"F.B.C.", a Pseudonym v. MDWISE, INC., d/b/a MDWISE, MDWISE NETWORK, INC., and MDWISE MARKETPLACE, INC.
122 N.E.3d 834
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff (F.B.C.) and her husband had a health-insurance policy with MDwise; husband was the primary policyholder.
- In May 2017 MDwise posted on its online portal a statement listing STD tests performed for F.B.C.; husband viewed the posting and learned the information.
- F.B.C. alleges husband ceased reconciliation and proceeded with divorce after seeing the portal entry.
- F.B.C. sued MDwise for public disclosure of private facts (Disclosure), intrusion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Outrage).
- The trial court granted MDwise’s T.R. 12(B)(6) motion dismissing Disclosure and Intrusion claims but denied dismissal of Outrage; MDwise appealed the denial as to Outrage and F.B.C. appealed the dismissals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Disclosure and Intrusion and reversed the trial court’s denial, instructing dismissal of Outrage as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana recognizes Disclosure (public disclosure of private facts) | F.B.C.: MDwise disclosed sensitive medical testing to a particular person (husband); this is actionable disclosure to a particular public | MDwise: Indiana has not adopted the disclosure tort; dismissal appropriate | Held: Indiana has not recognized the tort; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Intrusion covers nonphysical/emotional intrusions | F.B.C.: Intrusion includes intrusion into emotional solace from disclosure of private medical info | MDwise: Intrusion requires physical intrusion or invasion of physical space; emotional-only intrusion not actionable | Held: Indiana law confines actionable intrusion to physical invasion; emotional-only claim dismissed |
| Whether posting the test-listing supports Outrage (IIED) | F.B.C.: Posting sensitive, specific STD testing information was extreme/outrageous and caused severe emotional distress | MDwise: Posting on an insurer web portal to the primary policyholder is routine/insurance-related and not extreme as a matter of law | Held: Conduct not extreme/outrageous as matter of law; Outrage claim must be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornton v. State, 43 N.E.3d 585 (Ind. 2015) (standard of review for T.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Doe v. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. 1997) (declining to recognize public disclosure of private facts tort)
- Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. 2001) (refusing to recognize branch of invasion-of-privacy tort for public disclosure)
- Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991) (defining intrusion as invasion of physical solitude or seclusion)
- Branham v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 744 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Conwell v. Beatty, 667 N.E.2d 768 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (extreme and outrageous conduct standard)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dana Corp., 759 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. 2001) (noting unsettled extent of invasion-of-privacy recognition in Indiana)
- Robbins v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., 45 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (discussion urging reconsideration of recognition of disclosure tort given technological changes)
- Westminster Presbyterian Church v. Yonghong Cheng, 992 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (declining to extend intrusion tort to nonphysical emotional intrusions)
- Munsell v. Hambright, 776 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (noting intrusion may arguably embrace emotional solace)
- Nichols v. Guy, 2 Ind. 82 (Ind. 1850) (historical recognition of social harm from allegations of venereal disease)