Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14, § 302 (2026)

Action for loss of consortium

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A married person may bring a civil action in that person's own name for loss of consortium of that person's spouse.   [PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. C, §1 (NEW); PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. E, §2 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1995, c. 694, §C1 (NEW). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Steele v. Botticello, 2011 ME 72 (Me. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Steele v. Botticello, 2011 ME 72 (Me. 2011). · cites it 5× “In settling Chris’s claim, the Botticellos’ insurer did not consider any potential claims by Eryn.”
Hardy v. St. Clair, 1999 ME 142 (Me. 1999). · cites it 3× “” 14 M.R.S.A. § 302. [¶ 9] As an initial matter, the Agreement did not directly bar Carie’s consortium claim because she did not sign it and was not a party to the contract.”
Ms. K Ex Rel. S.B. v. City of South Portland, 407 F. Supp. 2d 290 (D. Me. 2006). “See 14 M.R.S.A. § 302. As such, Plaintiff cannot recover under Section 302.”
Parent v. E. Maine Med. Ctr., 884 A.2d 93 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “[¶ 11] Loss of consortium actions are authorized by 14 M.R.S.A. § 302 (2003): “A married person may bring a civil action in that person’s own name for loss of consortium of that person’s spouse.”
Laureen Fama v. Bob's LLC, 2024 ME 73 (Me. 2024). “§ 2-807(3) via the MLLA against Bob’s LLC; (4) loss of consortium under 14 M.R.S. § 302 (2024) via the MLLA against Bob’s LLC; and (5) battery against Clarke.”
Angela M. Smith, Pers. Representatives of the Est. of Peter A. Smith v. John R. Henson, 2025 ME 55 (Me. 2025). “If a person for whose benefit the action is brought is particularly close to the decedent—say, a surviving spouse or child—that person might secure a significant recovery for the loss of comfort, society, and companionship of the decedent as allowed by section 2-804(b).”
Hammerton v. B&M Develops, Inc. (Me. Super. Ct 2020). “_9_2,=--0_W_ Valerie Stanfill Justice, Maine Superior Court 2 A breach of warranty claim requires proof that the defendant's failure to construct the home is a reasonably skillful and workmanlike manner caused the plaintiff's injuries. See Wimmer v.”
Carter v. Williams (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “As it stood at that time, section 2-804 set out the monetary limitations on actions for the loss of comfort, society and companionship of the deceased without the additional language referring specifically to emotional distress.”
Popanz v. Gendron (Me. Super. Ct 2007). “" 14 M.R.S.A. § 302 (2006). Prior to enactment of this statute, actions for loss of consortium were similarly limited.”
Gribizis v. Cray (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “Loss of consortium is a statutory cause of action defined in 14 M.R.S. § 302 (2010), which states, "[a] married person may bring a civil action in that person's 5 own name for loss of consortium of that person's spouse.”
Sutton v. Sunday River Skiway Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “See 14 M.R.S. § 302 (2010) (" A married person may bring a civil action in that person's own name for loss of consortium of that person's spouse.”
Goan v. Concord Ins. Grp. (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “14 M.R.S.A. § 302 (Supp. 1999); Hardy, 1999 ME 142 , J 12, 739 A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.