In what circumstances will an insurer be required to accept an emotional distress claim from a plaintiff who was injured in a motor vehicle accident?

In the case at bench, there was no preexisting relationship between the parties. The existence of a preexisting relationship affects the determination of reasonable foreseeability. In Crisci v. Security Ins. Co., supra, 66 Cal.2d 425, 58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 426 P.2d 173, the court examined another emotional distress claim where an insurer breached its covenant to deal in good faith with its insured. The court noted that an insured purchases insurance "to protect ... against the risks of accidental losses, including the mental distress which might follow from the losses. Among the considerations in purchasing liability insurance, as insurers are well aware, is the peace of mind and security it will provide in the event of an accidental loss, and recovery of damages for mental suffering has been permitted for breach of contracts which directly concern the comfort, happiness or personal esteem of one of the parties. [Citation.]" (Id., at p. 434, 58 Cal.Rptr. 13, 426 P.2d 173.) It is because of the relationship between the parties that the court determined it was reasonably foreseeable to the insurer that rejecting a claim in bad faith may create emotional distress.