the plaintiff may not rest upon his complaint but must come forward with “his case in full in order to show there is a genuine issue for trial. [Cits.]”
Alghita v. Universal Investment & Mfg. Co.,
The remaining instances of Kornegay’s allegеd tortious conduct, whether considered individually o.r collectively, do not, as a matter of law, rise to the requisite level of egregious or outragеous behavior which justifiably results, in that severe fright, humiliation, embarrassment, or outrage which no reasonable person is expected to endure. See
Sossenko v. Michelin Tire Corp.,
The alleged acts were also insufficient, as a matter of law, to support an action against Mr. Kornegay for the tortious interference with Mrs. Mundy’s business relationship with Anchor. See generally
West Va. Glass Specialty Co. v. Guice & Walshe, Inc.,
For the reasons stated, the trial court erred in denying summary judgment in favor of Mr. Kornegay.
Case No. 77703
2. Anchоr enumerates as error the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment.
The only basis for a recovery against Anchor would be Anchor’s vicarious liability fоr the tortious actions of Kornegay as its employee. Where the liability of a party is premised solely upon his vicarious liability for the tortious aсtions of an agent and judgment is entered for the agent, the party alleged to be vicariously liable is also entitled to judgment. See
Duke Trucking Co. v. Giles,
Judgments reversed.