Missouri allows for a certain type of claim, or lawsuit, called Loss of Consortium.  Essentially, this is the type of claim that a husband or wife brings against the negligent party when their spouse is severely injured.  For example, if a husband is rendered a quadriplegic because he was hit by a semi truck, he obviously has a claim against the them for the injuries he has suffered.  However, if the injured man is married, the wife also has a case, or a lawsuit, against the truck driver for the injures caused to her husband.

The rationale behind these cases is that a marriage is sacred.   There are many things that go into a relationship that make a marriage.  Thus, when one spouse has been so severely injured that it changes the whole dynamic, this is essentially a separate injury tothe other spouse. 

So what types of things are considered in a Loss of Consortium claim?  Generally, the law says that we look at what is known as loss of support, comfort, companionship, and services.  This can incorporate a number of different things.  For instance, if one spouse stays at home and was financially dependent on the other spouse, part of their claim could be for the loss of that income.  Additionally, part of their claim can be for the loss of the comfort and support that they would generally receive from their spouse.  Also, another aspect is the inability  to have sex.  Certainly, the sexual relationship is what takes any relationship out of the realm of friendship and moves it into the romantic realm.  When, this is suddenly taken out of a marriage because of physical disability, it can be very damaging. 

As a St. Louis, Missouri car accident attorney, I can tell you that, practically speaking, most jurors will not award any money for a Loss of Consortium claim unless the physical injury is very devastating.  The reason is that most jurors have a simple beliefthat when we get married, it is for "better or worse".  Thus, they do not freely award compensation for injuries to someone's spouse unless they have been horrendously injured.  However, the claim does exist and should be presented under the right scenario.

Joshua P. Myers is President of Myers Injury Law, LLC.  Based in St. Louis, Missouri, his is a founding partner of Schultz & Myers, LLC, the region's premier personal injury law firm.  Handling cases throughout Missouri and Illinois, the firm accepts only severe personal injury cases with an emphasis on motor vehicle collisions.  All cases are accepted on a contingency fee, meaning that there is no money required up front and the firm's fee will be taken as a percentage of recovery.  If there is no recovery, no fee is owed.  If you would like to discuss a specific case, you can reach Josh Myers toll free at 888-956-2487 or through email at jm@joshmyerslaw.com

I am proud to announce that this past Wednesday, a federal jury returned a verdict in the case of Burroughs v. Zurich American Insurance Company et al in the amount of five-hundred thousand dollars.  As a Missouri Truck Accident Lawyer, this was especially gratifying given that the two insurance companies against whom we proceeded to trial thought that they had absolutely no liability.  Of the two insurance companies, one refused to offer a dollar before trial, while the other offered a total of six thousand dollars.  Ironically, before trial, I had told the insurer that offered six thousand that I would recommend settlement to my client if they would pay ten-thousand dollars.  They refused to do so. 

The case centers around a car accident that occurred on March 9, 2007.  At the time, my client was working as an employer for the Flying J.  He was hauling a tanker truck east bound on Interstate 70 near Bryan Road in Wentzville, Missouri.  At that time, he was driving in the far left lane.  In the lane to the right of him was another tractor trailer owned by Mackie Moving Systems Corporation.  They are a trucking company out of Canada.  As the two went under the Bryan Road overpass, the Mackie truck suddenly swerved into my client's lane.  This caused my client to hit the brakes and also swerve over to the left in which he nearly missed the median.  While doing so, he was fighting his wheel and jerking it back and forth to avoid a bigger collision.  There were two eye witnesses from the scene.  One of them explained what caused the Macki e truck to swerve over into my client's lane.  That was a white car that was coming off of the Bryan Road overpass.  As it got to Interstate 70, it swerved left into another lane when it had no room to do so.  When it did this, it caused a red truck to swerve left into the Mackie tractor trailer.  This caused the Mackie truck to swerve left into my client.  The white car kept on going and no one knows the identity of that driver.  Thus, under the law, is considered an uninsured motorist.

Thus, the case proceeded against Mackie Moving Systems Corporation and the two insurance companies.  The reason that we were able to sue the two insurance companies was that both policies carried a type of coverage known as uninsured motorist coverage.  This type of coverage will compensate a person for injuries caused by an unknown motorist-in this case the driver of the white car.

As a result of the incident, my client suffered a herniated disc.  He endured fifteen months of medical treatment  stretching out over fifty-five different doctor's appointments and culminating in a L5-S1 spinal fusion.  At trial, the jury heard about the eighty-eight thousand dollars in medical bills charged to my client as a result of all of this medical treatment.  The trial lasted three days and was very contentiously fought.  During closing arguments, I asked the jury to send my clients home with nothing if they did not believe what I had been telling them throughout trial.  However, if they did believe what I was telling them, I asked the jury to make the insurance companies to pay my clients every last dime of what they deserved.  Specifically, I asked them to return a verdict for five-hundred thousand dollars.  After three and half hours of deliberation, the jury did just that. 

I am extremely pleased with the result and more importantly, I am extremely pleased for my clients.  This was the culmination of two and a half years of litigation during which time they felt like they had been called liars by the insurance company they had been paying over the years to protect them.  This case is just an example that if you fight hard, and have clients who tell the truth, jurors will still award a fair amount.