## Facts

- Two physicians began dating in January 1999 and became engaged.
- Phillips stated he did not want children before marriage and intended to use condoms if intercourse occurred; Irons allegedly agreed.
- The parties engaged in sexual activity three times; Phillips alleged there was no vaginal intercourse and only oral sex.
- Phillips alleged Irons intentionally used oral sex to obtain his semen, retained it, and artificially inseminated herself without his consent.
- Irons later admitted she was still married despite earlier representing she was divorced; the relationship ended.
- Irons gave birth on December 1, 1999 and later filed a parentage action alleging Phillips was the father.
- Phillips filed a tort action alleging: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), (2) fraudulent misrepresentation, and (3) conversion (semen as personal property).
- The circuit court dismissed all counts under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that Irons deceptively obtained Phillips’s semen, used it to conceive, and then pursued paternity/support could plead “extreme and outrageous” conduct and severe distress sufficient for IIED.
2. Whether alleged misrepresentations about marital status and reproductive intentions stated a claim for common-law fraudulent misrepresentation.
3. Whether semen, once ejaculated during consensual sexual activity and retained by another, could be treated as personal property supporting a conversion claim.

## Decision

- Reversed the section 2-615 dismissal of the IIED count and remanded for further proceedings.
- Affirmed dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation count.
- Affirmed dismissal of the conversion count.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint states IIED by alleging: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intent or substantial certainty of causing severe emotional distress, and (3) severe emotional distress caused by the conduct; whether conduct is “extreme and outrageous” can be a fact question when reasonable fact-finders could so conclude.
- Statutory parentage and child-support obligations do not categorically bar tort liability for independent, pre-conception conduct alleged to be wrongful.
- Fraud requires a false statement of material fact, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and damages; statements about personal intentions or intimate preferences are generally not actionable as fraud.
- Conversion requires wrongful dominion over another’s personal property; Illinois law does not recognize a conversion-type property interest in ejaculated semen obtained through consensual sexual activity in these circumstances.

## Conclusion

The court permitted Phillips to proceed only on an IIED theory based on alleged deceptive procurement and use of his semen to cause pregnancy and ensuing emotional harm, while rejecting fraud and conversion theories as legally insufficient.


Phillips v. Irons, No. 1-03-2992, 2005 WL 4694579 (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 22, 2005)