loss of consortium claim in Indiana

2016Estate of Wade v. U-Haul Intern., 745 N.E.2d 755, 764 (Ind. 2001). (explaining that “if the spouse’s cause of action for personal injury fails, the loss of consortium claim fails with it”).

2014“By this we mean that if the spouse’s cause of action for personal injury fails, the loss of consortium claim falls with it.” Id.

2020Id. at 342 .

2020Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 177. [30] In Board of Commissioners of Cass County v. Nevitt, we held that while a loss of consortium claim is “derivative,” termination of the spouse’s personal injury claim does not necessarily terminate the loss of consortium claim. 448 N.E.2d 333, 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).

2008The court did emphasize the centrality of the definition of “bodily injury,” noting that “[w]here the automobile liability policy includes loss of consortium or loss of services in the definition of ‘bodily injury,’ courts have logically concluded that the deprived-spouse’s loss of consortium claim is a distinct ‘bodily injury’ and is not subject to the per person liability limit applicable to the injured-spouse, but is a separate ‘bodily injury’ within the meaning of the policy. [See Giardino v. Fierke, 160 Ill.App.3d 648 , 112 Ill.Dec. 559 , 513 N.E.2d 1168 (1987); Allstate Ins.

2008The court did emphasize the centrality of the definition of “bodily injury,” noting that “[w]here the automobile liability policy includes loss of consortium or loss of services in the definition of ‘bodily injury,’ courts have logically concluded that the deprived-spouse’s loss of consortium claim is a distinct ‘bodily injury’ and is not subject to the per person liability limit applicable to the injured-spouse, but is a separate ‘bodily injury’ within the meaning of the policy. [See Giardino v. Fierke, 160 Ill.App.3d 648 , 112 Ill.Dec. 559 , 513 N.E.2d 1168 (1987); Allstate Ins.

1992While we do not quarrel with Dr. Mernitz's characterization of the loss of consortium claim, see Kolkman v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. (1987), Ind.App., 511 N.E.2d 478, 480 , transfer denied, we concluded above that summary judgment was improvidently granted on Count II of the complaint.

1992While we do not quarrel with Dr. Mernitz's characterization of the loss of consortium claim, see Kolkman v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. (1987), Ind. App., 511 N.E.2d 478, 480 , transfer denied, we concluded above that summary judgment was improvidently granted on Count II of the complaint.

2020However, citing Putnam County v. Caldwell, 505 N.E.2d 85, 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), here, the trial court observed that when a spouse is pursuing a loss of consortium claim against a governmental entity, that spouse must file his own notice of tort claim. .

2008In Mercury Insurance Co. v. Ayala, 116 Cal. App.4th 1198 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 158, 162 (2004), the court held that failing to provide a separate per person limit of liability for a loss of consortium claim did not violate the applicable statute.

2008In Mercury Insurance Co. v. Ayala, 116 Cal. App.4th 1198 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 158, 162 (2004), the court held that failing to provide a separate per person limit of liability for a loss of consortium claim did not violate the applicable statute.

2008In Daley v. Allstate Insurance Co., 135 Wash.2d 777 , 958 P.2d 990, 993-98 (1998), the court concluded that the statutory expression "damages for bodily injury" did not include damages for emotional distress unrelated to an insured's physical injury.

2008In Daley v. Allstate Insurance Co., 135 Wash.2d 777 , 958 P.2d 990, 993-98 (1998), the court concluded that the statutory expression “damages for bodily injury” did not include damages for emotional distress unrelated to an insured’s physical injury.

2008Co., 732 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), we treat the policy as applying to "bodily injury, sickness or disease," notwithstanding the slight difference between the language of the policy and the language of the statute. [2] Medley herself had also been a passenger in the vehicle. [3] In Mercury Insurance Co. v. Ayala, 116 Cal. App.4th 1198 , 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 158, 162 (2004), the court held that failing to provide a separate per person limit of liability for a loss of consortium claim did not violate the applicable statute.

2008Id. at 539.

2001Wine-Settergren v. Lamey, 716 N.E.2d 381, 390-91 (Ind.1999); Mayhue v. Sparkman, 653 N.E.2d 1384, 1386-87 (Ind.1995).

2001Wine-Settergren v. Lamey, 716 N.E.2d 381, 390-91 (Ind.1999); Mayhue v. Sparkman, 653 N.E.2d 1384, 1386-87 (Ind.1995).

2001Wine, Settergren, 716 N.E.2d at 390-91 (spouse may not bring loss of consortium claim where injured spouse's claim is barred by Worker's Compensation Statute). - The reason for this requirement is rarely stated, but we think it sound.

2001Wine-Settergren v. Lamey, 716 N.E.2d 381, 390-91 (Ind.1999); Mayhue v. Sparkman, 653 N.E.2d 1384, 1386-87 (Ind.1995).

2000See e.g., Cummings, 715 N.E.2d at 15 . [11] Alabama ( Young v. Bryan, 445 So.2d 234, 238 (Ala.1983) (only damages recoverable for wrongful death are punitive damages)); Alaska ( Tommy's Elbow Room v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Alaska 1986)); Arizona ( Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 42 , 703 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1985)); Arkansas ( Vickery v. Ballentine, 293 Ark. 54, 56 , 732 S.W.2d 160, 162 (1987)); Connecticut ( Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 292 , 472 A.2d 306, 312 (1984)); Florida ( Martin v. United Sec.

