Hartford Partners Glenn Coffin and Kelcie Reid, with the assistance of Law Clerk Lindie Gibbs, recently co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of the Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association (CDLA) to the Connecticut Supreme Court in response to a certified question of law from the U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, on the important issue of whether a parent is entitled to an award of filial consortium damages in a personal injury case.
In L.L., et al. v. Newell Brands Inc., et al. (SC 21005), the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were responsible for manufacturing, designing, marketing, or distributing a car seat and stove and that the car seat caught fire when placed near the stove on a counter, resulting in injury to the plaintiff, an infant. The defendants moved to dismiss, in relevant part, on the grounds that filial consortium is not recognized as a cause of action in Connecticut. The trial court certified the question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: “Does Connecticut law recognize a parent’s claim for loss of filial consortium in his or her child, who allegedly suffered severe, but non-fatal, injuries because of the defendants’ tortious conduct?”
Connecticut law recognizes the concept of loss of parental consortium, which allows children of injured parents to seek damages in personal injury cases. The plaintiff in Newell Brands sought to expand the reach of loss of consortium claims by making damages available to parents for their injured children. In its brief, the CDLA emphasized that recognizing a parent’s claim for loss of filial consortium would contradict the nationwide majority view, create speculative and duplicative damages, and extend Connecticut’s case law beyond its intended scope.
In a recent 4-1 decision, the court found in favor of the defense’s argument and held that parents of an injured minor do not have a cognizable claim for filial consortium. As a result, the uncertain future of the applicability of these damages will be left to legislative initiative.