Susan R. Snowden, Esq.                                            Michael J. Farrell, Esq.
Martin & Seibert                                                        Farrell, Farrell & Farrell
Martinsburg, West Virginia                                        Huntington, West Virginia
Stephen D. Brown, Esq.                                            Attorney for Defendants
George M. Gowen, Esq.

Dechert, Price & Rhoads
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Attorneys for Plaintiff                        

Tammy A. Bittorf, Esq.
Layva, Bittorf & Santa Barbara
Martinsburg, West Virginia
David L. Haber, Esq.
Weinheimer, Schadel & Haber
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant

JUSTICE STARCHER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Starcher, J.:

        In this case we answer four certified questions from a federal court. We hold that advice of counsel is not an absolute defense in an employment law case; that a defendant in a legal malpractice lawsuit is not barred from asserting a claim against another attorney who provided services to the plaintiff; that experts may testify in legal malpractice cases; and that the plaintiff in a state employment law case did not receive an illegal double recovery.

        The federal district court also included in the certified question order a brief discussion of each question and the court's proposed answer to the question. We include these discussions and answers in footnotes at the beginning of our discussion of each question.

         Is the advice of counsel defense an absolute bar to any claim for punitive damages in a wrongful termination of employment claim in West Virginia?See footnote 3 ³

        We begin our discussion by recognizing the principle of law that this Court enunciated in Syllabus Point 3 of Powers v. Goodwin, 174 W.Va. 287, 324 S.E.2d 701 (1984):

         Except for malicious prosecution suits, it is generally held that reliance on advice of counsel is not an absolute defense to charges that a person is acting unlawfully or negligently.

        We further said in Powers:

        It seems clear, though, that the party asserting this defense has the burden of showing that he: (1) made a complete disclosure of the facts to his attorney; (2) requested the attorney's advice as to the legality of the contemplated action; (3) received advice that it was legal; and (4) relied upon the advice in good faith.

Seaboard Oil v. Cunningham, 51 F.2d 321, 325 (5th Cir. 1931). See also Tomasits v. Cochise Memory Gardens, Inc., 150 Ariz. 39, ___, 721 P.2d 1166, 1168 (Ct.App. 1986) (in a wrongful disinterment case, circumstances relating to the defendant's reliance on the advice of counsel could go to show the defendant's negligence; the jury could consider these circumstances in considering punitive damages); Phillips v. Morrow, 97 So. 130, 132 (Ala. 1923) (whether punitive damages are to be awarded if advice of counsel is claimed as a defense is a question for the jury); Bradford v. Lawrence, 94 So. 103, 104 (Ala. 1922) (whether advice of counsel is a defense to an award of punitive damages in a malicious attachment case is ordinarily a jury question); Karow v. Student Inns, Inc., 43 Ill.App.3d 878, ___, 2 Ill. Dec. 515, ___, 357 N.E.2d 682, 687-89 (1976) (it was a jury issue in a malicious prosecution case whether the defendant had disclosed all facts clearly to counsel so as to establish the advice of counsel defense to false arrest); Trammell v. Ramage, 11 So. 916, 918 (Ala. 1892) (the fact that the plaintiff acted with the advice of counsel did not foreclose the jury from considering punitive damages in an action for wrongful attachment). See also Holland v. Thacher, 199 Cal.App.3d 924, 926, 929, 245 Cal.Rptr. 247, 250, 252 (1988), a legal malpractice case where the alleged negligence of the plaintiff's other attorney was imputable to the plaintiff under principles of agency in the determination of comparative negligence; in accord, Kroll & Tract v. Paris & Paris, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 78, 72 Cal.App. 4th 1537 (1999).

        Based on the foregoing discussion, we hold that in an employment law civil action, the fact that an employer acted in reliance upon the advice of counsel is not an absolute defense to a claim that the employer acted unlawfully or negligently. Relevant evidence regarding the advice of counsel may be admissible in the trial of an employment law civil action as part of the calculus of evidence that the fact finder considers in reaching its verdict -- including on the issue of punitive damages, where that issue is presented . See footnote 7 ⁷

        Based on the foregoing reasoning, our answer to the district court's first certified question is “no.”

         Do the doctrines of joint tortfeasor and right of contribution apply in the legal malpractice context of a client's predecessor law firm and successor law firm, each of whose respective conduct is separated by an intervening trial caused by the predecessor law firm's alleged legal malpractice?See footnote 8 ⁸

        In addressing this question, we first briefly review West Virginia case law relating to contribution among tortfeasors and the impleader of third-party defendants.

        In Board of Education of McDowell County v. Zando, Martin, and Milstead, Inc., 182 W.Va. 597, 390 S.E.2d 796 (1990), a Board of Education sued an architectural and engineering firm (“ZMM”), claiming that ZMM was negligent and breached its contract with the Board to design and supervise the construction of a new school, after cracks and other damage to the building developed in the years immediately following its construction.

        ZMM filed a third-party complaint against two other companies that the Board had hired -- one company did soil testing at the construction site, and one company did most of the building construction. We held in Zando that ZMM could maintain an action for contribution against the third-party defendants, based on an inchoate right of contribution.

        We held in Syllabus Point 4 of Zando that an action for contribution “may be brought by a joint tortfeasor on any theory of liability that could have been asserted by the injured plaintiff.” See also Sydenstricker v. Unipunch Prods, Inc., 169 W.Va. 440, 452, 288 S.E.2d 511, 518 (1982).

        We further stated in Zando that the

        . . . right of inchoate contribution is not confined only to cases of joint negligence. Instead, it arises under any theory of liability which results in a common obligation to the plaintiff. . . . The touchstone of the right of inchoate contribution is this inquiry: Did the party against whom contribution is sought breach a duty to the plaintiff which caused or contributed to the plaintiff's damages?

         The fundamental purpose of inchoate contribution is to enable all parties who have contributed to the plaintiff's injuries to be brought into one suit.

182 W.Va. at 603, 390 S.E.2d at 802.

        In another contribution case, Magnet Bank v. Barnette, 187 W.Va. 435, 437, 419 S.E.2d 696, 698 (1992) (per curiam), we held that a third-party contribution claim by a defendant against the defendant's law firm claiming legal malpractice was derivative of the same transaction, occurrence or nucleus of operative fact as the underlying claim by the plaintiff; and the third-party claim was allowed.

         Magnet Bank and Zando illustrate the principle that West Virginia jurisprudence favors the consideration, in a unitary trial, of all claims regarding liability and damages arising out of the same transaction, occurrence or nucleus of operative facts , and the joinder in such trial of all parties who may be responsible for the relief that is sought in the litigation . See footnote 9 ⁹

        Turning to the more specific issue of third-party impleader of other attorneys in legal malpractice actions on contribution claims, we continue our discussion by examining the recent case of Parler & Wobber v. Miles & Stockbridge, 359 Md. 671, 756 A.2d 526 (2000), in which the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed a certified question from a federal district court that is quite similar to the contribution/impleader question that we are considering in the instant case.

        In Parler, an attorney-defendant in a legal malpractice case, “Lawyer I,” sought to implead as a third-party defendant the plaintiff's current attorney, “Lawyer II.” Lawyer I claimed that Lawyer II's negligence had contributed to the damages that the plaintiff argued had resulted from Lawyer I's alleged malpractice.

        The Parler opinion contains an instructive discussion of the evolution of Maryland's law of allocation of damages among multiple tortfeasors, an evolution that is similar to what has occurred in West Virginia. Regarding this evolution, Parler states:

 “[T]he unfairness of allowing a plaintiff the power to pick and choose whom to sue for damages was alleviated by providing the defendant with the right to implead a responsible third party to share in the liability.” 359 Md. at ____, 756 A.2d at 534. Parler further states:         Contribution rests on common liability, not on joint negligence or joint tort. Common liability exists when two or more actors are liable to an injured party for the same damages, even though their liability may rest on different grounds.

Id. (Citations omitted.)

        In Parler, the Maryland court weighed the public policy in favor of assuring that all potentially responsible, accountable, and liable persons are brought before the court for a determination of what liability they may or may not have -- and found that this policy interest could outweigh the disruption of the attorney-client relationship that would arise as a result of allowing the impleading of the plaintiff's current counsel, Lawyer II, as a defendant. The Parler court concluded that under the facts of the case before the court, the impleader of Lawyer II was permissible.

        The Parler court stated:

         Prohibiting a joint tortfeasor action in this case would [. . . circumvent the purpose of Maryland's Uniform Contribution Against Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) which requires] that a party should be held accountable for damages caused by his or her negligence. Successor counsel could escape from this accountability by forcing former counsel to shoulder the burden of loss to the client in situations where both attorneys may have brought about the client's injury. The unfair and unjust outcome for former counsel would be reminiscent of the pre- UCATA era. We think the better public policy approach is for the parties to lay their cards on the table for the fact-finder to determine the facts and allocate the loss to the proper parties, rather than granting successor counsel a shield of immunity for its alleged wrongful acts.

         We respect the public policy concerns voiced by our sister states that prohibit former counsel from suing successor counsel. Many of their concerns, however, cut both ways. Prohibiting an impleader action in such cases also may undermine the attorney- client relationship. For example, the Holland [v. Thacher, 199 Cal.App.3d 924, 245 Cal.Rptr. 247 (1988)] court voiced concern that allowing former counsel to sue successor counsel would forge an irresponsible weapon of intimidation. See 245 Cal.Rptr. at 250. By the same token, we can envision, given successor counsel's position of trust with and influence over the client, that a bar to an impleader action could create a situation ripe for successor attorney mischief and manipulation. It would hardly be in the client's best interest to be represented by counsel that was negligent in causing an injury to the client, but who failed to disclose the negligence to the client or take responsibility for the action. This dominant position leaves us uneasy accepting the notion that successor counsel should be left to its potential self-dealing. Furthermore, Appellants' argument that their ethical duty of confidentiality is infringed by the tortfeasor action is misplaced. As discussed supra, the confidentiality duty, unless exempted by law, must succumb to discovery and the search for truth.

         Moreover, we do not lack faith in the disciplinary tools in the Maryland Rules, and particularly the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), that deter the filing of frivolous and harassing claims. They represent potential consequences to discourage an improper impleader action. They address, for example, the Holland court's concerns, such as the availability for monetary sanctions, at the state and federal levels, against attorneys that fall prey to the temptation of harassing an opponent.
359 Md. at ___, 756 A.2d at 544-545 [emphasis added, footnotes omitted].

        The Parler opinion recognizes, in the foregoing quoted language, that some courts have prohibited “other-attorney impleader” in legal malpractice cases when impleader would interfere with the attorney-client relationship. See, e.g., Holland v. Thacher, 199 Cal.App.3d 924, 245 Cal.Rptr. 247 (1988). However, even when such interference is possible, many courts have taken the position that is adopted in Parler, and recognized that a defendant attorney in a legal malpractice case may make a third-party contribution claim against a plaintiff's subsequent, current, or former attorney. See, e.g., LaPorte v. Mott, 227 A.D.2d 824, ___, 642 N.Y.S.2d 418, 419 (1996) (a defendant attorney in a legal malpractice case could implead the plaintiff's successor attorney, the court stating: “[I]t is not necessary that [the defendant's third-party] claim against [the successor attorney] arise out of the rendition of legal services in the very same [legal] proceeding or transaction . . . it suffices that [the successor attorney's] breach of duty merely had a part in causing or augmenting the injury for which contribution is sought.”)See footnote 10 ¹⁰

        We need not in the instant case establish a broad rule for our courts in this somewhat arcane and complex area of the law -- and prudence dictates that we should not. However, because the issue of other-attorney impleader in legal malpractice cases is a matter of state law that necessarily underlies and is fairly raised by the district court's second certified question, we state that we find the reasoning of Parler (and the cases cited herein that agree with Parler) to be consistent with this state's contribution jurisprudence. Under the specific facts of the instant case, we determine that the impleader of Andrews as a third- party defendant by Bowles is not barred under West Virginia law regarding the seeking of contribution from third parties, merely because of an attorney-client relationship between Andrews and Sheetz.See footnote 11 ¹¹

        This determination, however, does not fully answer the second certified question from the district court -- because the district court also concluded that the jury trial in the Vandevender case was an “intervening cause” that, as a matter of law, bars Bowles from asserting a third-party contribution claim against Andrews.

