In the ir c o m p la int, the C la rk s a lleg e d M s. S h o a f o p e ra te d the v e h ic le u n d e r t h e F a m ily P u rp o se D o c trine w ith 1 the kn o w le d g e a n d c o n se n t o f M r. S h o a f. M r. S h o a f d ie d d u r in g the p e n d e n c y o f t h is law su it a n d w a s v o lun ta rily d ism isse d w ith p reju d ic e o n M a y 2 5 , 2 0 0 4

.



### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

A T ME MP H IS Fe bruary22, 200 6 S es sio n IVY J OE CLARK , ET AL 

### . v. J OYCE ANN SHOAF, ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Sh elby County No. 301570-3 T.D. K aren R. William s, Jud ge

No. W2005-02262-C OA-R3-C V - F iled April 4, 2006

Husband sued f

or per sonal injury

damag es and Wife c laimed damag es for loss of consortium. The jury a w ar d e d Wi f

e d a ma g e s in a n a mo u n t g r e a te r th a n d a ma g e s a w ar d e d to H u s b a n d f or the underlying pe rsonal injury claim. Appellant a sserts th e aw ar d to Wi fe is inconsistent and un su pp orta

blea s a matte r o f l a w. We a ff

irm. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t heCi r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d; and Rem anded D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, inw h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Andre w H

. O w e n s , M e mp h is , T e n n e s s e e , f o r th e ap p e ll a n t T e n n e s s e e F ar me r s M u tu a l In s u ranc e Compa nie s. Marvin A. B ienvenu, Jr., Gatti, Keltner, B ienvenu & Montesi, PL C, Memphis, T ennesse e, for the Appellee s, I vy

J oe Clark and Vicky

Clark. OP IN ION
This cause of ac tion arises fr om a motor vehicle acc ident on April 7, 1998. Plaintiff I vy J oe Clark ( Mr. Clark) w as injured whe n his vehicle wa s struck fr om behind by a vehic le oper ated by Def endant Joy ce A nn Shoaf (Ms. Shoaf) . I n Marc h 1999, Mr. Clark and his wife , Vicky Clark (Ms. Clark; collec tively , “the Clarks” ) filed a complaint ag ainst Ms. Shoaf and her husband, James D. Shoaf (Mr. Shoaf ) and served a c opy

on their insuranc e ca

rrier , Unnamed 1 Def endant Te nnessee Fa

rmers Mutual Insuranc e (“ Tenne ssee F arme rs”) , asserting an underins ur e d mo torist

c la im. Mr . Cl ark

a lle g e d p e rs on a l in

jurie s in c lud ing pe rm a ne nt i nju ri e s;T h e re is no thin g in the re c o rd to ind ic a te tha t T e n n e sse e F a rm e rs m o v e d the c o u rt fo r re m itt itur. 2 -2- $20,000 in medical bills; permanent loss of income of over $20,000 per y ear ; and pain and suffe ring as a r esult of the ac cident. He soug ht damag es in the amount of $500,000. Ms. Clark alleg ed loss of consortium and sought da mag es in the amount of $250,000.
The matter

was he ard by

a jury in May 2004. Although liability was not disputed, the amount of dama g es wa s hotlycontested. Thejury awa rded Mr . Clark damag es in the amount of $2 0, 00 0. It a wa

rd e d M s. Cla

rk da ma g e s inthea mou nt o f $ 30 ,0 00 fo r l os s o f c on so rt ium

. Tenne ssee F arme rs moved the tria l court for a new trial on the g rounds that the jury ’s awa rd wa s inconsistent where the awa rd to Ms. Clark for loss of c onsortium ex cee ded the damag es aw arde d to Mr. Clark for pe rsonal injury

. The trial c ourt denied the motion, and Tennesse e F arme rs filed 2 a tim e ly no tic e of app e a l. We a ff

irm. Question Presented
Te nn e sse e F arm e rs raise s o ne iss ue fo r this Cou rt ’s re vie w:
Did the trial court err in r efusing to gr ant a ne w trial for rea son that the jury ve rd ic t w a s in te rn a lly

inc on sis te nt?
Anal

y sis The issue pre sented for

our re view is, essentially , a question of the a pplicable standa

rd of revie w. Ms. Clark asserts the jury awa rd must be af

firmed a s supported by

materia l evidence

. Tenne ssee F arme rs, on the other hand, asse rts the jury ’s awa rd of damag es in the amount of $30,000 to Ms. Cl ark f

or loss of consortium must be overturned as a matter of la w as inconsistent with the jury ’s awa

rd of damag es in the amount of $20,000 to Mr. Clark. T ennesse e F arme rs asserts that where an aw ard of damag es for

loss of consortium is gr eate r than da mag es aw arde d for the unde rly ing pe rsonal injury , our standar d of re view on appe al is not whether material evidenc e supports the jury ’s awa rd, but whethe r the a war d is insupportable as a matter of law as internally inconsistent. Tennesse e F arme rs asserts that there is no log ical basis for an aw ard of damag es to Ms. Clark for loss of c onsortium in ex cess of damag es aw arde d to Mr. Clark for the underlying c laim, and that the aw ard must be ba sed on inconsistent finding s. Finally , Tenne ssee Fa rmer’ s also asser

ts that the awa

rd is inconsistent where Ms. Clark has demonstrated no spec ial needs justifying a

