Loss of Consortium Claims in Georgia Car Accidents
On this page
When a crash injures a married person, the other spouse has a claim of their own for what the injury took from the marriage: companionship, society, and household services. In Georgia it has a longer deadline than the injured spouse’s claim, four years rather than two, under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33. It depends on the defendant’s liability for the injury, and how the spouses’ claims are filed and released can preserve or lose it.
What the claim is
The consortium claim belongs to the uninjured spouse. It does not recover the injured spouse’s medical bills, lost wages, or pain and suffering, which belong to the injured spouse’s own claim. It compensates the change in the marriage: the companionship lost, the work the uninjured spouse took on, the life the couple can no longer share. Senate Bill 68’s definition of noneconomic damages lists “loss of consortium” among them (O.C.G.A. § 9-10-184(a)(2)), so the rules on arguing a noneconomic figure apply.
Two deadlines for one crash
| Claim | Deadline | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| The injured spouse's claim | Two years | § 9-3-33: "actions for injuries to the person shall be brought within two years after the right of action accrues" |
| The consortium claim | Four years | § 9-3-33: actions "involving loss of consortium, which shall be brought within four years after the right of action accrues" |
The Court of Appeals has said that a consortium claim “is derivative of liability to a spouse, but the fact that the statute of limitation has run on the underlying claim is of no consequence to the viability of the derivative loss of consortium claim” (Beamon v. Mahadevan, 2014, describing an earlier decision). For example, imagine a crash on March 3, 2026: the injured spouse’s suit is due by March 3, 2028, and the consortium suit by March 3, 2030, a Sunday, which under Georgia’s counting rule (O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3)) carries the last day to Monday, March 4, 2030. The dates are illustrative only.
Filing together, or not
In Stapleton v. Palmore (1982), an injured spouse lost a personal injury suit, and the other spouse then sued separately for loss of consortium. The Supreme Court of Georgia allowed the second suit: the injured spouse’s failure to join the other spouse “is not grounds to dismiss his or her suit”, and “the defendant who desires to be protected against inconsistent obligations should do so” by raising joinder in the first case. Filing both claims together puts them before one jury.
Releases
Whether a settlement release covers the consortium claim depends on its wording and on who signed it. A release signed only by the injured spouse, or by both, can be written to include or exclude the consortium claim. Before either spouse signs, the question is which claims, and whose, the release names.
When the injured spouse was hurt at work
If the injured spouse’s injury is covered by workers’ compensation, the Supreme Court of Georgia held in Henderson v. Hercules, Inc. (1985) that the other spouse’s consortium claim against the employer is barred, because of the Act’s exclusive remedy. A consortium claim against a third party who caused the crash is a different matter.
What supports the claim
- How the couple shared household work and activities before the crash.
- What changed: tasks the uninjured spouse took over, activities given up, care provided.
- Testimony from family and friends who saw the change.
- The injured spouse’s medical records showing the limits the injury imposed.
When the injured spouse dies, the claim for the death itself falls under a different statute, explained in wrongful death claims in Georgia car accidents.
Sources
- O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 (text as published in March 2024); § 1-3-1 (text of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 release); § 9-10-184 (Senate Bill 68 (2025), as passed, § 1).
- Beamon v. Mahadevan, 329 Ga. App. 685 (2014)
- Stapleton v. Palmore, 250 Ga. 259 (1982)
- Henderson v. Hercules, Inc., 253 Ga. 685 (1985)
This page describes Georgia law as of October 2026 for general information. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.