Opinion
Civ. No. 00-2845, SECTION M.
March 6, 2001.
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by defendant, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, (hereafter "State Farm"). This motion came for hearing without oral argument on February 21, 2001. State Farm seeks summary judgment on the plaintiff's loss of consortium claim because as a matter of law, to prevail on this type of claim, the parties must be married at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs, Melva Campbell Garrett and Bruce F. Garrett, oppose the motion contending that at the time of the accident, they were en route to pick up Mr. Garrett's tuxedo for the wedding which was scheduled for the next day and that they were indeed married the next day. Plaintiffs maintain that their honeymoon was severely disrupted by the injuries that Mrs. Garrett sustained the previous day in the accident.
In Louisiana, to maintain a loss of consortium claim, the plaintiff must be a member of a specific class, such as a spouse. La. Code Civ. art. 2315.2. The jurisprudence has held that injuries sustained prior to marriage cannot form the basis of a loss of consortium claim. The reasoning being that one cannot marry into a cause of action. See Leckelt v. Eunice Superette, Inc., 555 So.2d 11 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1989; Nunez v. Canik, 576 So.2d 1080 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1991); Herndon v. Southwestern Electric Power Company, an 655 So.2d 678 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1995). Morales v. Davis Brothers Construction Comnany, Inc., 706 So.2d 1048, 1051 (La. 1998). One case carved a narrow exception to this rule and allowed recovery for loss of consortium when the original act occurred prior to marriage and the damage was not discovered until afterward. Aldredae v. Whitney, 591 So.2d 1201, 1205 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1991). Plaintiffs do not contend, however, that Ms. Garrett's injuries were discovered after the wedding; therefore, this exception does not apply.
Instead, plaintiffs argue that the cases cited by defendant are inapplicable because they do not involve a situation where the accident occurred the day before the wedding. The court is not aware of any Louisiana cases wherein the injury occurred the day before the wedding. However, other jurisdictions have declined to validate a claim for loss of consortium even in light of inequitable circumstances. In Miller v. Davis, 433 N.Y.S.2d 974 (Sup.Ct. 1980), the injury took place only hours before the plaintiffs were to be married. The wedding ultimately occurred in the hospital the day after the accident. Nonetheless, the court found that, because the wedding occurred after the accident, there could be no claim for loss of consortium. t See also, Harris v. Sherman, 708 A.2d 1348 (Vt. 1998) (wife who married plaintiff two months after accident could not bring loss of consortium claim).
Summary judgment is appropriate if the record discloses "that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). While we must "review the facts drawing all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the motion," Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 577, 578 (5th Cir. 1986), that party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in its pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256-57 (1986). Here, plaintiffs have not met this burden. Accordingly, for these reasons, the Court finds that the motion for summary judgment is meritorious and is hereby GRANTED.