loss of consortium awa

rd excee ding the damag es aw arde d to Mr. Clark.-3-

Tenne ssee law does not support Tenne ssee F arme rs’ a ssertions. Ms. Clark’s ac tion for loss of consortium is derivative in that it orig inates fr om or owes its exist enceto Mr. Clark’s claim for pe rsonal injuries. See H unley v . Silver Furniture Mfg. Co. , 38 S.W .3d 555, 557 (Tenn. 2001). Howe ver, a

loss of consortium claim is separate from the origina l claim for pe rsonal injuries. Id. (citations omitted). A spouse’s “ rig ht to recove r for loss of consortium is a rig ht independe nt of the [other] spouse’s rig ht to recove r for the injuries themselves.” Id. (quoting Swafford v. Ci ty of Chattanooga , 743 S.W .2d 174, 178 (Tenn. Ct. App.1987)) . It is a distinct cause of ac tion. Id. (c iti ng Te nn . Co de An n. § 2 5- 1- 10 6, e xpre ssl y c re a tin g wi fe ’s ri g ht t o c la im loss of consortium). Thus, a spouse’ s awa rd of damag es for

loss of consortium may

be re duced by the injured spouse’ s comparative fault. Id. I f a jury ’s awa rd is supported by

any materia l evidenc e, we must affirm the judg ment. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). The materia l evidencestandard is equally applicable to damag es aw arde d for loss of c onsortium. See D avidson v. Lindsey , 104 S.W .3d 483, 493 (Tenn. 2003) (af firming jury ’s awa

rd to dec edent’ s estate f

or dec edent’ s pecunia ry contributions to decede nt’s family in the form of pe rsonal services, such a s cooking and houseke eping , and the va lue of de cede nt’s consortium as supported by materia l evidence ).
Mo re ov e r, Te nn e sse e F arm e r’ s a sse rt ionthat th e jury ’s a wa rdis i nc on sis te nt w he reMs. Clark has de monstrated no spec ial need f or Mr. Clark’ s service s is commensurate to a sserting that the awa

rd is not supported by

the evidenc e. Te nnessee Fa rmer’ s does not arg ue that an awa rd of damag es for

loss of consortium can ne ver be g reater than damag es aw arde d to the plaintiff in the underly ing c ause of action. Rather , it arg ues that, in such a c ase, the plaintiff seeking damag es for

loss of consortium must demonstrate some espe cially g reat relianc e on the plaintiff in the underly ing a ction in order to justify damag es in excess of those a war ded for the underlying injury . Rephrase d, this arg ument amounts to an assertion that the damag es aw ard must be supported by

materia l evidenceof the loss of consortium damag es.
Tenne ssee F arme rs cites one unreported ca se fr om Connecticut in support of its arg ument t h a tt h e j u r y

v e r d i c ti n t h e p r e s e n tc a s e m u s tb e s e ta s i d e . In Bl ake v . Ne urolo gic al S pe c ial ist s , the appe llant arg ued, inte r a lia , that the trial court erre d by denying its motion for re mitti tur beca use the jury

could not rea sonably

have a war ded $2 million in non-economic loss of consortium damag es whe re that awar d was more than twice the amount awa rded f or wrong ful death. Bl ake v . Ne urolo gic al S pe c ial ist s , No. (X02) CV940155265S, 2003 W L 21235295, at *3 (Conn. Super. May

9, 2003). The Blake court c oncluded that a ppellant’s motion for re mitti tur s h o u ldh a v e b e e n g r a n te d b e c au s e th e lo s s o f c o n s o rti u m a w ar d w a s s o e xc e s s iv e a s to “ s h o c k [] the sense of

justice as to compel the c onclusion that the jury was influenc ed by

. . . mistake.” Id. at* 8 (q u o t i n g Gaudio v. Griffin Health Servs. Corp. , 249 Conn. 523, 551(1999)). The jury ’s awa rd of loss of c onsortium damag es in the amount of $2 million was not supported by the evidenc e in that ca se. Id. The Blake c ou rt no te d, ho we ve r, that th e de te rm inatio n o f d a ma g e s in a loss of consortium claim was “distinct and diffe rent” from the de termination of dama g es in the underlying a ction. Id. at *7.-4-

As the Blake court observed, an a war d of dama g es for loss of consortium g reater than an awa rd of damag es in the underly ing c laim is sust ainable w here the awa rd is supported by materia l evidence

. Id. I n the pre sent ca se, Tenne ssee F arme rs does not asse rt the jury ’s awa rd of da ma g e s to Ms. Cla

rk is n ot s up po rt e d b y

a ny mate ri a l e vid e nc e . Furthe r, Te nn e sse e F arm e rs did no t mo ve thetria l c ou rt

fo r a re mittitur , a ndit d oe s n ot s ug g e st that th e a wa rdto M s. Cla

rk is sh oc kin g a ndc a n o nly

ari se fr om m ist ake . T e nn e sse e F arm e rs a sse rt s o nly that th e a wa

rdto M s. Clark must result from inconsistent finding s whereit ex cee ds the amount awa rded to Mr. Clar

k. The only “finding ” which T ennesse e F arme rs asserts is inconsist ent, howeve r, is the awa rd of da ma g e s.
Th e jury a wa rdin this c a se is a

g e ne ra l ve rd ic t. In li g ht o f a ll the e vid e nc e pr e se nte d to it, the jury determined Ms. Clark had suff ere d g reater da mag es than Mr. Clar k. We cannot say

that no materia l evidenceexis ts to support the jury awa rd to Ms. Clark.
Holdin g
I n light of the fore g oing, the judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appea l are taxed to Appellant, Tennesse e F arme rs Mutual I nsuranc e Company , and its surety , for whic h execution may

issue if nec essary .

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE