In July 2009, plaintiff Paul Markham, 90, a retiree, transferred the title of his vehicle over to his daughter-in-law, Diane Markham, who also served as his personal insurance agent. Mr. Markham previously had his license suspended in March 2008 for driving on the wrong side of the road and around July 2009, he claimed that he was having financial difficulties. As a result, Mr. Markham agreed to have the title of his vehicle transferred to his daughter-in-law on a temporary basis. However, after thinking it over, Mr. Markham asked his daughter-in-law to transfer the title back to his name. He claimed that in response, he received an e-mail from Ms. Markham that stated that she thought he was making a mistake and that his children did not care about him. He also claimed that Ms. Markham wrote that after the vehicle was back in his name, that it “should sever all ties between [them]” and that he should to not contact her or anyone from her office ever again. On March 24, 2010, Mr. Markham’s license was reinstated. As a result, he contacted his daughter-in-law about taking out a new policy and was referred to her office manager, who provided him with quote that was about double what he had last paid. Mr. Markham then called his daughter-in-law’s regional supervisor because he had believed he had been given an incorrect quote. After finding out that her regional supervisor was contacted, Ms. Markham sent an angry e-mail to her father-in-law, telling him to take his insurance elsewhere among other things. Mr. Markham sued Ms. Markham, alleging financial elder abuse, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, defense counsel filed a motion for nonsuit since the plaintiff retained no expert to establish that Ms. Markham breached any alleged standard of care. The motion was granted, and the negligence claim was dismissed. Mr. Markham claimed that while he was having financial difficulties, he received improper financial advice from his daughter-in-law, who advised him to run up his credit cards with cash advances, put his pristine Cadillac in her name and then declare for bankruptcy. He further claimed that Ms. Markham was trying to defraud his creditor by having the title of his vehicle transferred to her name and that by doing this, his creditor could have potentially filed a fraudulent transfer claim against him. Thus, Mr. Markham claimed that his daughter-in-law’s transfer of the title constituted financial elder abuse. Furthermore, Mr. Markham claimed that he was provided with an incorrect quote for a new policy after his license had been reinstated. He alleged that as a result, he called his daughter-in-law’s regional supervisor to simply inquire about why his insurance had gone up so much. However, he claimed that after his daughter-in-law found out that he contacted her regional supervisor, she sent him a “nasty” e-mail, which he claimed was evidence of Ms. Markham’s intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted the allegedly “nasty” e-mail into evidence and noted that part of the e-mail read, “Never bother me again. You’re a stupid old man who just doesn’t get it. F–k off once and for all, and transfer your homeowner’s policy out of my agency.” Counsel also noted that the e-mail ended with, “rot in hell.” Ms. Markham claimed that the title of the Cadillac was transferred to her name on a temporary basis until her father-in-law had his license reinstated and that she was not trying to defraud Mr. Markham’s creditor in any way by having the title transferred. She further claimed that the whole basis for having the title transferred to her name, which both parties agreed to, was to protect her father-in-law’s insurable interest in the vehicle. Ms. Markham alleged that, in fact, her father-in-law still maintained possession of his car and keys after he transferred the title, and that he was only asked to keep paying his premium. However, she claimed that Mr. Markham failed to pay his premium, which resulted in his prior policy being cancelled. In addition, Ms. Markham claimed that when her office manager presented the higher quotation for a new policy to Mr. Markham, it was because he no longer had a “good driver standing” due to the suspension of his license. Ms. Markham and her assistant also claimed that their regional supervisor informed them that Mr. Markham had called to complain about Ms. Markham and to report her. Ms. Markham alleged that she was angry when she heard that her father-in-law had complained about her to her regional supervisor, but that her e-mail to Mr. Markham was not intended to inflict emotional distress., Mr. Markham claimed that the ordeal with his daughter-in-law caused him emotional distress, which caused him to lose sleep. Thus, he sought recovery of general damages for his emotional distress. Defense counsel contended that Ms. Markham did not cause her father-in-law any emotional distress and that he was owed zero damages. Specifically, defense counsel argued that Mr. Markham’s sleeping issue was a condition that pre-existed the issue at hand.