What is loss of consortium?

Useful Resources for Loss of Consortium

Rulings on Loss of Consortium

76-100 of 1703 results

PINGPING MICHELLE LOKE ET AL VS JENNIFER D ESTEBAN ET AL

Loss of Consortium The claim for loss of consortium is dependent on the existence of a cause of action for tortious injury to a spouse. (Vanhooser v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 921, 927.) Yeo claims loss of consortium as a result of the injuries sustained by his wife, Loke. (Fact 23.) As there are no triable issues of material fact on the medical negligence claim alleged against St. Joseph, the Court finds there are no triable issues on Yeo’s derivative loss of consortium claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MOUSAVI V. CITY OF TUSTIN

This plaintiff alleges loss of consortium. But there are no allegations in the Complaint, nor evidence in any discovery responses, that suggest she is seeking any damages for psychological harm to her. The defendants seem to suggest that a psychological examination is appropriate whenever a party makes a claim for loss of consortium. The defendants do not cite any case that addresses that specific issue. Both Leonard v. John Crane, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1274 and Lantis v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY VS. STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

The settlement allocated $250,000 to Theresa's loss of consortium claim. Starr contends that this portion of the settlement was not paid on behalf of MTS because Theresa Long did not sue MTS. Theresa's loss of consortium claim was only filed against defendants HMS and ACE. However, whether MTS was actually sued for loss of consortium is not the issue. The underlying Settlement and Release Agreement indicates that Theresa and David were paid on behalf of HMS, ACE and MTS.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2018

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN RE: MARYANN ARTS

s loss of consortium claims are denied in the exercise of the court?s discretion based on the lack of prejudice to defendants and plaintiffs? recent retention of counsel who is able to proceed with those claims. The motion of Owens-Illinois and all joinders thereto for mandatory dismissal of Jerold Arts? loss of consortium claim is granted since more than five years have expired and there is no exception to the mandatory five year rule.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2009

NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY VS. STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

The settlement allocated $250,000 to Theresa's loss of consortium claim. Starr contends that this portion of the settlement was not paid on behalf of MTS because Theresa Long did not sue MTS. Theresa's loss of consortium claim was only filed against defendants HMS and ACE. However, whether MTS was actually sued for loss of consortium is not the issue. The underlying Settlement and Release Agreement indicates that Theresa and David were paid on behalf of HMS, ACE and MTS.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2018

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STACY VALERO ET AL VS CAMPCLAR CORPORATION ET AL

of consortium.

  • Hearing

    Apr 06, 2017

MARCO CHAVIRA, ET AL. VS ALEXANDER MENDEZ, M.D., ET AL.

Defendants also argue that they require the records to ascertain alternative sources of Plaintiff’s alleged psychological injuries and his wife’s loss of consortium. However, Defendants concede that Plaintiff sought counseling with Dr. Quarry relating to his amputation, since that is her specialty. For that reason, it is unlikely that her records would contain information unrelated to Plaintiff’s amputation. In other words, Dr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JOHN DOBROCKE ET AL VS. ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS (B*P) AS REFLECTED ON EXHIBITS ET AL

Motion granted as to second cause of action (strict liability), third cause of action (false representation), fourth cause of action (loss of consortium), fifth cause of action (premises liability), and punitive damages request. Motion conceded as to false representation. No triable issue of fact regarding strict liability, no evidence defendant sold or supplied asbestos containing product that defendant was exposed to.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2010

DEE ANN ABELAR ET AL VS JOHN R DINGILIAN M.D. ET AL

[I]t stands or falls based on whether the spouse of the party alleging loss of consortium has suffered an actionable tortious injury”].)

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

PAOLA NUNEZ VS WEST COAST UNIVERSITY, INC.,, ET AL.

As such, it is improper for Plaintiff to claim a loss of consortium for the slip-and-fall that Plaintiff was directly involved in, giving rise to this action. The demurrer is OVERRULED. The motion to strike is GRANTED with 20 days’ leave to amend. The language in paragraph 11g on page 3 of Plaintiff’s complaint that reads “Loss of consortium, love, protection, companionship and other related injuries and damages” is STRICKEN.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2019

NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY VS. STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

The settlement allocated $250,000 to Theresa's loss of consortium claim. Starr contends that this portion of the settlement was not paid on behalf of MTS because Theresa Long did not sue MTS. Theresa's loss of consortium claim was only filed against defendants HMS and ACE. However, whether MTS was actually sued for loss of consortium is not the issue. The underlying Settlement and Release Agreement indicates that Theresa and David were paid on behalf of HMS, ACE and MTS.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2018

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOHN LOWRY AND HEATHER LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