        On the issue of “intervening cause,” we have held that if a first act of negligence sets off a chain of events or creates a situation ultimately resulting in injury, then such negligence may very well constitute the proximate cause of said injury, even if intervening negligence occurs. Evans v. Farmer, 148 W.Va. 142, 154-156, 133 S.E.2d 710, 717-718 (1963). Additionally, where two or more persons are guilty of separate acts of negligence which in point of place and time concur, and together proximately cause or contribute to the injuries of another, such persons are guilty of concurrent negligence for which they may be held jointly and severally liable. Syllabus Point 1, Reilly v. Bayard, 146 W.Va. 292, 119 S.E.2d 650 (1961). In accord, Syllabus Point 5, Kodym v. Frazier, 186 W.Va. 221, 412 S.E.2d 219 (1991).

        An intervening cause, in order to relieve a person charged with negligence in connection with an injury, must be a negligent act which constitutes a new effective cause and operates independently of any other act, making it and it only, the proximate cause of the injury. Syllabus Point 3, Wehner v. Weinstein, 191 W.Va. 149, 444 S.E.2d 27 (1994).

        Syllabus Point 2 of Evans v. Farmer says:

         The questions of negligence, contributory negligence, proximate cause, intervening cause and concurrent negligence are questions of fact for the jury where the evidence is conflicting or when the facts, though undisputed, are such that reasonable [persons] may draw different conclusions from them.

(Emphasis added). In accord, Harbaugh v. Coffindaffer, ___ W.Va. ___, 543 S.E.2d 338 (2000) (per curiam).

         From the pre-trial record that is before us in the instant case, a finder of fact could reasonably conclude (1) that Andrews had substantial responsibilities with respect to developing and approving Sheetz's policies and practices governing the treatment of Sheetz's employees who were receiving worker's compensation and/or who had disabilities; and (2) that those policies and practices directly exposed Sheetz to legal liability in circumstances like Ms. Vandevender's, and quite possibly on a wholesale basis in West Virginia.

        In other words, a finder of fact could reasonably conclude that because of serious legal “design defects” in Sheetz's employment policies and practices -- defects for which Andrews had substantial responsibility -- the Vandevender termination and the resulting Vandevender litigation were an “accident waiting to happen;” and that Andrews' conduct therefore played a direct role in causing the accident. It also appears to be a reasonable possible conclusion that the use by Sheetz of an overall illegal employment policy for Sheetz's West Virginia employees -- especially by a large corporation that had easy access to legal counsel -- was a significant contributing factor in the size of the Vandevender punitive damages award, further implicating Andrew's responsibility with respect to the punitive damages award.

        The foregoing examples of reasonable conclusions from the evidence that permit viewing Andrews' conduct as playing a proximate role in causing or contributing to the punitive damages award in the Vandevender case are not exhaustive. However, these examples suffice to show that one can view the evidence in the instant case as permitting an affirmative answer to the contribution test that we set forth in Zando, supra: d id the third- party defendant (Andrews) breach a duty to the plaintiff (Sheetz) that caused or contributed to the damages that the plaintiff is seeking from the defendant (Bowles)?

         Applying the “intervening cause” principles of Evans v. Farmer, supra to these permissible views of the evidence, a fact finder could reasonably conclude that the Vandevender jury trial did not clearly interrupt or supplant the natural flow of proximate causation and consequence from Andrews' conduct in connection with Sheetz's employment policies -- and that therefore the Vandevender jury trial was not an entirely new and independent cause of the punitive damage award in Vandevender. A fact finder could conclude that whatever Bowles' liability (if any) was in connection with the punitive damages award in Vandevender, Andrews was also liable in connection with that award, due to Andrews' contributing conduct.See footnote 12 ¹² Simply put, a fact finder could reasonably conclude that the jury trial in Vandevender was not an intervening cause. (We note that neither Andrews nor Sheetz has cited us to any case that has held that a jury trial in similar or analogous circumstances was as a matter of law an intervening cause.)

        Of course, we recognize that Andrews vigorously disputes the correctness of all of the foregoing possible conclusions. At this juncture, however, the issue is not whether such conclusions are incontrovertibly established certainties, but rather whether they are reasonable conclusions that a fact finder could make -- and we believe that they clearly are.         Based on the foregoing discussion, we hold that an attorney-defendant in a legal malpractice case is not barred from impleading another attorney who has provided legal services to the client-plaintiff, as a third-party defendant on a contribution claim, merely because a jury trial that resulted in damages for which the plaintiff claims the original attorney-defendant is liable occurred after the allegedly contributing conduct of the third- party defendant.

        Our answer to the district court's second certified question is “yes.”

