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 Indiana, to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), a plaintiff must demonstrate 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. Indiana courts will initially decide if the conduct in question was extreme and outrageous, but if there is a difference of opinion that reasonable minds may have, the determination is left to the jury. IIED serves as a 'gap-filler' tort, meaning it is used when there are no other statutory or common-law remedies available to the plaintiff. In some instances, Indiana courts may require the plaintiff to prove that they have no other recognized theory of redress, adding an additional layer to the elements that must be established for an IIED claim. It is important to note that the specifics of IIED claims can be complex and are often defined by state court opinions, which can evolve over time.