in what the fraud consists”). Like the Sykes’ claim for negligent misrepresentation, however, their claims for fraud are not based on any specific allegations of fact. Since these claims do not comply with the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), adding them would be futile. Fifth, the Sykes want to add a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. In Virginia, a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot succeed if a party does not “plead with specificity that [it] incurred a physical injury which was the natural result of fright or shock proximately caused by the defendant’s] alleged negligence.” Delk v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 259 Va. 125, 523 S.E.2d 826, 834 (2000); see Hughes v. Moore, 214 Va. 27, 197 S.E.2d 214, 220 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Here, neither Lisa nor Seth Sykes have
recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress holding that a party claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot recover for emotional disturbance alone recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress 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 that under south dakota law compensation for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires manifestation of physical symptoms and intentional infliction of emotional distress requires an extreme disabling emotional response