153 N.E.3d 272
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1981 Elizabeth White contracted with Indianapolis Fertility, Inc. and Physician to be artificially inseminated using an anonymous medical‑school resident donor; Physician promised donor sperm would be used in no more than three successful procedures in a defined area.
- Physician instead used his own sperm to inseminate Elizabeth; Matthew was born in 1982.
- The family discovered in 2016 that Physician had used his own sperm with multiple patients; Elizabeth and Matthew filed administrative and court claims in late 2016 and 2018 alleging breach of contract, medical negligence, negligent hiring/retention, and gross negligence.
- Appellants moved to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing Matthew had not pleaded third‑party beneficiary status, a duty owed to him before conception, or compensable injuries (invoking wrongful‑life concerns).
- The trial court denied the 12(B)(6) motion; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the complaint stated any set of facts entitling Matthew to relief and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract — third‑party beneficiary status | Matthew alleges the contract was intended to provide him the direct benefit of existence (conception, intrauterine development, birth) and imposed a duty in his favor | Defendants say Matthew cannot show intent to benefit a third party and thus cannot enforce the contract | Complaint’s allegations, taken as true, plead a factual scenario in which Matthew could be a third‑party beneficiary; dismissal improper |
| Negligence — duty owed preconception | Matthew alleges Appellants owed him reasonable medical care as a foreseeable beneficiary of the insemination process | Defendants argue no duty existed to Matthew before he was conceived | Under Walker and related authorities, the complaint pleads operative facts from which a duty to the child could be inferred; dismissal improper |
| Compensable injury vs. wrongful life | Matthew alleges physical and emotional harms from defendants’ negligence (not that his existence is an injury) | Defendants characterize the claim as wrongful life, which Indiana rejects | The claim is not wrongful life as pleaded; Matthew alleges compensable harms and may pursue damages through discovery |
| Emotional distress / damages and gross negligence preservation | Matthew alleges emotional and physical damages and gross negligence (reckless conduct) | Defendants argue emotional damages are limited and appellate review of gross negligence is waived | Under Bader emotional distress may be recoverable if direct impact or analogous circumstances; gross negligence issue not waived here; sufficiency of damages to be tested at trial/discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Trail v. Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest Ind., 845 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. 2006) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of pleadings / T.R. 12(B)(6) review)
- Walker v. Rinck, 604 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 1992) (physician may owe duty to future/third‑party children where harm is foreseeable and public policy supports duty)
- Bader v. Johnson, 732 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. 2000) (modified impact rule permitting emotional‑distress damages where plaintiff sustains direct impact from negligence)
- Cowe by Cowe v. Forum Group, Inc., 575 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 1991) (distinguishes wrongful birth and wrongful life nomenclature)
- Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., 87 N.E.3d 462 (Ind. 2017) (dismissal under T.R. 12(B)(6) improper unless plaintiff cannot possibly recover)
- Sims v. Beamer, 757 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (de novo review of denial of a 12(B)(6) motion)
- Capitol Neon Signs, Inc. v. Indiana Nat’l Bank, 501 N.E.2d 1082 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (notice‑pleading: complaint sufficient if it notifies defendant why plaintiff sues)