Spence v. Cherian v. Spence
135 A.3d 1282
| Del. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Spence, an HIV-positive patient, had his prescription information disclosed to his son’s father at a Rite Aid on June 17, 2014.
- The disclosure occurred when the Rite Aid clerk showed two HIV-related medications to Michael Spence’s father and Cherian explained they were antiviral drugs.
- Michael Spence learned of his diagnosis, which caused emotional distress to him and his family, including conversations between his parents about his condition.
- Michael sued Rite Aid and Cherian for multiple claims, and Rite Aid filed a third-party complaint against Mr. Spence seeking contribution as a joint tortfeasor.
- At argument on the motion to dismiss, Rite Aid conceded several claims could not be asserted against Spence, leaving the door open only for certain tort theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do health-related claims survive against Spence? | Rite Aid contends Spence is liable as a joint tortfeasor. | Spence argues those claims cannot be asserted against him. | Dismissed health/contract/negligence claims against Spence. |
| Does Rite Aid plead public disclosure of private facts against Spence? | Rite Aid asserts Spence disclosed private HIV information to his wife and others. | Spence had no intent to publicize beyond a limited circle. | Dismissed; no publicity beyond a single close confidant alleged. |
| Is there a viable IIED claim against Spence? | Rite Aid alleges Spence’s conduct was extreme and outrageous. | Spence’s conduct was well-meaning and not extreme or outrageous. | Dismissed; conduct not extreme or outrageous. |
| Is there a viable NIED claim against Spence? | Rite Aid argues duty and foreseeability of distress from Spence’s actions. | No duty owed by Spence to Michael established. | Dismissed; no duty and no zone of danger established. |
| Is promissory estoppel claim viable against Spence? | Rite Aid alleges a promise by Spence relied upon by Michael. | No promise alleged or relied upon by Michael from Spence. | Dismissed; no enforceable promise alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Huang, 610 A.2d 1341 (Del. 1992) (duty, standard of care, and tort analysis guidance)
- Miller v. Ellis, 122 A.2d 314 (Del. Super. Ct. 1956) (joinder and third-party liability principles)
- Riedel v. ICI Americas Inc., 968 A.2d 17 (Del. 2009) (duty and foreseeability in negligence contexts)
- Hunt v. State, 69 A.3d 360 (Del. 2013) (extreme and outrageous standard for IIED)
- Duphily v. Delaware Elec. Co-op, Inc., 662 A.2d 821 (Del. 1995) (supervening causes and relevance to liability analysis)
- Cent. Mortg. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Capital Holdings LLC, 27 A.3d 531 (Del. 2011) (methodology for evaluating motions to dismiss in mortgage-related disputes)