permitting consortium claim where asbestos-related illness could not have been discovered in exercise of reasonable care and diligence prior to marriage
How later courts described this case
- permitting consortium claim where asbestos-related illness could not have been discovered in exercise of reasonable care and diligence prior to marriage
- recognizing a claim for loss of consortium under Michigan law
- asbestos-related illness was not, and could not have been, with reasonable care and diligence, discovered prior to marriage
- loss of consortium claim based on asbestos exposure before marriage
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Danhof, C.J.,
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
*349 I agree with the circuit court that plaintiff Kenneth Furby sustained injury either at the time he was exposed to asbestos or no later than June of 1981. Dr. SelikofFs letter of June, 1981, plainly communicated the fact of injury. I conclude that the injury occurred well before the plaintiffs’ marriage in October of 1981.
The loss of consortium claim is derived from the marital relationship and the rights arising from it. Chisea v Rowe, 486 F Supp 236, 238 (WD Mich, 1980). See, also, Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 125, p 932. Where the injury occurs before marriage, recovery for loss of consortium is generally not allowed. Sawyer v Bailey, 413 A2d 165 (Me, 1980); Tremblay v Carter, 390 So 2d 816 (Fla App, 1980). These principles are fairly easy to apply to cases in which the claims for liability and loss of consortium arise as a result of an accident. Their application becomes more difficult where, as here, the claims arise as a result of an occupational disease.
The majority follows Stager v Schneider, 494 A2d 1307 (DC App, 1985), and applies the discovery rule in order to determine the viability of the consortium claim. I am not completely convinced that the rule which governs accrual of Mr. Furby’s cause of action should also control the viability of Mrs. Furby’s loss of consortium claim. Assuming that it does, I would follow the majority view expressed in Larson v Johns-Manville Sales Corp, 140 Mich App 254 ; 365 NW2d 194 (1985), lv gtd 422 Mich 975 (1985), that an asbestos-related product liability claim accrues at the time of the wrongful act, i.e., exposure to asbestos.
I would affirm the decision of the circuit court.