## Facts

- Ubaldo Lozoya and his son Osbaldo were stopped at a red light in Albuquerque when a vehicle driven by Diego Sanchez struck them from behind while Sanchez was acting within the course of his employment with Statkus Engines, LLC.
- The investigating officer reported moderate damage to the Lozoya vehicle and more severe damage to the Statkus vehicle; neither Ubaldo nor Osbaldo reported injury at the scene.
- Ubaldo began experiencing pain shortly after the collision and sought medical treatment eight days later.
- Sara Lozoya and Ubaldo were long-term cohabitants with children and shared financial and household arrangements, but they were not formally married at the time of the collision.
- Sara asserted a loss-of-consortium claim based on Ubaldo’s injuries; the district court directed a verdict against her claim as to Sanchez because she was not married to Ubaldo when the injury occurred.
- The jury returned other verdicts, including a no-negligence verdict for defendant Phillip McWaters d/b/a PDM Trucking.
- On appeal, the question whether unmarried cohabitants may recover for loss of consortium was certified to the New Mexico Supreme Court as an issue of substantial public interest.

## Issues

1. Whether New Mexico law permits an unmarried cohabitant to recover damages for loss of consortium resulting from negligent injury to a partner.
2. Whether the district court erred in directing a verdict against Sara Lozoya’s loss-of-consortium claim solely due to the absence of a legal marriage at the time of injury.
3. Whether the jury’s no-negligence verdict as to one defendant should stand.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court held, as a matter of first impression, that a loss-of-consortium claim is not limited to married partners.
- The court reversed the directed verdict barring Sara Lozoya’s loss-of-consortium claim based on nonmarriage and remanded for further proceedings applying the proper standard.
- The court also reversed the no-negligence verdict as to one defendant and remanded on that issue.
- The judgment was otherwise affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Loss of consortium is a derivative negligence claim for harm to a protected relational interest (companionship, care, and emotional support) caused by physical injury to another.
- Eligibility is not determined solely by marital status; the controlling inquiry is the nature and quality of the relationship and the foreseeability of relational harm.
- A plaintiff may recover for loss of consortium when the relationship is sufficiently close, stable, financially interdependent, and mutually supportive such that the plaintiff’s injury is a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence.
- Limiting factors may include duration and stability of the relationship, cohabitation, shared finances and property, child-rearing, and mutual dependency; courts may allow case-by-case assessment rather than categorical exclusions.

## Conclusion

The court extended loss-of-consortium recovery beyond formal spouses, holding that an unmarried cohabitant may proceed when the relationship is sufficiently close and the loss is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligent injury, and it remanded after reversing the directed verdict that barred the claim on marriage-only grounds.


Lozoya v. Sanchez, 66 P.3d 948 (N.M. 2003)