May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


The Sled:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Weblog Comments

Return to the Weblog

Quote of the Day - She was "honeychile" in New Orleans, the hottest of the bunch, but on the old expense account, she was gas, cigars and lunch. - Anonymous

No Damages for Spousal Dysfunctions

OK, I'll bite. As I'm reading slip opinions this morning, I run across this teaser: "Coverage under 'bodily injury' clause of defendant's insurance policy does not include nonphysical, or mental harm."

Huh? Now were splitting hairs (pardon the pun) between body, mind and soul. Is there coverage if your soul is harmed?

Essentially, the case turns on a different issue - the per accident limit of uninsured motorist coverage.

But the interesting aspect of the case is a loss of consortium claim, and whether that claim amounts to a physical injury. In other words, does the spouse who suffered the loss of consortium (i.e. the one not receiving the "spousal functions" according to the Court) have a claim against the insurance policy.

Some courts say yes - here the California Supreme Court, but this lower court put a different spin on it and said no. This Court rejected the belief that a lack of spousal functions causes a separate physical injury.

I feel the pain.

Posted by J. Craig Williams on 3/22/2004 at 12:54 Comments (1)

 

Comments

Comments by UCL from United States on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 at 17:54

Most ordinary people would see nothing unusual about finding that an "emotional injury" is not a "bodily injury". Only when such questions get into the hands of lawyers do they become contentious.

 

Comments are now closed.

Send your comments directly to the author at jcraigwms at wlf-law.com (remove spaces and add @ symbol in place of the "at").