loss of consortium claim in Missouri

2024It was in this context that the court observed that “[n]either a vicarious liability claim, nor a loss of consortium claim, can exist without a viable underlying negligence claim by the injured patient against the treating physician.” Id.

2024Medical Group cites Tiemann v. SSM Reg’l Health Servs. for the principles that “[c]laims asserting vicarious liability against an employer and claims for loss of consortium by a spouse, are both derivative of the patient’s underlying negligence claim against the physician” and “[n]either a vicarious 3 All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 as updated through RSMo Cum.Supp. (2018), unless otherwise noted. 12 liability claim, nor a loss of consortium claim, can exist without a viable underlying negligence claim by the injured patient against the treating physician.” 632 S.W.3d 833 , 843 (Mo.A

2015“The claim encompasses the other spouse’s loss of affection, care, companionship, and services, as well as an impairment or destruction of the sexual life of the married couple, due to the conduct of a tortfeasor.” Id. 5 The Commission’s decision was based upon Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. v. Royse, 125 F.Supp. 2d 375 (E.D.

2014"Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party has demonstrated, on the basis of facts as to which there is no genuine dispute, a right to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (internal quotation omitted). 1 John Pogue, the husband of Loretta Pogue, intervened in the action and filed a loss of consortium claim.

2013This argument is thus without merit, because “[s]eeming contradictions in an insurance policy must be harmonized if reasonably possible.” Sage, 273 S.W.3d at 36 .

2009Mistler, 816 S.W.2d at 244 .

2004The Supreme Court reached the same outcome in the companion case of Butcher v. O’Connor, 401 S.W.2d 490 (Mo.1966), which involved a loss of consortium claim brought by Butcher’s husband against the same defendants.

2001M.C., 11 S.W.3d at 614 ; Burke, 945 S.W.2d at 664 ; Cragin v. Lobbey, 537 S.W.2d 193, 195 (Mo.App.1976); Stahlheber v. Am.

2001Felts v. Ford Motor Co., 916 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Mo.App.1995); Miller v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 896 S.W.2d 734 (Mo.App.1995); DuBose v. Flightsafety Intern.

1995The court thus borrowed the parties’ assumption “without deciding its correctness.” Id. at 153 n. 1.

1994By distinguishing these cases, the Cano court indicated such language would not be ambiguous when referring to loss of consortium damages.” 873 S.W.2d at 885-86 . 2 Finding Fildes to be dispositive, we reject Defendants’ argument that we should distinguish Eaves and Chambers because this is a loss of consortium claim.

1992Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492 (11th Cir.1985).

1992Even though a loss of consortium claim is derivative of the injured spouse’s claim, Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 636 F.Supp. 585 (W.D.Mo.1986), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 820 F.2d 928 (8th Cir.1987), it is a separate and distinct cause of action from a claim of personal injury in an asbestosis action.

1992Even though a loss of consortium claim is derivative of the injured spouse’s claim, Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 636 F.Supp. 585 (W.D.Mo.1986), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 820 F.2d 928 (8th Cir.1987), it is a separate and distinct cause of action from a claim of personal injury in an asbestosis action.

1983Kaelin v. Nuelle, 537 S.W.2d 226 (Mo.App.1976); Annot., Award of Damages to Only One Spouse, 66 A.L.R.3d 472 (1975).

1974That the rubric of MAI 31.04 imports no such limitation is clearly the meaning of Robben v. Peters, supra, 427 S.W.2d 1 .c. 756 [1], which approved the use of MAI 31.04 [then 26.04] for the loss of consortium claim of a wife and, in doing so, condemned a submission for failure to require the “thereby sustained damage” finding of paragraph Third of MAI 31.04.