consortium claim in Florida

2019See Boswell , 211 So.3d at 212 ; Effective Teleservices, Inc. , 132 So.3d at 339 .

2019See Boswell , 211 So.3d at 212 ; Effective Teleservices, Inc. , 132 So.3d at 339 .

2017See ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So.2d 492, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (stating that “the legislature did not intend for a spouse’s consortium claim to survive an injured spouse’s death from his or her injuries by the fact that the legislature has provided for wrongful death damages that are inclusive of a spouse’s loss of consortium damages”).

2006See ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So.2d 492, 493-94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that loss of consortium is a derivative claim that is dependent on the spouse's ability to recover in a cause of action against the same defendant).

2014Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Resmondo v. Int’l Builders of Fla., Inc., 265 So.2d 72, 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).

1997Rather, instead of reading these cases as standing for the proposition that the loss of consortium claim survives the primary action, we read these cases to stand for the proposition that the primary cause of action for personal injury and the derivative cause of action for loss of consortium are "separate and distinct." Busby, 80 So.2d at 676 (holding that a husband's consortium claim is "separate and distinct" from his wife's personal injury claim and may be maintained without joinder of the injured wife); Piper, 523 So.2d at 197-98 (holding that a wife's failure to give notice by filing her

2014Instead, the term “separate and distinct” means that a spouse can maintain a consortium claim in situations where there has not been joinder of the injured spouse, Busby v. Winn & Lovett Miami, Inc., 80 So.2d 675, 676 (Fla.1955), or where the injured spouse has executed a consent judgment or a release as to his or her claim.

1997Rather, instead of reading these cases as standing for the proposition that the loss of consortium claim survives the primary action, we read these cases to stand for the proposition that the primary cause of action for personal injury and the derivative cause of action for loss of consortium are "separate and distinct." Busby, 80 So.2d at 676 (holding that a husband's consortium claim is "separate and distinct" from his wife's personal injury claim and may be maintained without joinder of the injured wife); Piper, 523 So.2d at 197-98 (holding that a wife's failure to give notice by filing her

2011See Peterson v. Sun State Int’l Trucks, LLC, 56 So.3d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where husband of plaintiff presented substantial, undisputed evidence sufficient to require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict for loss of consortium claim was inadequate); Big Lots Stores, Inc. v. de Diaz, 18 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding that undisputed evidence presented on plaintiffs loss of consortium claim was sufficient to “require an award of at least nominal damages”); Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[I]t is ... well

2009See Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that where the plaintiff established entitlement to some damages for loss of consortium, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law), and citations therein; Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“When the claiming spouse presents evidence that is substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship, such spouse is entitled to receive at least nominal damages for loss of consortium.”); Fleming v. Albertson’s, I

2009See Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that where the plaintiff established entitlement to some damages for loss of consortium, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law), and citations therein; Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ("When the claiming spouse presents evidence that is substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship, such spouse is entitled to receive at least nominal damages for loss of consortium."); Fleming v. Albertson's, I

2009See Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that where the plaintiff established entitlement to some damages for loss of consortium, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law), and citations therein; Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“When the claiming spouse presents evidence that is substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship, such spouse is entitled to receive at least nominal damages for loss of consortium.”); Fleming v. Albertson’s, I

2009See Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that where the plaintiff established entitlement to some damages for loss of consortium, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law), and citations therein; Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ("When the claiming spouse presents evidence that is substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship, such spouse is entitled to receive at least nominal damages for loss of consortium."); Fleming v. Albertson's, I

2009See Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that where the plaintiff established entitlement to some damages for loss of consortium, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law), and citations therein; Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“When the claiming spouse presents evidence that is substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship, such spouse is entitled to receive at least nominal damages for loss of consortium.”); Fleming v. Albertson’s, I

2009See Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that where the plaintiff established entitlement to some damages for loss of consortium, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law), and citations therein; Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ("When the claiming spouse presents evidence that is substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship, such spouse is entitled to receive at least nominal damages for loss of consortium."); Fleming v. Albertson's, I

2009See Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that where the plaintiff established entitlement to some damages for loss of consortium, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law), and citations therein; Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“When the claiming spouse presents evidence that is substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship, such spouse is entitled to receive at least nominal damages for loss of consortium.”); Fleming v. Albertson’s, I

2014Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So.2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Resmondo v. Int’l Builders of Fla., Inc., 265 So.2d 72, 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).

