Voris v. Molinaro

• Decision Date: 22 November 2011
• Docket Number: No. 18435.,18435.
• Citation: 31 A.3d 363,302 Conn. 791
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: John G. VORIS et al. v. Peter M. MOLINARO.

302 Conn. 791

31 A.3d 363

John G. VORIS et al.

v.Peter M. MOLINARO.

No. 18435.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Jan. 14, 2011.Decided Nov. 22, 2011.

Paul L. Bollo, Danbury, for the appellant (named plaintiff). J. Kevin Golger, Bridgeport, for the appellee (defendant).

Kathryn Calibey, Hartford, filed a brief for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.

Jack G. Steigelfest, Hartford, and Rachel J. Fain filed a brief for the Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.Linda L. Morkan and Wystan M. Ackerman, Hartford, filed a brief for the Insurance Association of Connecticut et al. as amici curiae.ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, VERTEFEUILLE and HARPER, Js.^*McLACHLAN, J.

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a claim for loss of consortium is barred by the settlement of the underlying negligence claim. ¹ We conclude that it is. The plaintiff ² John G. Voris appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to strike by the defendant, Peter M. Molinaro.³ The plaintiff contends that: (1) a claim for loss of consortium may be maintained independently of the underlying injury claim; and (2) a settlement of the underlying injury claim does not bar the related claim for loss of consortium. We disagree, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The complaint alleges the following facts: On May 10, 2004, the plaintiff was driving his motor vehicle, while his wife, Joan Voris (Voris), rode in the passenger seat. The defendant, who was driving his motor vehicle, struck the plaintiff's vehicle on the passenger side. As a result of the collision, Voris sustained severe injuries to her back and spine. She has been bedridden for extended periods of time, unable to walk long distances, and unable to complete her household duties. She requires epidural/faucet block treatments for the pain from her injuries. In addition, the plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his neck, back and spine. He has been experiencing pain and has difficulty completing household chores. The plaintiff and Voris brought this action together, each asserting two counts—one for negligence, in connection with their direct injuries, and one for loss of consortium due to the other's injuries.

On September 8, 2008, Voris executed a release pursuant to a settlement agreement that she had entered into with the defendant. Consistent with that agreement, on January 30, 2009, she withdrew both of her claims against the defendant. On the same day, the plaintiff withdrew his negligence claim, leaving his claim for loss of consortium as the sole remaining count of the complaint. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to strike the remaining count, relying on Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital, 176 Conn. 485, 494, 408 A.2d 260 (1979), to conclude that the plaintiff's loss of consortium claim was barred by the settlement of Voris' negligence claim.⁴ The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant and this appeal followed.

The plaintiff contends that a loss of consortium claim is a separate cause of action that may be maintained independently of the direct injury claim on which it is based. The defendant responds that the consortium claim is derivative of the direct injury action and therefore is barred by settlement of that action. The defendant relies on our statement in Hopson that “because a consortium action is derivative of the injured spouse's cause of action, the consortium claim would be barred when the suit brought by the injured spouse has been terminated by settlement....” Id. Contending that our statement in Hopson is dicta and lacks precedential value, the plaintiff urges us to rely on case law from other jurisdictions to conclude that the consortium claim survives the settlement of the predicate action. Because we conclude that our subsequent decisions that have consistently applied the principle that we first expressed in Hopson are controlling, legally binding precedent, we agree with the defendant and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In Hopson, we reversed our long-standing rule, set forth in Marri v. Stamford Street Railroad Co., 84 Conn. 9, 24, 78 A. 582 (1911), that had precluded the recognition of claims for loss of consortium. In overturning our prior precedent and articulating the new rule, we defined consortium as “encompassing the services of the wife, the financial support of the husband, and the variety of intangible relations which exist between spouses living together in marriage. [W.] Prosser, Torts (4th Ed. 1971) § 124, pp. 881–82. These intangible elements are generally described in terms of affection, society, companionship and sexual relations.... These intangibles have also been defined as the constellation of companionship, dependence, reliance, affection, sharing and aid which are legally recognizable, protected rights arising out of the civil contract of marriage.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital, supra, 176 Conn. at 487, 408 A.2d 260. As we ordinarily do when we recognize a new cause of action, we outlined its contours, in light of our reconsideration of the relevant public policies. Id., at 490–94, 408 A.2d 260. One of the public policy concerns that weighed against recognizing the cause of action was the risk of double recovery. Id., at 492, 408 A.2d 260. We rejected that concern as a basis for not recognizing the new cause of action, in part because of our conclusion that a “consortium claim would be barred when the suit brought by the injured spouse has been terminated by settlement or by an adverse judgment on the merits.” Id., at 494, 408 A.2d 260.

