Other New Mexico authority elaborates the Solon test for finding an "intimate familial relationship" adequate to satisfy the standard in other factual circumstances. For example, inFitzjerrell v. City of Gallup, 79 P.3d 836, 840 (N.M.App. 2003), the Court of Appeals traced the development of the cause of action and clarified its scope (citing, inter alia, Romero, Fernandez, and Lozoya), to emphasize "the loss of consortium is a claim to recover compensation for damage to a relational interest with a person, not a legal interest."Fitzjerrell, 79 P.3d at 840.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has also recognized the availability of loss of consortium claims in the context of parents and siblings of deceased adults, and even when ruling against a particular plaintiff, it has been unwilling to foreclose, as a matter of law, the ability to recover for other types of lost relationships. SeeFitzjerrell v. City of Gallup ex rel. Gallup Police Dep't , 134 N.M. 492, 79 P.3d 836, 841 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (parents and siblings of deceased adult); Wachocki v. Bernalillo Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't , 147 N.M. 720, 228 P.3d 504, 519 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (sibling may recover in loss of consortium claim, but not based on facts of that particular case), aff'd , 150 N.M. 650, 265 P.3d 701 (2011). Generally, a party may recover for loss of consortium if the evidence shows that the party's relationship with the decedent was "sufficiently close financially, socially, or both, and if it was foreseeable that the injury to [the d]ecedent would harm the relationship."

, it has been unwilling to foreclose, as a matter of law, the ability to recover for other types of lost relationships. See Fitzjerrell v. City of Gallup ex rel. Gallup Police Dep't, 79 P.3d 836, 841 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (parents and siblings of deceased adult); Wachocki v. Bernalillo Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 228 P.3d 504, 519 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (sibling may recover in loss of consortium claim, but not based on facts of that particular case), aff'd, 265 P.3d 701 (N.M. 2011).

The Lozoya factors assess whether the claimant and the injured party shared a sufficiently close relationship, proof of which is necessary to recover under a consortium theory. See Fitzjerrell v. City of Gallup ex rel. Gallup Police Dep't, 2003–NMCA–125, ¶ 14, 134 N.M. 492, 79 P.3d 836. Bill claims error because the Lozoya factors are not specifically tailored to the sibling relationship.

See, e.g., Fernandez v. Walgreen Hastings Co., 126 N.M. 263, 273 (1998). Defendant moved to dismiss any consortium claims on the grounds that Plaintiff Holley did not share a household with the decedent and therefore fails to meet the "key element" for such a consortium claim under New Mexico law. Doc. 20 at 2; see also Doc. 7 at 3-4 (citing Wachocki v. Bernallillo Co. Sheriff's Dept., 150 N.M.650 (2011) and Fitzjerrell v. City of Gallup, 134 N.M. 492 (Ct. App. 2003)). Plaintiff Holley disputes that residing together is a necessary element for a loss of consortium claim.

{5} "Whether or not the district court has properly granted a motion to dismiss under Rule 1–012(B)(6) is a question of law, which we review de novo." Fitzjerrell v. City of Gallup ex rel. Gallup Police Dep't , 2003–NMCA–125, ¶ 8, 134 N.M. 492, 79 P.3d 836. In our review, we accept properly pleaded facts as true.

Generally, a party may "recover for loss of consortium if the evidence shows that their relationship[] with [the d]ecedent was sufficiently close financially, socially, or both, and if it was foreseeable that the injury to [the d]ecedent would harm the relationship[]." Fitzjerrell v. City of Gallup ex rel. Gallup Police Dep't, 2003-NMCA-125, ¶ 14, 134 N.M. 492, 79 P.3d 836. {51} Our Supreme Court has outlined factors tending to prove or disprove the forseeability of harm to a relational interest in the context of minor children.

Finally, the Movants contend that the Court must dismiss the Plaintiffs' loss of consortium claim, because the claim "is derivative of other injuries and not an injury in and of itself." MSJ at 21 (citing Fitjerell v. City of Gallup ex rel. Gallup Police Dep't, 2003-NMCA-125, ¶ 12, 79 P.3d 836, 840-41 ). The Movants contend that, under New Mexico caselaw, the Plaintiffs may not recover on the Complaint's Count III unless they first prove a direct constitutional violation. See MSJ at 21 (citing Weise v. Washington Tru Sols., L.L.C., 2008-NMCA-121, ¶ 30, 144 N.M. 867, 192 P.3d 1244, 1255 ).

The injury is foreseeable because there should be nothing surprising about a spousal relationship involving companionship, support, society, comfort, aid, and protection.Fitzjerrell v. City of Gallup ex rel. Gallup Police Dep't, 79 P.3d 836, 840 (N.M. 2003) (citations omitted). The Court has expanded the familial relationships that may give rise to the claim, see Fernandez, 968 P.2d at 782 (grandparents), but it has not allowed the victim of the primary injury to bring forth an LCHS claim.

In making this decision, courts "are to consider several factors including, but not limited to: duration of the relationship; mutual dependence; common contributions to a life together; shared experience; living in the same household; financial support and dependence; emotional reliance on each other; qualities of their day to day relationship; and the manner in which they related to each other in attending to life's mundane requirements." See Fitzjerrell v. City of Gallup ex rel. Gallup Police Dep't, 134 N.M. 492, 494, 79 P.3d 836, 838 (Ct. App. 2003). While the Court recognizes that the Complaint provides only limited information about the quality of the relationships between the various Plaintiffs, it determines that Charles and Donna Browder pled sufficient facts to support their loss of consortium claims.