Anderson v. Eli Lilly & Co., 79 N.Y.2d 797 (1991)

A cause of action for loss of consortium does not exist if the tortious conduct and resulting injury to the spouse occurred before the marriage.

Summary

Plaintiff sued several manufacturers of diethylstilbestrol (DES), asserting a derivative claim for loss of consortium based on injuries allegedly suffered by his wife due to her in utero exposure to the drug before their marriage. The defendants were granted summary judgment because the wife’s exposure and resultant injuries occurred before the marriage. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a claim for loss of consortium requires the injury to occur during the marriage, not before. The court rejected arguments that the discovery statute of limitations (CPLR 214-c) or the revival statute altered this fundamental requirement.

Facts

Plaintiff’s wife was allegedly injured in utero by exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a drug manufactured by the defendants. The wife’s exposure to DES and the resultant injuries to her reproductive system occurred before she married the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action against the DES manufacturers, asserting a derivative cause of action for loss of consortium, claiming that his wife’s injuries negatively impacted their marital relationship.

Procedural History

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not recover for loss of consortium because the wife’s injuries predated the marriage. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether a cause of action for loss of consortium exists where the tortious conduct and resulting injury to the spouse occurred prior to the marriage.

Holding

No, because consortium represents the marital partners’ interest in the continuance of the marital relationship as it existed at its inception, not upon some guarantee that the marital partners are free of any preexisting latent injuries.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on established precedent, stating that “a cause of action for loss of consortium does not lie if the alleged tortious conduct and resultant injuries occurred prior to the marriage.” The court reasoned that the rationale underlying this rule is not limited to situations where the injuries to the spouse are manifest at the time of the marriage. The court emphasized that consortium represents the marital partners’ interest in the continuation of the marital relationship as it existed at its inception, and not a guarantee that marital partners are free of preexisting latent injuries. The court quoted the Appellate Division: “Consortium represents the marital partners’ interest in the continuance of the marital relationship as it existed at its inception (see, Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co., 22 NY2d 498, 504-505), not upon some guarantee that the marital partners are free of any preexisting latent injuries” (158 AD2d 91, 94). The court dismissed the plaintiff’s arguments that the enactment of CPLR 214-c (the new discovery Statute of Limitations) dictated a different result, noting that CPLR 214-c was aimed at removing procedural barriers to recovery for DES injuries, not at expanding the basis for liability. Similarly, the court rejected reliance on the revival statute (L 1986, ch 682, §4), stating that the provision merely revived certain time-barred claims without creating any new causes of action. The court highlighted the distinction between expanding access to recovery versus expanding the basis for liability, maintaining the established principle that loss of consortium claims are predicated on injuries sustained during the marital relationship.