In cases of purely economic losses, what can a plaintiff recover under negligent infliction of emotional distress?

In the context of negligent infliction of emotional distress, plaintiffs typically face specific limitations when it comes to recovering damages, especially in scenarios involving purely economic losses. Generally, jurisdictions, including Georgia, stipulate that for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress to be actionable, there need to be more substantial physical or property damages involved.

When a plaintiff suffers only economic losses and experiences emotional distress as a result, courts are generally reluctant to allow recovery for noneconomic damages. This is primarily because the law aims to prevent an unchecked proliferation of claims based merely on emotional responses to economic harm. Thus, if the plaintiff’s claim involves only economic losses without associated physical injury or risk of physical harm, they may not recover any damages, neither economic nor noneconomic.

This principle stems from the need to establish a duty of care that is directly linked to emotional distress claims, particularly in the absence of physical harm. As such, in cases where there are purely economic losses, courts are inclined to conclude that the emotional distress is too remote and not compensable under the rubric of negligent infliction of emotional distress. This rationale underlines why the correct answer indicates that a plaintiff cannot recover either category of damages in such scenarios.