12 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Huffer v. Kozitzagreen2 sentences1990The derivative nature of a loss of consortium claim was recognized in Thill and reiterated in Huffer v. Kozitza, 375 N.W.2d 480, 482 (Minn.1985). 1990In Huffer, the court held that a loss of consortium claim could survive the settlement of the personal injury claim from which it was derived because “they are separate claims with separate injuries.” Id. | 4 | 4 |
Louis v. Louisgreen1 sentence2026That means we consider “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the court erred in its application of the law.” Louis v. Louis, 636 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Minn. 2 Because the loss-of-consortium claim is derivative of the negligence claim, we focus our analysis on the negligence claim. 4 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Beukhof v. Minnesota Mutual Fire & Casualty Co.green1 sentence2015Cf. Beukhof, 502 N.W.2d at 224 (stating that a loss-of-consortium claim is not a separate compensable injury, but is included in the personal injury claim). | 1 | 1 |
ABC v. Archdiocese of St. Paul & Minneapolisgreen1 sentence1996Paul & Minneapolis, 513 N.W.2d 482, 487 (Mnn.App.1994) (describing a loss of consortium claim as derivative). | 1 | 1 |
Thill v. Modern Erecting Co.green2 sentences1991See, e.g., Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 510-11 , 170 N.W.2d 865, 867-68 (1969). 1991See, e.g., Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 510-11 , 170 N.W.2d 865, 867-68 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Henning v. Winemangreen2 sentences1991If the injured employee has a spouse with a loss of consortium claim, the employee may elect to have an appropriate portion of the overall settlement set aside in satisfaction of the consortium claim, leaving only the remaining portion of the settlement subject to the subdivision 6 formula, as provided in Henning v. Wineman, 306 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn.1981). 1991If the injured employee has a spouse with a loss of consortium claim, the employee may elect to have an appropriate portion of the overall settlement set aside in satisfaction of the consortium claim, leaving only the remaining portion of the settlement subject to the subdivision 6 formula, as provided in Henning v. Wineman, 306 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Thill v. Modern Erecting Companygreen2 sentences1991See, e.g., Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 510-11 , 170 N.W.2d 865, 867-68 (1969). 1991See, e.g., Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 510-11 , 170 N.W.2d 865, 867-68 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefegreen2 sentences1990Considering the derivative nature of a loss of consortium claim and the underwriting challenges it presents, cf. Huffer v. Kozitza, 375 N.W.2d 480, 482 (Minn. 1985); Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686, 695 (Minn.1980), the damages cap on this injury appears to represent the legislature’s attempt to lower rates for tort liability insurance. 1990Considering the derivative nature of a loss of consortium claim and the underwriting challenges it presents, cf. Huffer v. Kozitza, 375 N.W.2d 480, 482 (Minn. 1985); Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe, 291 N.W.2d 686, 695 (Minn.1980), the damages cap on this injury appears to represent the legislature's attempt to lower rates for tort liability insurance. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc.green2 sentences1990See Johnson v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., 414 N.W.2d 425, 430-31 (Minn.App. 1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 24, 1987). 1990See Johnson v. Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., 414 N.W.2d 425, 430-31 (Minn.App. 1987), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 24, 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Districtgreen2 sentences1989However, unlike Minnesota, in California “the cause of action for loss of consortium is not merely derivative or collateral to the spouse’s cause of action.” Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection District, 43 Cal.3d 148, 162 , 233 Cal.Rptr. 308, 317 , 729 P.2d 743, 752 (1987). 1989However, unlike Minnesota, in California “the cause of action for loss of consortium is not merely derivative or collateral to the spouse’s cause of action.” Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection District, 43 Cal.3d 148, 162 , 233 Cal.Rptr. 308, 317 , 729 P.2d 743, 752 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Metzgergreen2 sentences1985Brown v. Metzger, 118 Ill.App.3d 855 , 74 Ill.Dec. 405 , 455 N.E.2d 834, 837-838 (2d Dist.1983) aff'd 104 Ill.2d 30 , 83 Ill.Dec. 344 , 470 N.E.2d 302 (1984) (citations omitted). 1985Brown v. Metzger, 118 Ill.App.3d 855 , 74 Ill.Dec. 405 , 455 N.E.2d 834, 837-838 (2d Dist.1983) aff'd 104 Ill.2d 30 , 83 Ill.Dec. 344 , 470 N.E.2d 302 (1984) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sicoli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences1993This court has previously held in Sicoli, 464 N.W.2d at 300 , that a loss of consortium does not constitute a “bodily injury” separate from the underlying personal injury claim. 1993Under Sicoli , for purposes of establishing policy limits, the husband’s loss of consortium claim was not considered a separate injury, but part of the claim for damages due to his wife’s bodily injury. 464 N.W.2d at 303 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Brandt v. State
green
2 sentences1990In Brandt , the court of appeals held that a loss of consortium claim is subsumed in a personal injury claim because the “consortium claim would die if judgment was rendered against [the injured party.]” Id. at 417-18 . 1990However, instead of following Huffer, the trial court followed Brandt v. State, 428 N.W.2d 412 (Minn.App.1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Rosander v. Copco Steel & Engineering Co.
green
1 sentence1985That same conclusion has been reached by at least seven other jurisdictions which have considered similar situations. 2 As one recent case states: While it is true that a cause of action for loss of consortium derives from the impaired spouse’s claim for his injury * * we agree with the court in Rosander v. Copco Steel & Engineering Co. (1982), *454 Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 990, which held that “placing actions in a derivative posture does not give one party the right to waive the rights of another.” ( 429 N.E.2d 990, 991 .) Though derivative, the loss of consortium claim is still a separate cause | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Brown v. Metzger
green
2 sentences1985Brown v. Metzger, 118 Ill.App.3d 855 , 74 Ill.Dec. 405 , 455 N.E.2d 834, 837-838 (2d Dist.1983) aff'd 104 Ill.2d 30 , 83 Ill.Dec. 344 , 470 N.E.2d 302 (1984) (citations omitted). 1985Brown v. Metzger, 118 Ill.App.3d 855 , 74 Ill.Dec. 405 , 455 N.E.2d 834, 837-838 (2d Dist.1983) aff'd 104 Ill.2d 30 , 83 Ill.Dec. 344 , 470 N.E.2d 302 (1984) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Rascop v. Nationwide Carriers
green
1 sentence1981Thus, the section does not apply to the proceeds of a settlement attributable to a loss of consortium claim, Rascop v. Nationwide Carriers, 281 N.W.2d 170 (Minn.1979), or to damages that are not recoverable under workers’ compensation, Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 258 N.W.2d 891 (Minn.1977); the employer has no subrogation interest in those recoveries. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation
green
1 sentence1981Thus, the section does not apply to the proceeds of a settlement attributable to a loss of consortium claim, Rascop v. Nationwide Carriers, 281 N.W.2d 170 (Minn.1979), or to damages that are not recoverable under workers’ compensation, Naig v. Bloomington Sanitation, 258 N.W.2d 891 (Minn.1977); the employer has no subrogation interest in those recoveries. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.