loss of consortium claim in Illinois

1995(Brown v. Metzger (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 30, 38-39 .) Neither the antenuptial agreement provision that the plaintiff would not make a claim as to "any part of her spouse’s estate” (emphasis added) nor the plaintiff’s assent to waive any right "she had, now has, or may hereafter acquire against the Estate” (emphasis added) affects the survival of the plaintiff’s loss of consortium claim.

1995(Hall v. Gillins (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 26 ; Knierim v. Izzo (1961), 22 Ill. 2d 73 ; Elliott, 92 Ill. 2d 530 .) The two most recent opinions of our supreme court, however, concerning the potential for double recovery with a loss of consortium claim (Brown, 104 Ill. 2d 30 ; Schrock, 159 Ill. 2d 533 ) do not confine themselves to consortium claims in conjunction with either personal injury actions (Brown, 104 Ill. 2d 30 ) or claims arising under the Structural Work Act (Schrock, 159 Ill. 2d 533 ) and also have relevancy to the instant case.

2012See Martin v. Illinois Farmers Insurance, 318 Ill.App.3d 751, 763 , 252 Ill.Dec. 310 , 742 N.E.2d 848 (2000) ("loss of consortium is a derivative claim to the direct injury that causes it and, as a result, is generally included and subject to the policy limitations for bodily injury to one person"); Schweighart v. Standard Mutual Insurance Co., 227 Ill.App.3d 249, 253 , 169 Ill.Dec. 241 , 591 N.E.2d 121 (1992).

2012See Martin v. Illinois Farmers Insurance, 318 Ill.App.3d 751, 763 , 252 Ill.Dec. 310 , 742 N.E.2d 848 (2000) ("loss of consortium is a derivative claim to the direct injury that causes it and, as a result, is generally included and subject to the policy limitations for bodily injury to one person"); Schweighart v. Standard Mutual Insurance Co., 227 Ill.App.3d 249, 253 , 169 Ill.Dec. 241 , 591 N.E.2d 121 (1992).

2012See also Manders v. Pulice, 44 Ill.2d 511, 516 , 256 N.E.2d 330 (1970) (in suit arising from automobile collision where jury found in favor of plaintiff but awarded zero damages to the plaintiff's husband for loss of consortium, the jury's zero-damage award on the loss of consortium claim was against the manifest weight of the evidence, since testimony at trial showed that the wife was active and had a pleasant disposition prior to the accident, but afterwards became withdrawn and uncommunicative, and the husband had lost wages for time he took off work to bring his wife to doctors); Dixon v.

2012See also Manders v. Pulice, 44 Ill.2d 511, 516 , 256 N.E.2d 330 (1970) (in suit arising from automobile collision where jury found in favor of plaintiff but awarded zero damages to the plaintiff's husband for loss of consortium, the jury's zero-damage award on the loss of consortium claim was against the manifest weight of the evidence, since testimony at trial showed that the wife was active and had a pleasant disposition prior to the accident, but afterwards became withdrawn and uncommunicative, and the husband had lost wages for time he took off work to bring his wife to doctors); Dixon v.

2004Furby, 154 Mich. App. at 349 , 397 N.W.2d at 307 (Danhof, C.J., dissenting).

2004Furby, 154 Mich. App. at 349 , 397 N.W.2d at 307 (Danhof, C.J., dissenting).

2001Co., 247 Md. 95, 109 , 231 A.2d 514, 522 (1967) (the danger of duplicative awards is minimized if the consortium and injury actions are regarded as a single right of action, to which both husband and wife are parties, in which only a single, joint verdict is allowed); Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 514 , 170 N.W.2d 865, 869 (1969) (to guard against double recovery, a wife shall have her loss of consortium action only if it is joined for trial with the husband’s own action for his injury against the same defendant). •5 Section 2—1009(a) of the Code gives plaintiffs “an unfettered

2001Co., 247 Md. 95, 109 , 231 A.2d 514, 522 (1967) (the danger of duplicative awards is minimized if the consortium and injury actions are regarded as a single right of action, to which both husband and wife are parties, in which only a single, joint verdict is allowed); Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 514 , 170 N.W.2d 865, 869 (1969) (to guard against double recovery, a wife shall have her loss of consortium action only if it is joined for trial with the husband’s own action for his injury against the same defendant). •5 Section 2—1009(a) of the Code gives plaintiffs “an unfettered

2001Mary’s Hospital, 176 Conn. 485, 494 , 408 A.2d 260, 264 (1979) (the joinder of the loss of consortium claim with the physical injury claim before a single trier of fact minimizes the danger of improper verdicts); Deems v. Western Maryland Ry.

2001Mary’s Hospital, 176 Conn. 485, 494 , 408 A.2d 260, 264 (1979) (the joinder of the loss of consortium claim with the physical injury claim before a single trier of fact minimizes the danger of improper verdicts); Deems v. Western Maryland Ry.

