To recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), a plaintiff generally must establish that: (1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the resulting emotional distress was severe.

Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. The court will initially determine whether a defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous. But when reasonable minds may differ, it is for the jury to determine whether the conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a "gap-filler" tort and does not supplant or duplicate existing statutory or common-law remedies. Even if other remedies do not explicitly preempt the tort, their availability leaves no gap to fill.

Thus, some courts have added additional elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, identifying the elements of proof required as: (1) the plaintiff is a person; (2) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (3) the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (4) the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff emotional distress; (5) the plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe; and (6) the plaintiff has no other recognized theory of redress.

Laws vary from state to state and the law regarding the tort (wrongful act) of intentional infliction of emotional distress is often located in a state’s court opinions (also known as case law, common law, or judicial decisions).

In Alabama, to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, and that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous. Additionally, it must be shown that this conduct caused the plaintiff emotional distress, and that the distress was severe. Alabama courts will initially determine if the conduct was extreme and outrageous, but if there is a difference of opinion among reasonable minds, the jury will decide if the conduct meets the legal standard for liability. IIED serves as a 'gap-filler' tort, meaning it is used when there are no other adequate statutory or common-law remedies available to the plaintiff. In some cases, Alabama courts may require the plaintiff to demonstrate that there is no other recognized theory of redress available to them, adding an additional element to the claim. The specifics of IIED claims in Alabama are derived from case law rather than statutes, and thus can be subject to interpretation and precedent set by previous judicial decisions.