Although we subsequently have characterized that statement as dicta, we consistently have relied on it in deciding subsequent cases. In Ladd v. Douglas Trucking Co., 203 Conn. 187, 190–91, 523 A.2d 1301 (1987), we concluded that in a wrongful death action a surviving spouse may recover for antemortem loss of consortium, but may not recover for postmortem loss of consortium. Id., at 197, 523 A.2d 1301. Relying both on Hopson's characterization of a loss of consortium action as derivative and on our statement in Hopson that a loss of consortium claim is barred by the settlement of the predicate cause of action, we rejected the plaintiff's contention that our decision in Hopson would support the recovery of damages for postmortem loss of consortium. Id., at 195, 523 A.2d 1301.

In Jacoby v. Brinckerhoff, 250 Conn. 86, 735 A.2d 347 (1999), we again relied on the principle first expressed in Hopson. In Jacoby, the plaintiff sought damages for loss of consortium in connection with his allegations that the defendant, a psychiatrist, had committed medical malpractice in treating the plaintiff's former wife. Id., at 87, 735 A.2d 347. The plaintiff's former wife had not initiated an action on her own behalf and refused to join in the plaintiff's action. Id., at 89, 735 A.2d 347. We rejected the plaintiff's claim that joinder should be excused because his former wife's refusal to join had rendered joinder impossible. Id., at 90, 735 A.2d 347. We considered the question of whether joinder of the consortium claim with the predicate claim should be required, and found that question to be inextricably linked to the question of whether the settlement of a predicate action would bar the derivative consortium action.⁵ Id., at 91, 735 A.2d 347. We explained that the public policy concerns implicated by both questions are the same, namely, limiting the risk of multiple actions or double recoveries stemming from the same transaction. Id. We observed that we could “discern no viable distinction between precluding a consortium claim when the injured spouse has settled with the alleged tortfeasor and precluding it when the injured spouse, as in this case, has declined altogether to sue the alleged tortfeasor.” Id. Both rules result from the derivative nature of a claim for loss of consortium. Id., at 91–92, 735 A.2d 347. We concluded, therefore, that the dicta in Hopson regarding the settlement of the predicate claim functions as a “ roadblock to the plaintiff's claim for recovery....” (Emphasis added.) Id., at 91, 735 A.2d 347.⁶ Our consistent reliance in both Ladd and Jacoby on the principle articulated in Hopson—that the settlement of the predicate claim extinguishes the derivative claim for loss of consortium—makes clear that this rule is the governing law in Connecticut. Therefore, the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion to strike in the present case.⁷

Although we repeatedly have articulated and relied on the principle that the settlement of the underlying injury claim bars the derivative action for loss of consortium, we recognize that neither Hopson, Jacoby, nor Ladd had a procedural posture identical to the present one. Accordingly, we take this opportunity to articulate the strong policy reasons that support the application of this rule to claims such as the plaintiff's. The same rationale that mandates the joinder of loss of consortium claims with the claims of the directly injured party also should apply to bar a claim for loss of consortium once the predicate action has been settled.⁸

First, when the claims are not resolved together, there is a greater probability of overlapping damages awards. The concept of marital consortium encompasses services, support “and the variety of intangible relations which exist between spouses living together in marriage.” Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital, supra, 176 Conn. at 487, 408 A.2d 260. Consortium has been described variously as “affection, society, companionship and sexual relations” or “the constellation of companionship, dependence, reliance, affection, sharing and aid....” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Because the experiences comprising consortium are not specific to either party to a marriage, “damages to a marital relationship are frequently...