September
2024
GL Attorneys Edward W. Mayer, Jr. and Hannah L. Lauer Submit Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court of Connecticut
Attorneys Edward W. Mayer, Jr. and Hannah L. Lauer submitted an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court of Connecticut at the request of the Connecticut Defense Lawyers Association (CDLA). The certified question pending before the Supreme Court is whether Connecticut law recognizes a parent’s claim for loss of filial consortium with his or her child, who allegedly suffered severe, but non-fatal, injuries because of the defendant’s tortious conduct.
The underlying case is LL et al. v. Newell Brands Inc. et al. pending in the District Court of Connecticut. Plaintiffs seek recovery for burns sustained by an infant “L.L.” Plaintiffs allege that the defendants manufactured, designed, marketed, or distributed a car seat and stove near where the car seat caught fire, resulting in injury to the infant. Plaintiffs asserted several causes of action, one of which was for loss of filial consortium on behalf of the parents. On a Motion to Dismiss, the District Court certified to the Supreme Court of Connecticut the question of whether Connecticut law recognizes the filial loss of consortium claim under the circumstances presented.
Edward W. Mayer, Jr. and Associate Hannah L. Lauer drafted the Amicus Brief arguing that the Supreme Court of Connecticut should not recognize a parent’s claim for loss of filial consortium because doing so would conflict with the nationwide majority of states on the issue. It would also impermissibly extend the caselaw in Connecticut that recognizes a cause of action for parental consortium, Campos v. Coleman, 319 Conn. 36, 123 A.3d 854 (2015). They also argued that a cause of action for filial consortium would further allow plaintiffs to recover speculative and duplicative damages and that such a claim involves a variety of complex social policy decisions that are best suited for the Connecticut Legislature.
Allowing parents to recover for the loss of consortium of their children would pose negative financial consequences and burdens on insurers and health-care related entities alike and expand the already existing avenues of recovery available to plaintiffs. Though parents have a legal obligation to financially support their children, that obligation is not legally reciprocal. To allow a parent to recover for an unknown and undefined financial obligation not legally owed by their children is an expansion of Connecticut tort law that the Legislature, not a Court, should consider only after careful and thoughtful debate and consideration of the impact on civil litigants, principals, and insurers.
Argument is scheduled by the Connecticut Supreme Court on September 19, 2024.
The CDLA is a voluntary, not-for-profit statewide organization of civil defense attorneys. The mission of the CDLA is to assist its members in becoming better civil defense lawyers. As in this case, it also serves as the voice of the civil defense bar to advance the fair administration of justice in civil litigation.
Ed is a partner and co-chair of Gfeller Laurie LLP’s Healthcare and Liability Group. Hannah is an associate in the group. Ed is a Board Member of the CDLA and Second Vice President. He also co-chairs its Committee for Continuing Legal Education.
