“when there is no physical impact, fear of physical harm, or physical manifestation of emotional distress.” Eric Mills Holmes, 20 Holmes’ Appleman on Insurance 2d § 129.2, at 19 (2002); see e.g., Tortoso v. MetLife Auto & Home Ins. Co., 21 A.D.3d 276, 799 N.Y.S.2d 506, 508 (App.Div.2005) (stating that bodily injury encompasses “purely emotional distress”); see also Pekin Ins. Co. v. Hugh, 501 N.W.2d 508, 512 (Iowa 1993) (stating that “any attempt to distinguish between ‘physical’ and ‘psychological’ injuries just clouds the issue. This is because the medical community now knows that every emotional disturbance has a physical aspect and every physical disturbance has an emotional aspect.”) (internal citation omitted); York Ins. Group of Me. v. Lambert, 740 A.2d 984, 986 (Me.1999) (<HOLDING>). As previously indicated, in the present case,
holding that a claim for emotional distress triggers an insurers duty to defend under bodily injury coverage unless explicitly excluded 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 recognizing that when a defendants negligence causes bodily injury the plaintiff can recover damages for past present and future medical expenses bodily injury and emotional distress holding insurers duty to defend is determined by allegations in the petition holding that bodily injury does not include purely emotional injuries