Fitzsimmons v. Mini Coach of Boston

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Family Law

Family LawLoss of consortiumUnmarried cohabitantsMarriageloss of consortiumcohabitationunmarried partnerslegal relationship

Facts

Fitzsimmons sought damages for loss of consortium based on injuries suffered by Sean Brann. She alleged that she and Brann were unmarried cohabitees who had lived together in a monogamous relationship for more than a decade and had shared finances and other aspects of their lives. Fitzsimmons acknowledged that existing precedent barred her claim but asked the court to overrule that precedent and extend spousal consortium rights to unmarried cohabitants. The parties had chosen not to marry.

Issue

Whether an unmarried cohabitant may recover for loss of consortium when the injured partner is someone with whom the claimant has a long-term, monogamous, financially intertwined relationship. More specifically, the court considered whether to overrule prior precedent denying such recovery to cohabitees.

Rule

A loss of consortium claim presupposes a legal right to consortium of the injured person. Unless otherwise provided by statute, recovery for loss of consortium is limited to persons who have a legal relationship to the injured party, and an unmarried cohabitant who has chosen not to marry cannot recover for loss of consortium.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Worcester, Maya Bennett and Jordan Pike lived together for twelve years in an exclusive relationship, pooled their income, and jointly cared for Jordan's elderly mother. After Jordan was severely injured in a delivery-truck collision, Maya sued the driver for loss of consortium.

How should the court rule on Maya's claim in the absence of any applicable statute?

Explanation. A loss of consortium claim presupposes a legal right to the injured person's consortium. Absent statutory authorization, recovery is limited to those with a legal relationship to the injured party. Even a stable, long-term, financially intertwined unmarried relationship does not create that legal right.