Mueller v. Tepler

Connecticut Supreme Court · 2014 · Family Law

Family LawLoss of ConsortiumSame-Sex RelationshipsCommon Lawloss of consortiumsame-sex couplesmarriage barcivil union

Facts

Mueller alleged that the defendants negligently misdiagnosed her cancer during treatment from 2001 to March 5, 2004, causing her condition to progress. Stacey alleged that she and Mueller had been domestic partners living together since 1985, supporting each other financially and emotionally, and that they entered a civil union on November 12, 2005. The defendants moved to strike Stacey's loss of consortium claims because the couple was not married or in a civil union before or during the alleged negligence. The legal dispute centered on whether a same-sex partner barred by Connecticut law from marrying at the time of the tort could still pursue consortium damages if she could prove the couple would have been married then absent the legal bar.

Issue

Whether a person who was barred by state law from marrying or entering a civil union with her domestic partner at the time of the tort may maintain a loss of consortium claim if she can prove the couple would have been married when the tort occurred. Also, whether the Appellate Court could affirm judgment on an alternative pleading defect without remanding to allow repleading.

Rule

A plaintiff who was not married to the injured partner when the tort occurred may maintain a loss of consortium claim if the plaintiff can prove that the couple would have been married or in a civil union at that time but for a state-law bar, and that such a marriage would not have been inconsistent with public policy. In addition, when a pleading is stricken, the pleader must be given the opportunity to file a new pleading under Practice Book § 10-44 unless repleading would be futile on the face of the complaint.

🔒

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 Hartford, Dana Reeve alleges that her longtime same-sex partner, Lena Ortiz, was seriously injured by a surgeon's negligence in 2003. Dana and Lena later entered a civil union in Connecticut in 2006, and Dana now alleges that they would have married or entered a civil union before the malpractice occurred if Connecticut law had allowed them to do so, and that their union would not have violated public policy.

If the defendants move to strike Dana's loss of consortium claim solely because Dana and Lena were not legally married or in a civil union at the time of the injury, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority expanded the common-law consortium action for a narrow class of plaintiffs: one who was barred by Connecticut law from marrying or entering a civil union at the time of the tort may maintain the claim if she can prove the couple would have been married or in a civil union then, and that the union would not have been inconsistent with public policy. Actual formalization at the time of injury is not required in that narrow circumstance. (Derived from Mueller v. Tepler (n.d.).)