Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffprecedentmotion
tortplaintiffdefendantstatutecommon law

Related Cases

Garcia v. New Albertson’s, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 4978434
View Case »
Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 419 F.3d 3, 2005 A.M.C. 2127
View Case »
Bibbs v. Toyota Motor Corporation, 304 Ga. 68, 815 S.E.2d 850, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 20,369
View Case »
McCart v. Muir, 230 Kan. 618, 641 P.2d 384
View Case »
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 138 S.Ct. 2392, 201 L.Ed.2d 775, 86 USLW 4602, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6354, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6193, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 503
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

North Pacific Ins. Co. v. Stucky, 377 Mont. 25, 338 P.3d 56, 2014 MT 299

Facts

Calvin Stucky was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident, resulting in extensive physical and emotional impairments. His adult daughter, Sadee, sought to recover underinsured motorist benefits from North Pacific Insurance Company (NPIC), claiming loss of consortium due to her father's injuries. NPIC contested the claim, arguing that Montana law did not recognize such claims for adult children. The case was certified to the Montana Supreme Court for clarification on this legal issue.

On August 12, 2009, Calvin Stucky (Calvin) was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Powell County on Highway 141, when a vehicle headed in the opposite direction crossed the center line and collided head-on with his Ford truck.

Issue

Does Montana law recognize a claim for loss of consortium by the adult child of an injured parent, and what evidentiary standard must the plaintiff meet to assert such a claim?

1. Does Montana law recognize a claim for loss of consortium by the adult child of an injured parent?

Rule

Montana law recognizes a claim for loss of consortium by the adult child of an injured parent, requiring the plaintiff to show that a third party caused the parent to suffer a serious, permanent injury and that the parent's condition has severely impacted the parent-child relationship.

To assert such a claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) a third party tortiously caused the parent to suffer a serious, permanent and disabling mental or physical injury compensable under Montana law, and (2) the parent's ultimate condition of mental or physical impairment is so overwhelming and severe that it has caused the parent-child relationship to be destroyed or nearly destroyed.

Analysis

The Montana Supreme Court applied its precedent to conclude that the adult child of an injured parent may assert a loss of consortium claim. The court emphasized the need for the adult child to demonstrate that the parent's injury was serious and permanent, and that it had significantly damaged the parent-child relationship. The court also established that the evidentiary standard should consider various factors, including the severity of the parent's injury and the nature of the relationship.

We conclude that Montana law recognizes a loss of consortium claim by the adult child of an injured parent, and that such a claim, deriving from the common law, is supported by our statutes and Constitution.

Conclusion

The court affirmed that Montana law recognizes a loss of consortium claim by an adult child of an injured parent and outlined the necessary evidentiary standards for such claims.

We answer the first question in the affirmative.

Who won?

The prevailing party is Sadee Stucky, as the court recognized her right to assert a loss of consortium claim under Montana law.

The defendants assert, and NPIC seems to imply, that Montana law should recognize a claim for loss of consortium by an adult child based on injury to the parent.

You must be