        The district court's third certified question is:

        Does West Virginia law allow the use of lawyers as experts in legal malpractice cases?See footnote 13 ¹³

        The general rule in West Virginia is that expert testimony is admissible on matters where the opinion of an expert would help the jury. See West Virginia Rule of Evidence, Rule 702. As the federal district court's discussion in the instant case noted, there is a consensus of authority in other jurisdictions that this general rule applies in legal malpractice cases. We decline the parties' suggestion that we should delineate in the instant case specific parameters beyond the sound discretion of the court regarding the proper scope of expert testimony in area of legal malpractice. We hold that expert testimony is admissible in legal malpractice actions. Our answer to the district court's third certified question is “yes.”

        To answer this question, we must back up a little and look at the reason that the district court is asking this question.

        In the Vandevender opinion, this Court declined to substantively address several alleged trial court errors that were asserted by Sheetz on appeal. Specifically, we noted in Vandevender that these alleged errors by the trial court had not been properly preserved for appeal at trial. 200 W.Va. at 607, 490 S.E.2d at 694. Part of Sheetz's claim against Bowles is that Bowles committed malpractice by not raising certain objections at trial and thus not properly preserving these alleged errors.See footnote 15 ¹⁵

        One of these unpreserved alleged errors that was asserted on appeal by Sheetz was the claim that the jury, because it was improperly instructed, had given Ms. Vandevender an impermissible “double recovery” by awarding her both emotional distress damages and punitive damages.

        That is, Sheetz argued on appeal in Vandevender that the jury had impermissibly awarded Ms. Vandevender money for the same damages twice -- first as emotional distress damages, and second as punitive damages. Sheetz argued on appeal that the jury's punitive damages award against Sheetz should be entirely stricken because of this allegedly erroneous “double recovery.”

        On this point, Sheetz has stated to the federal district court in the instant case:

         If [Bowles] had properly preserved an objection to this duplicative damages jury instruction, the [West Virginia] Supreme Court of Appeals would have stricken the entire punitive damages award. . . . The [West Virginia Supreme] Court made clear [in Vandevender] that, due to a lack of supporting evidence, it would have overturned the duplicative award were it not for the procedural defect caused by [Bowles'] errors. . . . The only reason the [West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals] did not strike the punitive damages award was because [Bowles] failed to preserve an appropriate objection to it.

(Emphasis added.)

        Sheetz thus says that in Vandevender this Court clearly recognized that a jury had awarded and a trial judge had approved an entirely illegal multimillion-dollar punitive damages award -- and that we nevertheless sustained that wrongful award, solely on the grounds of a procedural defect in preserving the issue for appeal.

        This characterization by Sheetz of this Court's consideration of the alleged errors that Sheetz asserted in its appeal of the jury's verdict in Vandevender misapprehends how this Court reviews asserted but unpreserved alleged trial errors.

        The fact that this Court in an opinion states that it is not addressing the merits of an asserted but unpreserved alleged trial court error does not imply that the assertion is meritorious -- or that this Court would have found reversible error if the alleged error had been properly preserved.

        In fact, this Court's “plain error” doctrine is specifically designed for the purpose of addressing and correcting errors that go to matters of fundamental fairness, but that were not properly preserved at trial. Syllabus Point 7 of State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (1995) states:

         To trigger application of the “plain error” doctrine, there must be (1) an error; (2) that is plain; (3) that affects substantial rights; and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

See also Cordial v. Ernst & Young, 199 W.Va. 119, 483 S.E.2d 248 ( 1996) (citing Miller); Mollohan v. Black Rock Contracting, Inc., 160 W.Va. 446, 449, 235 S.E.2d 813, 815 (1977); Earp v. Vanderpool, 160 W.Va. 113, 232 S.E.2d 513 (1976).         If the alleged “double recovery” error that Sheetz asserted on appeal in Vandevender had been plain, had affected substantial rights, and had seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings, this Court had both the authority and the duty to use the plain error doctrine to correct it. To the extent that our decision in Vandevender, not to invoke the plain error doctrine to address asserted but unpreserved alleged trial court errors, permits any inference, the correct inference would be that the asserted errors did not meet the substantive tests that the plain error doctrine embraces.

