Opinion
No. HHD-CV 05-401653S
December 15, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTIONS TO STRIKE PARENTAL CONSORTIUM CLAIMS
The Plaintiffs, James P. Tedone, Administrator of the Estate of Shannon Tedone and Kobe Tedone, a minor, through James P. Tedone, his adoptive father and next friend, initiated this wrongful death action against Luis Thuillard, Peggy Thuillard and Ruben Thuillard. The Plaintiffs' complaint, dated March 25, 2005, contains seven counts: four against Ruben Thuillard and three against Peggy and Luis Thuillard. The complaint arises out of an incident during which Ruben Thuillard is alleged to have stabbed and killed Shannon Tedone in the presence of their son, Kobe Tedone, while on the premises of Peggy and Luis Thuillard, the parents of Ruben Thuillard.
The Fifth Count is a loss of consortium claim asserted on behalf of Kobe Tedone by James Tedone. It adopts and incorporates many factual allegations from the First Count. The crux of these consortium claims is that Kobe Tedone suffered, continues to suffer, and will forever suffer from his losses of the society, affection, moral support, services, income, companionship, nurturing devotion and protection of his mother as a result of the acts and omissions of the defendant, Ruben Thuillard.
The Seventh Count is a loss of consortium claim asserted on behalf of Kobe Tedone by Jane Tedone against the defendants, Luis and Peggy Thuillard. It adopts and incorporates many factual allegations from the Fourth Count.
The defendant, Ruben Thuillard, and the defendants, Peggy and Luis Thuillard, have filed two motions to strike, claiming that even if all the allegations stated in the complaint are true, Connecticut does not recognize an action for parental loss of consortium.
The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest the legal sufficiency of a pleading. Practice Book § 10-39 provides, in part, that "[w]henever any party wishes to contest (1) the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint, counterclaim or cross claim, or of any one or more counts thereof, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or (2) the legal sufficiency of any prayer for relief in any . . . complaint . . . that party may do so by filing a motion to strike the contested pleading or part thereof." Practice Book § 10-39(a) (2002).
In considering a motion to strike, courts "construe the facts alleged in the complaint in a light most favorable to the pleader. If facts provable under the allegations would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied." RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 384, 650 A.2d 153 (1994) (citations omitted). For the limited purpose of a motion to strike, "the moving party admits all facts well pleaded." Id., 389. "This includes the facts necessarily implied and fairly provable under the allegations . . ." Westport Bank Trust v. Corcoran, Mallin Aresco, 221 Conn. 490, 495-96, 605 A.2d 862 (1992) (citations omitted.) It does not include the admission of legal conclusions or opinions stated in the complaint. Id., 495.
In Mendillo v. Board of Education, 246 Conn. 456, 717 A.2d 1177 (1998) the Connecticut Supreme Court held that loss of parental consortium actions for damages are not recognized in Connecticut.
The Court declined to recognize a derivative cause of action for loss of parental consortium by a minor child and stated:
We conclude in the present case that the general rule of limiting the tortfeasor's liability to the person directly harmed should prevail. Although, in light of the minor plaintiffs' arguments, the question is a close one, the balance of policy considerations fails to establish the additional justification necessary to support recognition of a legal duty on the part of a tortfeasor to compensate the children of the person whom the tortfeasor has harmed directly for their loss of consortium with their parent. We reach this conclusion primarily on the basis of: the fact that recognition of the cause of action would require arbitrary limitations; the additional economic burden that recognition would impose on the general public; the uncertainty that recognition would yield significant social benefits; the substantial risks of double recovery; and the weight of judicial authority.
Mendillo, supra, 246 Conn. 484-85.
Plaintiffs argue that Mendillo is limited to its particular facts and circumstances which involved a wrongful discharge claim and temporary loss of consortium, and that it should not apply to cases where the parent has suffered a wrongful death with a corresponding permanent loss of consortium. However, the matter in Mendillo alleged that as a result of the defendant's actions, "she suffered severe emotional distress, mental anguish and pain, resulting in illness and causing her to incur medical expenses." (Internal quotations omitted). Id., 466. The issue in Mendillo was, in fact, whether the court "should recognize a claim for loss of parental consortium resulting from a serious injury to the child's parent." Id., 477. The overwhelming weight of authorities have applied Mendillo and rejected parental loss of consortium claims even in serious injury and wrongful death cases. The following cases have addressed, and rejected a cause of action for loss of parental consortium, based on the holding in Mendillo: Majette v. New London Housing Authority, 2005 WL 2009025, at *1 (Conn.Super. July 12, 2005 (Clarance J. Jones, J.); Breault v. Siemon Co., 2004 WL 3106038 (Conn.Super. December 10, 2004) (Aurigemma, J.); Estate of Smith v. Town of West Hartford, 2003 WL 21958339 (Conn.Super. July 28, 2003) (Sferrazza, J.); Lee v. Demirjian, 2002 WL 853603 (Conn.Super. April 5, 2002) (Berger, J.); McGinnis v. Gallagher Electric, Inc., 2001 WL 1743224 (Conn.Super. December 20, 2001) (Rittenband, J.T.R.); Baranowski v. St. Mary's Hospital, 2001 WL 237106 (Conn.Super. February 20, 2001) (Doherty, J.); Scott v. Thompson, 2000 WL 1889984 (Conn.Super. December 6, 2000) (Rittenband, J.T.R.); Mirjavadi v. Vakilzadeh, 2000 WL 33158608 (Conn.Super. November 13, 2000) (Lewis, J.T.R.); Polanco v. Kitchens, 2002 WL 31440789 (Conn.Super. October 4, 2002) (Hurley, J.)
While the minor plaintiff's alleged losses are tragic, Connecticut law prohibits a claim for damages under this particular cause of action.
For the foregoing reasons, the motions to strike counts five and seven should be and hereby are granted.