Lozoya v. Sanchez
66 P.3d 948, 133 N.M. 579, 2003 NMSC 009 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for loss of consortium is not limited to married partners and may be brought by an unmarried cohabitant who can demonstrate the existence of a significant, committed, and intimate familial relationship with the person injured by a tortfeasor's negligence.
Facts:
- For over 30 years, Ubaldo Lozoya and Sara Lozoya lived together in a domestic partnership, during which they had three children, purchased a home together, used the same last name, and filed joint tax returns, although they were not legally married.
- On June 21, 1999, a vehicle driven by Diego Sanchez, an employee of Statkus Engines, rear-ended a vehicle occupied by Ubaldo Lozoya and his son, Osbaldo.
- As a result of the accident, Ubaldo suffered physical injuries that caused him pain and depression.
- The injuries and subsequent depression negatively altered Ubaldo and Sara's relationship, diminishing their social activities and intimate life.
- In November 1999, several months after the first accident, Ubaldo and Sara were formally married.
- On April 18, 2000, Ubaldo and Osbaldo were involved in a second, unrelated rear-end collision caused by a different driver, Philip McWaters.
Procedural Posture:
- The Lozoyas filed a negligence lawsuit in district court against the drivers and employers involved in two separate car accidents.
- At trial, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants from the first accident on Sara Lozoya's loss of consortium claim because she and Ubaldo were not legally married at the time of that accident.
- The jury returned a verdict finding the defendants from the first accident negligent and awarded damages to Ubaldo and Osbaldo, but found the defendant from the second accident was not negligent.
- The Lozoyas appealed the district court's judgment to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of New Mexico because the loss of consortium issue for unmarried partners was a matter of substantial public interest.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does New Mexico law permit a claim for loss of consortium by an unmarried cohabitant of a person injured by a negligent actor?
Opinions:
Majority - Minzner, Justice
Yes. A claim for loss of consortium extends to unmarried cohabitants who can establish an intimate familial relationship. The court reasoned that the basis for a loss of consortium claim is the damage to a significant relational interest, not merely a legal one. While using marital status provides a convenient bright-line rule, it does not serve the interests of justice by excluding claimants who suffer a devastating loss to a relationship that is marital in all but legal formalization. The court rejected arguments that this holding would effectively recognize common law marriage or create an unworkable standard, stating that extending the claim does not confer other marital rights or burdens. Instead, the court adopted a multi-factor test to guide trial courts in determining whether a plaintiff has demonstrated a sufficiently close and committed relationship to warrant recovery, thereby focusing on the reality of the relationship rather than its legal status.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from the national consensus by making New Mexico the first state to recognize a cause of action for loss of consortium for unmarried cohabitants. The ruling shifts the legal inquiry from a rigid, status-based requirement (legal marriage) to a flexible, fact-based analysis of the relationship's nature and quality. This precedent reflects evolving societal norms regarding family structures and creates a potential pathway for recovery for individuals in long-term, committed partnerships who were previously barred from such claims. The case sets a new standard that other jurisdictions may consider when confronted with similar issues, potentially leading to a broader recognition of relational interests outside of traditional marriage.
