Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 2

24-CV-00266 Matthew G. Westcott v. Kurt Cooper; et al 

### VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Franklin Unit

17 Church Street

St. Albans VT 05478

802-524-7993

www.vermontjudiciary.org Case No. 24-CV-00266



### Matthew G. Westcott v. Kurt Cooper; et al



## ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Title: Motion to Dismiss (Motion: 2)

Filer: Mark F. Werle

Filed Date: March 14, 2024

Plaintiff Matthew Westcott sues three individuals who he asserts were responsible for the

murder of his uncle, Richard Westcot. He asserts three claims: one under Vermont’s wrongful

death statute, another for loss of consortium, and a third for intentional infliction of emotional

distress. Two of the three defendants have moved to dismiss all counts. The court grants the

motion.

With respect to the first claim, Mr. Wescott lacks standing. Per statute, a wrongful death

claim must “be brought in the name of the personal representative of the deceased person.” 14

V.S.A. §1492(a). Moreover, Mr. Wescott is not even a putative beneficiary of any wrongful

death recovery; he is clearly neither the decedent’s spouse or next of kin, as required by 14

V.S.A. § 1492(c). Thus, any injury he has suffered is not one “that can be redressed in a court of

law.” Parker v. Town of Milton , 169 Vt. 74, 77 (1998). Count 1 therefore fails.

Equally, Vermont law has never recognized a right of action for loss of consortium in

anyone other than a spouse or a child. See 12 V.S.A. § 5431 (“An action for loss of consortium

may be brought by either spouse.”); Whitney v. Fisher , 138 Vt. 468, 471 (1980) (“the action for

loss of consortium is for the remedy of injuries sustained by one who has been deprived of the

affection, aid and cooperation in conjugal relations, conjugal society and support of another

whom the law recognizes as a marital partner”); Hay v. Medical Center Hosp. of Vermont , 145

Vt. 533, 537-45 (1985) (recognizing child’s right of action for loss of parental consortium).

While the court has allowed loss of companionship—akin to consortium—to siblings, that was in

the context of a wrongful death action, in which the siblings were entitled to recover as “next ofVermontSfipsriorCourtFrankflI/x11%?

### kin.”Dubanawiczv.Houman,2006

## VT99,1H]6—15,180

### Vt.367.Here,

### Mr.

### Wescottisnothis

### uncle’sspouse,

### child,or

### “next

### ofkin”;hethereforehasno

### right

### ofrecovery

### forloss

### ofconsortium,eitheratcommon

### laworunderthe

### wrongfuldeathact.

### Countalso

### fails.

### Finally,whereclaimantisnotthedirecttarget

### ofallegedlytortiousconduct,

### Vermont

### lawallowsrecoveryforintentional

### infliction

### ofemotionaldistress

### only

## iftheclaimantispresentatthetime

### oftheconduct.

### Leov.

### Hillman,164

### Vt.94,102—03

### (1995).Here,thecomplaintmakesclearthat

### Mr.Wescottwasnotpresentatthetime

### ofhis

### uncle’smurder.

### Thus,hehasno

### claimforintentional

### infliction

### ofemotionaldistress.

### Count

### fails.

## ORDERThecourtgrantsthemotion.

## AllclaimsagainstDefendants

### Maccaand

### Gillespiearedismissed

### withprejudice.

### Electronicallysignedpursuantto

### V.R.E.F.9(d):4/23/20246:38

### PMmuelar3115

### Court

### JudgeEntryRegardingMotionPageof24—CV—00266MatthewG.Westcottv.KurtCooper;eta1