2000See e.g., Cummings, 715 N.E.2d at 15 . [11] Alabama ( Young v. Bryan, 445 So.2d 234, 238 (Ala.1983) (only damages recoverable for wrongful death are punitive damages)); Alaska ( Tommy's Elbow Room v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Alaska 1986)); Arizona ( Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 42 , 703 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1985)); Arkansas ( Vickery v. Ballentine, 293 Ark. 54, 56 , 732 S.W.2d 160, 162 (1987)); Connecticut ( Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 292 , 472 A.2d 306, 312 (1984)); Florida ( Martin v. United Sec.

2000This court determined that in addition to suing for wrongful death, the decedent’s wife could sue in her own capacity for loss of consortium. 715 N.E.2d at 10 .

2000See e.g., Cummings, 715 N.E.2d at 15 .

2000See e.g., Cummings, 715 N.E.2d at 15 . [11] Alabama ( Young v. Bryan, 445 So.2d 234, 238 (Ala.1983) (only damages recoverable for wrongful death are punitive damages)); Alaska ( Tommy's Elbow Room v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Alaska 1986)); Arizona ( Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 42 , 703 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1985)); Arkansas ( Vickery v. Ballentine, 293 Ark. 54, 56 , 732 S.W.2d 160, 162 (1987)); Connecticut ( Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 292 , 472 A.2d 306, 312 (1984)); Florida ( Martin v. United Sec.

2000See e.g., Cummings, 715 N.E.2d at 15 . [11] Alabama ( Young v. Bryan, 445 So.2d 234, 238 (Ala.1983) (only damages recoverable for wrongful death are punitive damages)); Alaska ( Tommy's Elbow Room v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Alaska 1986)); Arizona ( Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 42 , 703 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1985)); Arkansas ( Vickery v. Ballentine, 293 Ark. 54, 56 , 732 S.W.2d 160, 162 (1987)); Connecticut ( Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 292 , 472 A.2d 306, 312 (1984)); Florida ( Martin v. United Sec.

2000See e.g., Cummings, 715 N.E.2d at 15 . [11] Alabama ( Young v. Bryan, 445 So.2d 234, 238 (Ala.1983) (only damages recoverable for wrongful death are punitive damages)); Alaska ( Tommy's Elbow Room v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Alaska 1986)); Arizona ( Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 42 , 703 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1985)); Arkansas ( Vickery v. Ballentine, 293 Ark. 54, 56 , 732 S.W.2d 160, 162 (1987)); Connecticut ( Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 292 , 472 A.2d 306, 312 (1984)); Florida ( Martin v. United Sec.

2000See e.g., Cummings, 715 N.E.2d at 15 . [11] Alabama ( Young v. Bryan, 445 So.2d 234, 238 (Ala.1983) (only damages recoverable for wrongful death are punitive damages)); Alaska ( Tommy's Elbow Room v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Alaska 1986)); Arizona ( Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 42 , 703 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1985)); Arkansas ( Vickery v. Ballentine, 293 Ark. 54, 56 , 732 S.W.2d 160, 162 (1987)); Connecticut ( Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 292 , 472 A.2d 306, 312 (1984)); Florida ( Martin v. United Sec.

2000See e.g., Cummings, 715 N.E.2d at 15 . [11] Alabama ( Young v. Bryan, 445 So.2d 234, 238 (Ala.1983) (only damages recoverable for wrongful death are punitive damages)); Alaska ( Tommy's Elbow Room v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Alaska 1986)); Arizona ( Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 42 , 703 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1985)); Arkansas ( Vickery v. Ballentine, 293 Ark. 54, 56 , 732 S.W.2d 160, 162 (1987)); Connecticut ( Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 292 , 472 A.2d 306, 312 (1984)); Florida ( Martin v. United Sec.

2000See e.g., Cummings, 715 N.E.2d at 15 . [11] Alabama ( Young v. Bryan, 445 So.2d 234, 238 (Ala.1983) (only damages recoverable for wrongful death are punitive damages)); Alaska ( Tommy's Elbow Room v. Kavorkian, 727 P.2d 1038, 1048-49 (Alaska 1986)); Arizona ( Bryant v. Silverman, 146 Ariz. 41, 42 , 703 P.2d 1190, 1196 (1985)); Arkansas ( Vickery v. Ballentine, 293 Ark. 54, 56 , 732 S.W.2d 160, 162 (1987)); Connecticut ( Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 192 Conn. 280, 292 , 472 A.2d 306, 312 (1984)); Florida ( Martin v. United Sec.

1999Nelson v. Denkins, 598 N.E.2d 558 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); accord Persons v. United States, 925 F.2d 292, 297 (9th Cir.1991) (“current legal standards” view loss of consortium *391 claims as “derivative” of the injured spouse’s negligence action; accordingly, when the injured spouse’s personal injury action is barred by statute, so is the other spouse’s loss of consortium action).

1998As Forte bases her claim for punitive damages under the veritable umbrella of a loss of consortium claim, our supreme court recognized in Dearborn Fabricating & Eng’g v. Wickham, 551 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind.1990), that the predominant element in the concept of consortium has been described as the “loss of the sexual relationship.” See also Barton-Malow Co., Inc. v. Wilburn, 556 N.E.2d 324, 325 (Ind.1990).

1998As Forte bases her claim for punitive damages under the veritable umbrella of a loss of consortium claim, our supreme court recognized in Dearborn Fabricating & Eng’g v. Wickham, 551 N.E.2d 1135, 1139 (Ind.1990), that the predominant element in the concept of consortium has been described as the “loss of the sexual relationship.” See also Barton-Malow Co., Inc. v. Wilburn, 556 N.E.2d 324, 325 (Ind.1990).