What is loss of consortium?

Useful Rulings on Loss of Consortium

Rulings on Loss of Consortium

1-25 of 1622 results

WILLIAM SONG VS LAILA HAVRE JACOBSMA, ET AL.

The lawyer failed to inform the couple that the wife had a potential claim for loss of consortium. The Court assumed, for purposes of the motion, the claim for loss of consortium was viable. By the time the wife learned of the claim, it was barred by the statute of limitations. The non-injured party (the wife) with the loss of consortium claim sued the attorney for legal malpractice for damages flowing from the loss of her own loss of consortium claim.

  • Hearing

DAVID DARBINYAN ET AL VS CSJ PROVIDENCE ST JOSEPH MEDICAL CE

The Boeken court concluded that the primary right at issue in the plaintiff's wrongful death action for loss of consortium was the same as the primary right at issue in her previous common law action for loss of consortium which was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, and therefore the res judicata doctrine barred the wrongful death action insofar as it concerned loss of consortium. (Boeken (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 804 [emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB V. WENDEE CARR

As Plaintiff points out, the Policy specifies that the “per person” limit applies to damages for loss of consortium. Moreover, “loss of consortium” is specifically mentioned in the relevant Policy excerpt, as is “each person,” referring to the per person limit stated in the Policy’s declarations. (See Compl., Ex. A, p. 16.) As noted in Warner, a loss of consortium claim is derivative of the underlying personal injury claim.

  • Hearing

SILVESTRE VERDIN ET AL VS DENNIS PATRICK JONES ET AL

Loss of Consortium Defendants also demur to the Loss of Consortium cause of action. Defendants argue that to the extent that Plaintiffs intended to state a cause of action for Loss of Consortium, the Complaint fails to allege facts to support it.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ESCONTRIAS V. CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES

As to the third cause of action, Juan’s loss of consortium claim is based on the personal injuries suffered by his wife Gina. However, a loss of consortium claim is an independent claim. Cause of action separate and distinct from injured victim's claim: Although a loss of consortium action derives from injury to plaintiff's spouse or registered domestic partner, it is separate and distinct from the injured victim's damages action.

  • Hearing

  • County

    San Luis Obispo County, CA

ANNALISA HUGHES VS PROVIDENCE LITTLE CO OF MARY MEDICAL CENT

Here, Plaintiff’s first and third causes of action are for medical malpractice (wrongful death) and loss of consortium. The elements for loss of consortium cause of action are (1) a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the person injured at the time of the injury; (2) a tortious injury to the plaintiff's spouse; (3) loss of consortium suffered by the plaintiff; and (4) the loss was proximately caused by the defendant's act.” (Vanhooser v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 921, 927.)

  • Hearing

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB V. WENDEE CARR

As Plaintiff points out, the Policy specifies that the “per person” limit applies to damages for loss of consortium. Moreover, “loss of consortium” is specifically mentioned in the relevant Policy excerpt, as is “each person,” referring to the per person limit stated in the Policy’s declarations. (See Compl., Ex. A, p. 16.) As noted in Warner, a loss of consortium claim is derivative of the underlying personal injury claim.

  • Hearing

PATRICK WILLIAM KINSELLA ET AL VS JOEL BAUTISTA GARCIA ET AL

Motion: Plaintiffs seek leave to file a first amended complaint adding a cause of action for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs admit to confusion over whether it was necessary to plead a cause of action for loss of consortium in order to obtain damages for loss of consortium. Also, plaintiffs contend that an expert opinion obtained in September 2019 indicating Ms.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ERIC BELLINGER VS ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS INC ET AL

In her allegations under this cause of action, she does not reference loss of consortium. 2nd cause of action for negligence/loss of consortium The elements for a cause of action for loss of consortium are “’(1) a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the person injured at the time of the injury; (2) a tortious injury to the plaintiff’s spouse; (3) loss of consortium suffered by the plaintiff; and (4) the loss was proximately caused by the defendant’s act.’” LeFiell Mfg. Co. v.

  • Hearing

SILVESTRE VERDIN ET AL VS DENNIS PATRICK JONES ET AL

Loss of Consortium Defendants also demur to the Loss of Consortium cause of action. Defendants argue that to the extent that Plaintiffs intended to state a cause of action for Loss of Consortium, the Complaint fails to allege facts to support it.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BRIAN GARLIN VS NICODART INC ET AL

At this time, Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint to add a claim for loss of consortium on behalf of his wife. As an initial note, Plaintiff erroneously contends the loss of consortium cause of action “relates back” to the claims asserted in his complaint. In Bartalo v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 526, 533, the court expressly held that a claim for loss of consortium does NOT relate back to a complaint for personal injuries.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

KENNTH BANKS VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

Loss of Consortium Defendants also demur to the Loss of Consortium cause of action. Defendants argue that to the extent that Plaintiffs intended to state a cause of action for Loss of Consortium, the Complaint fails to allege facts to support it.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SAMVEL ALOYAN ET AL VS HERMOZ B AYVAZIAN DPM

These allegations show that both Plaintiff Aloyan and Plaintiff Galstyan are pursuing independent claims of loss of consortium. There are four elements that must be shown for a cause of action for loss of consortium: “(1) a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the person injured at the time of the injury; (2) a tortious injury to the plaintiff’s spouse; (3) loss of consortium suffered by the plaintiff; and (4) the loss was proximately caused by the defendant’s act.” (Vanhooser v.

