Case Name: "F.B.C.", a Pseudonym, Appellant/Cross-Appellee/Plaintiff, v. MDWISE, INC., d/b/a MDwise, MDwise Network, Inc., and MDwise Marketplace, Inc., Appellees/Cross-Appellants/Defendants.
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 2019-04-16
Citations: 122 N.E.3d 834
Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CT-1934
Parties: "F.B.C.", a Pseudonym, Appellant/Cross-Appellee/Plaintiff,
v.
MDWISE, INC., d/b/a MDwise, MDwise Network, Inc., and MDwise Marketplace, Inc., Appellees/Cross-Appellants/Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Eastern Reporter 3d
Volume: 122
Pages: 834–841

Head Matter:
"F.B.C.", a Pseudonym, Appellant/Cross-Appellee/Plaintiff,
v.
MDWISE, INC., d/b/a MDwise, MDwise Network, Inc., and MDwise Marketplace, Inc., Appellees/Cross-Appellants/Defendants.
Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CT-1934
Court of Appeals of Indiana.
FILED April 16, 2019
Case Summary
[1] In 2017, F.B.C. and her husband ("Husband") had a health insurance policy with MDwise, Inc., d/b/a MDwise; MDwise Network, Inc.; MDwise Marketplace, Inc. (collectively "Insurer"). In May of 2017, F.B.C. was tested for various sexually transmitted diseases, and Insurer posted a statement ("the Statement") listing testing for the diseases on its web portal which was accessible by Husband as the primary policyholder. Husband viewed the Statement which F.B.C. alleges caused him to cease reconciliation of their marriage and proceed with their pending divorce. F.B.C. filed suit against Insurer alleging, inter alia , disclosure of private facts to a particular public ("Disclosure"), intrusion ("Intrusion"), and outrage ("Outrage"). Insurer moved to dismiss all claims, which motion was granted by the trial court on all claims except Outrage. F.B.C. contends that the trial court erroneously dismissed her claims of Disclosure and Intrusion. Insurer contends that the trial court erroneously denied its motion to dismiss F.B.C.'s Outrage claim. Because we conclude that all three claims should have been dismissed as a matter of law, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to dismiss F.B.C.'s Outrage claim.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2017, F.B.C. and Husband were attempting to reconcile before following through with their pending divorce. The couple had a health insurance policy through Insurer, on which Husband was the primary policyholder. On May 17, 2017, F.B.C. was tested for various sexually transmitted diseases. When Husband logged into Insurer's online web portal, he accessed the Statement which listed, inter alia , the diseases for which F.B.C. was tested. As a result, F.B.C. alleges that Husband refused to continue reconciliation and proceeded with the pending divorce.
[3] On January 16, 2018, F.B.C. filed a complaint against Insurer alleging, inter alia , Disclosure, Intrusion, and Outrage. On March 12, 2018, Insurer moved to dismiss all counts pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). The trial court granted Insurer's motion to dismiss F.B.C.'s Disclosure and Intrusion claims but denied the motion as to the Outrage claim.
Discussion and Decision
[4] F.B.C. contends that the trial court erroneously dismissed her claims of Disclosure and Intrusion. Insurer contends that the trial court erroneously denied its motion to dismiss F.B.C.'s Outrage claim. Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) is a motion to dismiss for "[f]ailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]"
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it. When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the non-movant's favor. We review a trial court's grant or denial of a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion de novo . We will not affirm such a dismissal unless it is apparent that the facts alleged in the challenged pleading are incapable of supporting relief under any set of circumstances.

Opinion:
Thornton v. State , 43 N.E.3d 585, 587 (Ind. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
I. Disclosure
[5] F.B.C. contends that the trial court erroneously dismissed her Disclosure claim. Because the tort of Disclosure has not yet been recognized in Indiana, we disagree. In Doe v. Methodist Hospital , the Indiana Supreme Court declined to adopt Disclosure, which is a sub-tort of invasion of privacy, as an actionable claim. 690 N.E.2d 681, 693 (Ind. 1997). The Court recognized that while neighboring states have adopted a more liberal Disclosure standard, it was not persuaded to adopt Disclosure as a cognizable claim in Indiana. Id. at 692-93. See also Felsher v. University of Evansville , 755 N.E.2d 589, 593 (Ind. 2001) ("Our discussion of [the history of the invasion of privacy tort] and the Second Restatement served as a prelude to our decision not to recognize a branch of the tort involving the public disclosure of private facts."). F.B.C. has failed to establish that the trial court erroneously dismissed her Disclosure claim.
II. Intrusion
[6] F.B.C. contends that the trial court erroneously dismissed her Intrusion claim. Intrusion occurs when there has been an "intrusion upon the plaintiff's physical solitude or seclusion as by invading his home or conducting an illegal search." Cullison v. Medley , 570 N.E.2d 27, 31 (Ind. 1991). F.B.C. does not claim any physical intrusion by Insurer but, rather, claims that Insurer intruded upon her emotional solace. However, we have specifically chosen not to recognize claims of Intrusion where the intrusion only invades plaintiff's emotional solace. See Westminster Presbyterian Church of Muncie v. Yonghong Cheng , 992 N.E.2d 859, 868-69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (concluding that the tort of Intrusion has only been found where there was an intrusion by physical contact or an invasion of plaintiff's physical space, and refusing to extend it to cases where the only intrusion is upon plaintiff's emotional solace), trans. denied . Because F.B.C. only claims that Insurer intruded upon her emotional solace, we conclude that the trial court correctly dismissed her claim of Intrusion.
III. Outrage
[7] Insurer cross-appeals, contending that the trial court erroneously denied its motion to dismiss F.B.C.'s Outrage claim. Outrage (also referred to as intentional infliction of emotional distress) is caused by "one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another." Branham v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc. , 744 N.E.2d 514, 522-23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (internal citations omitted), trans. denied . To prove Outrage, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant (1) engages in extreme and outrageous conduct that (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes (4) severe emotional distress to another. Id. at 523. In appropriate cases, the question of what constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct can be decided as a matter of law. Id. Conduct is extreme and outrageous
only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, Outrageous!
Conwell v. Beatty , 667 N.E.2d 768, 777 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (internal quotations omitted).
[8] We conclude that Insurer's alleged conduct was not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law. F.B.C. alleges that Insurer caused her severe emotional distress by posting the Statement listing the various diseases that she was tested for on its web portal, which was subsequently viewed by Husband. This is not conduct which is utterly intolerable in a civilized community but, rather, routine in today's technologically-driven society. Health insurance companies maintain web portals to allow policyholders instant access to their personal medical information, insurance claims, etc., and the current matter is no exception. Husband was the primary policyholder with instant access to the couple's medical insurance information through Insurer's web portal. Even if we assume, which we do not, that Insurer intended to cause F.B.C. severe emotional distress by posting the Statement for Husband to view, the conduct still does not amount to extreme and outrageous. Therefore, the trial court erred by failing to dismiss F.B.C.'s Outrage claim.
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to dismiss F.B.C.'s Outrage claim.
Brown, J., concurs.
Bailey, J., dissents with opinion.