What Did the Court Rule in Regard to the Plaintiff's

Multiple Choice

What did the court rule in regard to the plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Olson v. CenturyLink, the case in the text in which the plaintiff alleged that representatives of the defendant, a provider of telephone services, wrongly failed to process his application, disconnected his telephone service, and hung up on him during telephone conversations?

A) That the conduct complained of by the plaintiff failed to meet the level of conduct required for a finding of the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
B) That the plaintiff's complaint regarding the disconnection of his telephone service was sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress but that the plaintiff's other allegations were insufficient to support an award based on the tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
C) That the plaintiff's complaint regarding the refusal to process his application was sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress but that the plaintiff's other allegations were insufficient to support an award based on the tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
D) That the plaintiff's complaint regarding representatives hanging up on him were sufficient to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress but that the plaintiff's other allegations were insufficient to support an award based on the tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
E) That the plaintiff would be allowed to proceed as to all allegations because they were all adequate to support a verdict based on the intentional infliction of emotional distress.