liability. This court has recognized common law liability for psychic injury alone when defendant’s conduct was either intentional or equivalently reckless of another’s feelings in a responsible relationship,[ ]or when it infringed some legally protected interest apart from causing the claimed distress, even when only negligently. The court has found infringements of legal rights in an invasion of privacy, in the negligent removal of the remains of a deceased spouse, and in the negligent delivery of a passport that allowed plaintiff’s child to be taken from this country. But we have not yet extended liability for ordinary negligence to solely psychic or emotional injury not accompanying any actual or threatened physical App 52, 64-66, 887 P2d 836 (1994), rev den 320 Or 598 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The trial court did not err in granting
holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute holding inter alia that expert testimony was not required to prove damages for emotional distress in an abuse of process claim holding that emotional distress damages related to a negligence claim by an insured against an insurance agent should have been stricken holding that insurance broker is generally agent of insured