Voris v. Molinaro
31 A.3d 363
Conn.2011Background
- Voris and his wife Joan Voris sued Molinaro for negligent driving, asserting bodily injuries and a loss of consortium claim arising from the same incident.
- Joan Voris settled her underlying negligence claim with Molinaro on September 8, 2008 and withdrew her claims on January 30, 2009, leaving Voris' loss of consortium claim as the sole remaining count.
- The trial court struck Voris' loss of consortium claim, relying on Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital to rule that such a claim is barred when the injured spouse's claim is settled.
- Voris appealed, arguing loss of consortium is an independent action and survives settlement of the predicate claim; Molinaro argued it is derivative and barred by settlement.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with Molinaro, holding that loss of consortium is derivative and barred by settlement of the predicate action, and affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The majority also rejected the plaintiff’s challenges to Hopson, reaffirming the rule as binding precedent and explaining underlying policy justifications for joinder and shared resolution of claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss of consortium is barred by settlement of the predicate claim | Voris argues loss of consortium is independent and survives settlement | Molinaro argues consortium is derivative and barred by settlement | Barred; derivative claim extinguished by settlement |
| Whether Hopson governs post-settlement scenarios beyond its dicta | Hopson should not control all post-settlement outcomes | Hopson is binding precedent controlling this issue | Hopson governs; settlement bars derivative claim |
| Policy rationale supporting joinder and settlement bar of consortium claims | Joinder is not required to bar a consortium claim following settlement | Joinder plus settlement prevents double recovery and inefficiency | Court upholds policy that settlement of predicate claim bars consortium claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital, 176 Conn. 485 (1979) (consortium claim barred when injured spouse's suit settled or adjudicated on merits)
- Ladd v. Douglas Trucking Co., 203 Conn. 187 (1987) (surviving spouse may not recover postmortem loss of consortium)
- Jacoby v. Brinckerhoff, 250 Conn. 86 (1999) (joinder considerations and derivative nature of consortium; disagree on scope of Hopson)
- Izzo v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 203 Conn. 305 (1987) (consortium arises from bodily injury; per person policy limit considerations)
- Musorofiti v. Vlcek, 65 Conn.App. 365 (2001) (appellate view consistent with established derivative-consortium rule)
- Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509 (1989) (consortium action is derivative of injured spouse's action with proportional damages)
- Marri v. Stamford Street Railroad Co., 84 Conn. 9 (1911) (early framework related to loss of consortium before Hopson)
- Wesson v. Milford, 5 Conn.App. 369 (1985) (recognizes derivative nature of loss of consortium; discusses joinder and recovery)