. § 30104); (2) Maintenance and Cure; (3) Unseaworthiness; and (4) Loss of Consortium. (Compl., passim.) Plaintiff John Lowry alleges that, on March 11, 2016 and while employed with Defendant, he was injured in a fall while attempting to board a vessel moored at a pier. Plaintiffs now seek to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”). With the proposed FAC, Plaintiff Heather Lowry will abandon her claim for loss of consortium, meaning Mrs. Lowry will no longer be a party to this action.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

JOHN LOWRY AND HEATHER LOWRY V. PORT SAN LUIS HARBOR DISTRICT

. § 30104); (2) Maintenance and Cure; (3) Unseaworthiness; and (4) Loss of Consortium. (Compl., passim.) Plaintiff John Lowry alleges that, on March 11, 2016 and while employed with Defendant, he was injured in a fall while attempting to board a vessel moored at a pier. Plaintiffs now seek to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”). With the proposed FAC, Plaintiff Heather Lowry will abandon her claim for loss of consortium, meaning Mrs. Lowry will no longer be a party to this action.

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2018

DEANE MONROE, ET AL. VS MILLICENT ROVELO, MD, ET AL.

DISCUSSION As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendant has moved for summary judgment on both medical malpractice and loss of consortium. While the complaint alleges Plaintiff David suffered loss of consortium, this allegation was made in the medical malpractice cause of action. To this extent, it does not appear loss of consortium was ever properly asserted as a separate cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HEDGECOCK VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

Hedgecock are recoverable as to the Mr Hedgecock's loss of consortium claim when the costs appear to be jointly incurred for Ms. Hedgecock's underlying liability claim. Given that the costs are not indivisible from the liability claim, the City has not shown that they are entitled to costs for the defense of the loss of consortium claim.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CONCHITA VICTOR ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The County demurs to the third cause of action for loss of consortium because: (1) it is barred since Plaintiff Jaime’s government tort claim does not reflect this cause of action, (2) the complaint fails to identify the statutory basis for a loss of consortium claim, and (3) it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain. CCP § 430.10(e), (f).

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2017

ALLADAWI VS. PLAZA-IRVINE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

Injury is an essential element of any cause of action, and there is no cause of action for loss of consortium without injury to the spouse. (Id. at pp. 927-928.) Moving Defendants contend that the TAC fails to plead a viable underlying injury to support a loss of consortium claim.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

SCHOTZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 6th cause of action is sustained. 7th Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium Defendants argue that Leslie's loss of consortium claim accrued when Gary was discharged on October 10, 2016 and is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034. Defendants also note that the statute is not tolled during the pendency of Gary's personal injury claim. Id.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SCHOTZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 6th cause of action is sustained. 7th Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium Defendants argue that Leslie's loss of consortium claim accrued when Gary was discharged on October 10, 2016 and is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034. Defendants also note that the statute is not tolled during the pendency of Gary's personal injury claim. Id.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SCHOTZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 6th cause of action is sustained. 7th Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium Defendants argue that Leslie's loss of consortium claim accrued when Gary was discharged on October 10, 2016 and is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034. Defendants also note that the statute is not tolled during the pendency of Gary's personal injury claim. Id.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

IN RE: MARYANN ARTS

s loss of consortium claims are denied in the exercise of the court?s discretion based on the lack of prejudice to defendants and plaintiffs? recent retention of counsel who is able to proceed with those claims. The motion of Owens-Illinois and all joinders thereto for mandatory dismissal of Jerold Arts? loss of consortium claim is granted since more than five years have expired and there is no exception to the mandatory five year rule.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2009

RUBEN GONZALEZ ET AL VS GEORGE WILSON ET AL

However, this Court does find that apportionment must be applied as Plaintiff Ruben’s costs were also incurred for Plaintiff Alice’s unsuccessful loss of consortium claim. This Court has found above that Alice’s loss of consortium cause of action accounted only for 5% of Plaintiff’s overall costs, and therefore this Court will tax Ruben’s $16,372.15 request by 5% or $818.61, resulting in a net cost award to Ruben in the amount of $15,553.54.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2016

SCHOTZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 6th cause of action is sustained. 7th Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium Defendants argue that Leslie's loss of consortium claim accrued when Gary was discharged on October 10, 2016 and is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034. Defendants also note that the statute is not tolled during the pendency of Gary's personal injury claim. Id.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SCHOTZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 6th cause of action is sustained. 7th Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium Defendants argue that Leslie's loss of consortium claim accrued when Gary was discharged on October 10, 2016 and is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034. Defendants also note that the statute is not tolled during the pendency of Gary's personal injury claim. Id.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SCHOTZ VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Accordingly, the demurrer to the 6th cause of action is sustained. 7th Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium Defendants argue that Leslie's loss of consortium claim accrued when Gary was discharged on October 10, 2016 and is barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Meighan v. Shore (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034. Defendants also note that the statute is not tolled during the pendency of Gary's personal injury claim. Id.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 69     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.