1997Rather, instead of reading these cases as standing for the proposition that the loss of consortium claim survives the primary action, we read these cases to stand for the proposition that the primary cause of action for personal injury and the derivative cause of action for loss of consortium are "separate and distinct." Busby, 80 So.2d at 676 (holding that a husband's consortium claim is "separate and distinct" from his wife's personal injury claim and may be maintained without joinder of the injured wife); Piper, 523 So.2d at 197-98 (holding that a wife's failure to give notice by filing her

2022The Fifth District also extended the Tremblay rule to include a situation where the plaintiffs were aware before the marriage that conduct that ultimately caused the injury—the wife’s exposure to radiation—had occurred even though they were not aware that she had been injured from the exposure. 5 Id.; see also Bashaway v. Cheney Bros., 987 So. 2d 93 , 95– 5The Fullerton court certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: WHETHER THE COMMON–LAW RULE SET FORTH IN TREMBLAY V.

2015Further, in Materiale , the Second District Court of Appeal noted that apportionment of the settlement amount can be particularly important where a loss of consortium claim is involved because a defendant may elect to settle the consortium claim for a minimal amount, but proceed to trial on the primary claim. 787 So.2d at 175 ; see also id. at 176 (Casanueva, J., concurring) (“[Wjhere a consortium claim is joined with a claim for personal injuries, the former claim may be more amenable to settlement than the latter because it may involve less money.”).

2015Further, in Materiale , the Second District Court of Appeal noted that apportionment of the settlement amount can be particularly important where a loss of consortium claim is involved because a defendant may elect to settle the consortium claim for a minimal amount, but proceed to trial on the primary claim. 787 So.2d at 175 ; see also id. at 176 (Casanueva, J., concurring) (“[Wjhere a consortium claim is joined with a claim for personal injuries, the former claim may be more amenable to settlement than the latter because it may involve less money.”).

2013See generally Lithgow v. Hamilton, 69 So.2d 776 (Fla.1954) (defining consortium).

2012The Second District explained that “if such a rule were adopted, in every case containing a consortium claim, where a defendant or one of the plaintiffs are entitled to fees for one claim, that party would automatically be able to obtain fees for work done on both cases.” Id. at 612 .

2012The Blanton court went on to hold that while the trial court properly found that the prevailing consortium claimant did not satisfy his burden of allocating attorney’s fees to his consortium claim or showing that the issues were so intertwined that allocation was not feasible, the trial court erred in allocating 25% of the attorney’s fees to the consortium claim because there was no evidence presented supporting that finding. 5 Id. at 613 .

2011See Peterson v. Sun State Int’l Trucks, LLC, 56 So.3d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where husband of plaintiff presented substantial, undisputed evidence sufficient to require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict for loss of consortium claim was inadequate); Big Lots Stores, Inc. v. de Diaz, 18 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding that undisputed evidence presented on plaintiffs loss of consortium claim was sufficient to “require an award of at least nominal damages”); Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[I]t is ... well

2011See Peterson v. Sun State Int’l Trucks, LLC, 56 So.3d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where husband of plaintiff presented substantial, undisputed evidence sufficient to require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict for loss of consortium claim was inadequate); Big Lots Stores, Inc. v. de Diaz, 18 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding that undisputed evidence presented on plaintiffs loss of consortium claim was sufficient to “require an award of at least nominal damages”); Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[I]t is ... well

2011See Peterson v. Sun State Int’l Trucks, LLC, 56 So.3d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (where husband of plaintiff presented substantial, undisputed evidence sufficient to require an award of at least nominal damages, a zero verdict for loss of consortium claim was inadequate); Big Lots Stores, Inc. v. de Diaz, 18 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (finding that undisputed evidence presented on plaintiffs loss of consortium claim was sufficient to “require an award of at least nominal damages”); Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[I]t is ... well

2009See Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that where the plaintiff established entitlement to some damages for loss of consortium, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law), and citations therein; Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ("When the claiming spouse presents evidence that is substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship, such spouse is entitled to receive at least nominal damages for loss of consortium."); Fleming v. Albertson's, I

2009See Tavakoly v. Fiddlers Green Ranch of Fla., Inc., 998 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that where the plaintiff established entitlement to some damages for loss of consortium, a zero verdict is inadequate as a matter of law), and citations therein; Jones v. Double D Props., Inc., 901 So.2d 929, 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“When the claiming spouse presents evidence that is substantial, undisputed, and unrebutted concerning the impact the injury had on the marital relationship, such spouse is entitled to receive at least nominal damages for loss of consortium.”); Fleming v. Albertson’s, I

2001See Wall v. Palm Beach County, 743 So.2d 44, 44-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

1998See Waldron v. Dorsey, 585 So.2d 403, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Christopher v. Bonifay, 577 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).