## Facts

- Dr. Arnold Leonard Vance, still legally married to Elizabeth Vance, told Muriel Gwendolyn Vance that he was divorced and free to marry.
- In late September 1956, Arnold and Muriel participated in a marriage ceremony in Virginia and then lived together as husband and wife for about eighteen years.
- Two children were born during the relationship, and Muriel relied on the validity of the marriage in organizing her personal and family life.
- After Arnold left Muriel for another woman, Muriel obtained an alimony and child support decree premised on a valid marriage.
- Later proceedings established Arnold’s prior marriage had not been dissolved at the time of the 1956 ceremony, rendering the marriage to Muriel void.
- Muriel alleged she suffered severe emotional shock and physical symptoms consistent with ulcer-related illness upon learning the marriage was invalid.
- Muriel sued Arnold in tort for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), based primarily on his statements and long-term concealment regarding his marital status.

## Issues

1. Whether a party may recover in tort for negligent misrepresentation about marital status that induces entry into a void marriage and results in emotional distress with physical consequences.
2. Whether emotional distress accompanied by physical manifestations can satisfy the injury requirement for negligent misrepresentation damages.
3. Whether evidence of prolonged concealment of a void marriage can support submitting an IIED claim to the jury under Maryland’s stringent elements for that tort.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that negligent misrepresentation may be actionable in this context and is not barred merely because the dispute arises from an intimate or domestic relationship.
- The court approved allowing recovery where the plaintiff’s emotional distress is accompanied by physical manifestations sufficient to constitute compensable injury.
- The court agreed the negligent-misrepresentation claim was supported by the evidence and that the jury verdict for Muriel should not have been set aside by judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The court concluded the IIED claim should not have been removed from the jury where there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the required elements, applying Maryland’s restrictive IIED standard.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant who negligently provides false information, where reliance is reasonably foreseeable, may be liable for resulting harm even when the relationship is personal rather than commercial.
- Emotional distress accompanied by objectively supportable physical manifestations may constitute compensable injury for negligent misrepresentation.
- Maryland recognizes IIED but confines it to cases meeting four elements: intentional or reckless conduct; extreme and outrageous conduct; causation; and severe emotional distress.
- Reckless conduct may satisfy the mental-state element of IIED if the conduct is otherwise extreme and outrageous, but the tort remains narrowly limited.
- When there is evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the elements of the claim, the claim should be submitted to the jury rather than resolved by directed verdict.

## Conclusion

The court permitted tort remedies for a void-marriage deception, reinstating liability for negligent misrepresentation where the plaintiff proved severe emotional harm with physical manifestations, and requiring that the IIED claim be evaluated by a jury under Maryland’s strict standard.


Vance v. Vance, 286 Md. 490, 408 A.2d 728 (Md. 1979)