Opinion ID: 2423126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eryn's Loss of Consortium Claim

Text: [¶ 18] Eryn argues that her loss of consortium claim is still viable because she was not a party to Chris's release of claims, there is no danger of the Botticellos being exposed to double recovery, and the Botticellos failed to join her as a party to the case. [7] [¶ 19] Consistent with our clarification of Brown, section 302 establishes Eryn's independent right to recover damages for loss of consortium. See Parent, 2005 ME 112, ¶ 14, 884 A.2d at 96; Hardy, 1999 ME 142, ¶ 12, 739 A.2d at 372. Her claim is not directly barred by Chris's settlement and post-injury release of claims because she was not a party to that agreement. See Hardy, 1999 ME 142, ¶¶ 9, 12, 739 A.2d at 371, 372. Nor is her claim barred by her failure to join or be joined in Chris's tort claim even though she was aware of his claim. See Parent, 2005 ME 112, ¶ 16, 884 A.2d at 96. Furthermore, Chris's settlement does not limit Eryn's damages because, in settling Chris's claim, the Botticellos' insurer did not consider any potential claims by Eryn and, therefore, Eryn's claim does not threaten the Botticellos or their insurer with a double recovery or inconsistent obligations. [8] See id. ¶ 17, 884 A.2d at 96-97. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.