With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 311, 871 P.2d at 967 (stating that courts permit recovery for mental anguish caused by breach of contract in cases in which the purpose of the contract would be frustrated unless such damages were awarded, for example in a contract for funeral services). New Mexico does not recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress as a cause of action except for bystander liability. Jaynes, 1998-NMSC-004, ¶ 21, 124 N.M. 613, 954 P.2d 45. {22} Although New Mexico courts have not directly addressed the issue of emotional distress in legal malpractice cases, other jurisdictions provide guidance. Most jurisdictions do not allow recovery for emotional distress in legal malpractice absent extreme and outrageous conduct. See, e.g., Selsnick v. Horton, 96 Nev. 944, 620 P.2d 1256, 1257 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The court’s reasoning in Lickteig v.

A: 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
B: holding that it is not enough that the defendant has acted with an intent that is tortious malicious or even criminal or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress the conduct itself must be extreme and outrageous
C: holding that since appellants suit against attorney was premised solely on ordinary negligence and since appellant did not allege nor attempt to prove extreme and outrageous conduct appellant may not recover damages for emotional distress
D: holding inter alia that expert testimony was not required to prove damages for emotional distress in an abuse of process claim
C.