2001Co., 247 Md. 95, 109 , 231 A.2d 514, 522 (1967) (the danger of duplicative awards is minimized if the consortium and injury actions are regarded as a single right of action, to which both husband and wife are parties, in which only a single, joint verdict is allowed); Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 514 , 170 N.W.2d 865, 869 (1969) (to guard against double recovery, a wife shall have her loss of consortium action only if it is joined for trial with the husband’s own action for his injury against the same defendant). •5 Section 2—1009(a) of the Code gives plaintiffs “an unfettered

2001Co. , 247 Md. 95, 109 , 231 A.2d 514, 522 (1967) (the danger of duplicative awards is minimized if the consortium and injury actions are regarded as a single right of action, to which both husband and wife are parties, in which only a single, joint verdict is allowed); Thill v. Modern Erecting Co. , 284 Minn. 508, 514 , 170 N.W.2d 865, 869 (1969) (to guard against double recovery, a wife shall have her loss of consortium action only if it is joined for trial with the husband's own action for his injury against the same defendant).

1996See Kotecki, 146 Ill. 2d 155 , 585 N.E.2d 1023 ; Christensen, 276 Ill.

1996See Kotecki, 146 Ill. 2d 155 , 585 N.E.2d 1023 ; Christensen, 276 Ill.

1991App. 3d 117, 131.) The Erickson court found that three recent, post-AZws cases (Hammond v. North American Asbestos Corp. (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 195 ; Brown v. Metzger (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 30 ; Page v. Hibbard (1987), 119 Ill. 2d 41 ) support a finding that negligence attributed to the physically injured spouse would not be imputed to a loss-of-consortium claim.

1991Neither does it change the fact that, in Illinois, a loss-of-consortium claim is an “independent action to recover for injuries the spouse has suffered” (Page, 119 Ill. 2d at 48 ).

1991App. 3d 117, 131.) The Erickson court found that three recent, post-AZws cases (Hammond v. North American Asbestos Corp. (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 195 ; Brown v. Metzger (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 30 ; Page v. Hibbard (1987), 119 Ill. 2d 41 ) support a finding that negligence attributed to the physically injured spouse would not be imputed to a loss-of-consortium claim.

1991(See Brown v. Metzger (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 30, 38 [, 470 N.E.2d 302, 306 ]; Hammond v. North American Asbestos Corp. (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 195, 208-09 [, 454 N.E.2d 210, 218 ].” (Page v. Hibbard (1987), 119 Ill. 2d 41, 48 , 518 N.E.2d 69, 72 .) A loss-of-consortium claim is based on a “transferred negligence” theory.

1997For example, in Creamer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 161 Ill.

1997For example, in Creamer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 161 Ill.

2023While 23 Elliott did not mention the material services component of the loss of consortium claim, it affirmed an appellate court decision which held that the trial court should have given the jury an instruction on loss of consortium, ‘i.e., lost services, society, companionship and sex.’ (Emphasis added.) (Elliott v. Willis[, 89 Ill.

1987While Elliott did not mention the material services component of the loss of consortium claim, it affirmed an appellate court decision which held that the trial court should have given the jury an instruction on loss of consortium, “i.e., lost services, society, companionship and sex.” (Emphasis added.) (Elliott v. Willis (1980), 89 Ill.

2012Co., 383 Ill.App.3d 453, 472 , 322 Ill.Dec. 405 , 891 N.E.2d 420 (2008) (against manifest weight of evidence for jury to award injured railroad worker damages *1211 for pain and suffering and economic loss but not for disability where "the uncontroverted evidence was that plaintiff was disabled for a certain period of time after the accident"). ¶ 44 Chrysler, 238 Ill.App.3d 673 , 179 Ill.Dec. 721 , 606 N.E.2d 553 , cited by South Shore on this point, is readily distinguishable, insofar as there was evidence in that case to permit an inference that the defendant's conduct did not actually depri

2012Co., 383 Ill.App.3d 453, 472 , 322 Ill.Dec. 405 , 891 N.E.2d 420 (2008) (against manifest weight of evidence for jury to award injured railroad worker damages *1211 for pain and suffering and economic loss but not for disability where "the uncontroverted evidence was that plaintiff was disabled for a certain period of time after the accident"). ¶ 44 Chrysler, 238 Ill.App.3d 673 , 179 Ill.Dec. 721 , 606 N.E.2d 553 , cited by South Shore on this point, is readily distinguishable, insofar as there was evidence in that case to permit an inference that the defendant's conduct did not actually depri

2012Berutti v. State Farm Mutual Automobile *645 Insurance Co., 288 Ill.App.3d 997, 1000 , 224 Ill.Dec. 655 , 682 N.E.2d 216 (1997).

2012Berutti v. State Farm Mutual Automobile *645 Insurance Co., 288 Ill.App.3d 997, 1000 , 224 Ill.Dec. 655 , 682 N.E.2d 216 (1997).

1996See Kotecki, 146 Ill. 2d 155 , 585 N.E.2d 1023 ; Christensen, 276 Ill.

1996Christensen v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 276 Ill.