Altice, C.J.
Case Summary
In this case of first impression, we are called upon to decide whether the personal representative of an estate may properly assert a claim for emotional distress damages for the benefit of the decedent’s minor dependent children and nondependent adult children in a wrongful death action. In accordance with Ind. Code § 34-23-1-1, Indiana’s general wrongful death statute (GWDS), we hold that such a claim is not permitted.
Edna Martin Christian Center, Inc. (Martin Christian Center), and Edna Martin Holdings, LLC (Martin Holdings) (collectively, the Martins), bring this interlocutory appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss a claim against them and all other defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress in a wrongful death action that was initiated by Jeremia Smith as personal representative of the estate of Johnny T. Purchase (the Estate). The Martins contend that dismissal was required under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) because emotional distress damages are not recoverable under the GWDS. The Martins also maintain that the Estate failed to set forth any facts that would support an allegation that they engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent to emotionally harm the Estate.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
….
The Martins maintain that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss because emotional distress damages are not recoverable under the GWDS. The Martins assert that the GWDS limits potential recoverable damages to reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses “which inure to the exclusive benefit of the decedent’s estate, and other damages which inure to the exclusive benefit of the dependent children, if any.” Appellants’ Brief at 10. The Martins contend that none of Purchase’s children are entitled to emotional distress damages under the GWDS because there is no cognizable claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress in a wrongful death action brought by an estate’s personal representative.
….
Taking the facts pleaded in the Estate’s complaint as true, Purchase was unmarried with one dependent child and six adult nondependent children at the time of his death. Therefore, the personal representative’s claims exist exclusively under the GWDS. Dependent children may recover damages that include “loss of love, care, and affection” that are tied to pecuniary losses under the GWDS. I.C. § 34-23-1-1. However, damages for “loss of life,” “grief,” and “wounded feelings” are excluded from recovery. Challenger v. Wrecker Mfg., Inc. v. Estate of Boundy, 560 N.E.2d 94, 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).
With this backdrop in mind, we find Patrick, which determined that “damages for emotional distress are not available under the [AWDS],” 929 N.E.2d at 190, instructive here….
….
In light of these pronouncements and construing the facts that the Estate pleaded as true for the purposes of the motion to dismiss and this appeal, Smith’s claims as personal representative of the Estate exist exclusively under the GWDS because Purchase had a dependent child at the time of his death, and only the damages prescribed therein are recoverable. See Franciscan, 154 N.E.3d at 848; see also Durham v. U-Haul Int’l, 745 N.E.2d 755, 759 Ind. 2001). The GWDS allows the Estate to recover damages including the reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses, and lost earnings of the decedent, and permits dependent children to recover potential damages for loss of love, care, and affection. I.C. § 34-23-1-1; see also Franciscan, 154 N.E.3d at 847-48 (citing Estate of Sears ex rel. Sears v. Griffin, 771 N.E.2d 1136, 1138 (Ind. 2002)). Those damages to which dependent children are entitled, however, must be tied to pecuniary losses, and those that are related to loss of life, grief, and wounded feelings are not recoverable. See id.; see also Challenger, 560 N.E.2d at 99. And as in Patrick where the Court held that emotional distress damages are disallowed under the AWDS, we adhere to that same rationale here and conclude that the Estate’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not permitted under the GWDS.
Moreover, although the plaintiff in Patrick sought to bring a separate claim for emotional distress as an individual, Purchase’s children are not proper parties here, as only the Estate set forth the causes of action. And, because only statutorily prescribed damages are allowable under our wrongful death statutes, to permit the Estate to advance a separate claim for emotional distress damages would result in an improper expansion of liability. See Franciscan, 154 N.E.3d at 848; see also Durham, 745 N.E.2d at 759. In short, a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and any resulting damages, is not permitted under the GWDS.
Because the Estate failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in Count III of the complaint, we conclude that the trial court erred in denying the Martins’ motion to dismiss in accordance with T.R. 12(B)(6).1 Thus, we reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court grant the Martins’ motion to dismiss Count III and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded. [Footnote omitted.]
Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.