In Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Piquette, 176 Conn.App. 559, 168 A.3d 623 (2017) the Connecticut Appellate Court reaffirmed Connecticut law, finding that loss of consortium claims are subject to the automobile policy’s same “per person” limit that was available to the principal injury claimant’s claim for bodily injury. Previously, the Connecticut Supreme Court in Izzo v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 203 Conn. 305, 524 A.2d 641 (1987) found that a loss of consortium claim was not a different injury from the claim brought by the person principally injured. The Supreme Court held that the “per person” limit applied to all damages “because of bodily injury” sustained in the accident and therefore a husband’s loss of consortium claim for injuries to his wife were “because of” the physical injuries to the wife. The Connecticut Court of Appeals followed this precedent in Piquette.
In Piquette, Amica’s policy did not contain the “because of” language that was considered by the Izzo court but, instead, involved injuries “arising out of.” The Piquette court found no meaningful difference between the connecting phrases “arising out of” and “because of.” According to the court, both phrases contemplated “claims that flow from and are derivative of” the bodily injury.