  • Hearing

SEUNG HEE NO ET AL VS THE HAIRCUTTERS ET AL

There is insufficient evidence to support Seung Hee No’s claimed emotional distress damages of $500,000 and Woo Geun Yoo’s claimed loss of consortium damages of $100,000. Plaintiffs should further explain in detail No’s emotional distress damages and Yoo’s loss of consortium damages. The Court may set a prove-up hearing at which testimony can be taken.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MANOUK MESROPYAN, ET AL. VS STEVEN BEAUCHMAN

(Wis. 1999) 229 Wis.2d 489, 511-12 [exculpatory contract does not defeat a spouse's right to recovery for loss of consortium; loss of consortium is a separate cause of action occasioned by a spouse's injury which never belonged to the injured spouse].)

  • Hearing

FRANCISCO SALAS, ET AL. VS JOE FILETO, ET AL.

Finally, the loss of consortium action fails, due to the lack of any valid, underlying claim by Francisco. Plaintiffs in opposition request leave to amend. On the assault, battery and negligence causes of action, Plaintiffs agree to withdraw the respondeat superior allegations and proceed under the “doctrine of ratification” [Sec. Amend. Comp., ¶¶ 59-74.]

  • Hearing

GRIGOR ALEKSANIAN ET AL VS NEIL EVERETT CAPANO

Loss of Consortium Defendants also demur to the Loss of Consortium cause of action. Defendants argue that to the extent that Plaintiffs intended to state a cause of action for Loss of Consortium, the Complaint fails to allege facts to support it.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BIANCA A DICKERSON ET AL VS TRISTAN FAMILY BICKMAN M D ET AL

Demurrer to Third Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium Demurring Defendant demurs to the third cause of action for loss of consortium on grounds that it is uncertain and does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Demurring Defendant argues that no facts are pled with regard to an act or omission committed by her. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition.

  • Hearing

ROBERTSON VS. EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER

Robertson seeks recovery for loss of consortium. Defendant Walgreen Co. demurs to the 1st and 2nd causes of action in Plaintiffs’ Complaint for medical negligence and Loss of Consortium.

  • Hearing

JEFFREY BOYAJIAN, ET AL. VS SHAD GROVES, DC

The complaint alleges medical malpractice and loss of consortium for deficient chiropractic treatment rendered on March 2, 2019. On February 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant. The FAC adds additional facts and causes of action for negligence and loss of consortium based on negligence in addition to what was alleged in the initial complaint.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JOSEPH DEAN TERRY ET AL VS MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY INC ET A

This evidence would be relevant because Plaintiff Jennifer Terry has raised a loss of consortium claim. Any evidence of infidelity between Plaintiff Joseph Dean Terry and Plaintiff Jennifer Terry may account for the loss of consortium and demonstrate that the loss of consortium was not caused by the accident.

  • Hearing

FRANCISCO GONZALEZ VS. TORO ENTERPRISES INC

Plaintiff Aurora Gonzalez's loss of consortium claim, when combined with the above discovery responses and deposition testimony, place her medical history directly at issue in two ways. First, her life expectancy is a critical factor in measuring the time period over which her loss of consortium damages should be calculated. (See, e.g., Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 788, 800.)

  • Hearing

EICHENAUER VS. GUTIERREZ

Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 746 (“A cause of action for loss of consortium is, by its nature, dependent on the existence of a cause of action for tortious injury to a spouse.”; “The elements of a loss of consortium claim are: 1) a valid and lawful marriage between the plaintiff and the person injured at the time of the injury; (2) a tortious injury to the plaintiff's spouse; (3) loss of consortium suffered by the plaintiff; and (4) the loss was proximately caused by the defendant's act.”)

  • Hearing

DEBORAH KERN, ET AL. VS HOTEL MAYA, ET AL.

Demurrer to Claim for Loss of Consortium In paragraph 11, the Plaintiffs seek damages for loss of consortium. In California, each spouse has a cause of action for loss of consortium caused by a negligent or intentional injury to the other spouse by a third party.¿ Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 382, 408.¿ Here, Deborah Kern alleges that she suffered personal injuries when she slipped and fell on the Defendants’ premises.

  • Hearing

DAVID KRAVIS VS GRISHA TODOROV, ET AL.

The statute of limitations period for a claim for loss of consortium is two years from the date of the spouse’s injury and is triggered when the injury resulting in the loss of consortium occurs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; Priola v. Paulino (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 380, 390-91.) A spouse’s claim to loss of consortium is a wholly different legal liability or obligation and does not relate back to a plaintiff’s injury. (Bartalo v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 526, 533.)

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 65     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.