United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Docket No. 78-72729; Published
Judge Feikens
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 469 F Supp 169; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Loss of Consortium Claims [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a written Opinion published at 469 F Supp 199, Judge Feikens held that the Michigan no-fault statute did not abolish tort claims for loss of consortium. At the time of the decision, there had been no state appellate court decisions on this issue. Since then, the Court of Appeals has ruled the same way in the case of Warner v Brighton (item number 195). Judge Feikens rejected the defendant's argument that §3135(1) of the statute allows only the "injured person" to bring a tort suit for noneconomic loss. Once someone is "injured" within the meaning of §3135(1) then the tort feasor loses all tort immunity for all losses proximately caused by their negligence, including derivative liability for loss of consortium.
Judge Feikens noted that the language of §3135 is silent regarding the right to maintain an action for loss of consortium. However, this silence should not be interpreted as barring such actions in light of the well known rule that statutes which abolish the common law should be construed narrowly. Judge Feikens also noted that abolishing the loss of consortium action would not further objectives of the no-fault statute. The no-fault law's purpose is to litigate only cases where there are serious elements of noneconomic loss and bar those cases where losses are small. Abolishing loss of consortium actions would not exclude any cases and permitting such a cause of action would not open the door to additional cases.