        With respect to Sheetz's underlying substantive contention that the punitive damages award that we approved in Vandevender violated principles of West Virginia law that prohibit “double recovery” -- a contention that we declined to discuss in our Vandevender opinion, noting that it had not been preserved at trial -- the district court's fourth certified question references certain “double recovery” principles that were discussed in Tudor v. Charleston Area Medical Center, 203 W.Va. 111, 506 S.E.2d 554 (1997), a case that was decided 5 months after the Vandevender opinion was issued. We reproduce in a footnote Syllabus Points 12, 13, 14, and 15 of Tudor.See footnote 16 ¹⁶

        In Syllabus Point 12 of Tudor, this Court recognized that both punitive damages and damages for emotional distress could be separate items of recovery in a retaliatory discharge case, if a jury found an employer's actions to be wanton, willful or malicious. See also Stump v. Ashland, Inc., 201 W.Va. 541, 553, 499 S.E.2d 41, 53 (1997) (rejecting a “double recovery” challenge to plaintiff's request for separate punitive damages and emotional distress damages in a case where claims for both wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress were made.)

        We recognized in Tudor that in the tort of the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, emotional distress is a more integral part of the cause of action itself than is the case with other causes of action, where emotional distress is but one type of injury or damages that can result from actionable conduct. Similarly, the intent or recklessness that generally forms the basis of a punitive damages award in connection with most causes of action is a more integral part of the tort of the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress .See footnote 17 ¹⁷

        For these reasons, we have recognized that there is a greater possibility with intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress claims of a blurring of punitive and emotional distress damages, and therefore of an impermissible double recovery. Consequently, to guide circuit courts in reviewing punitive damage awards in connection with intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress claims, Syllabus Points 14 and 15 of Tudor were crafted. See the emphasized text of Syllabus Points 14 and 15 of Tudor, note 16 supra.

         Syllabus Points 14 and 15 of Tudor recognize that in the case of an intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress claim, if there is not substantial and concrete evidence of a plaintiff's physical, emotional or psychiatric injury, some or all of an emotional distress damages award may actually be punitive damages. If it appears to a trial court that is reviewing punitive damages awarded for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress that there has been such a duplicative or misplaced award, the court should modify the punitive damages award accordingly. Id. See footnote 18 ¹⁸

        The Vandevender emotional distress and punitive damages awards, of course, were not based on the tort of intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, but rather on claims of termination and retaliation in violation of our human rights and workers' compensation statutes.See footnote 19 ¹⁹ The specific “double recovery” concerns that arise in the case of the tort of the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress that we addressed in Syllabus Points 14 and 15 of Tudor are not applicable to the Vandevender case.

        As set forth in Syllabus Point 12 of Tudor, note 16 supra, the recovery of both emotional distress damages (where such distress, of course, is proven) and punitive damages (where the employer's misconduct is sufficiently egregious to meet the standards established in our punitive damages jurisprudence) has been held to be authorized in employment law cases generally. See, e.g., McClung v. Marion County Com'n, 178 W.Va. 444, 360 S.E.2d 221 (1987) (award of punitive damages in retaliatory discharge case is appropriate where wrongful conduct is wanton, wilful or malicious); Haynes v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 206 W.Va. 18, 521 S.E.2d 331 (1999) (punitive damages are available in Human Rights Act cases). See footnote 20 ²⁰

         Sheetz's contention, that this Court knowingly sustained a clearly illegal punitive damages award in Vandevender, is simply wrong. See footnote 21 ²¹

        Based on the foregoing discussion, our answer to the district court's fourth certified question is “yes” -- however, the specific principles and procedures that are set forth in Syllabus Points 14 and 15 of Tudor v. Charleston Area Medical Center , 203 W.Va. 111, 506 S.E.2d 554 (1997) are limited to the tort of the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress.

W.Va. 673, 289 S.E.2d 692 (1982).
         3. In order for a plaintiff to prevail on a claim for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, four elements must be established. It must be shown: (1) that the defendant's conduct was atrocious, intolerable, and so extreme and outrageous as to exceed the bounds of decency; (2) that the defendant acted with the intent to inflict emotional distress, or acted recklessly when it was certain or substantially certain emotional distress would result from his conduct; (3) that the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress; and, (4) that the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.
Syllabus Points 2 and 3, Travis v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 202 W.Va. 369, 504 S.E.2d 419 (1998).