Recently, the Idaho Supreme Court had to address the issue of whether loss of consortium damages, traditionally only recognized for married couples, could also be applied to cohabiting couples. The Court, in the case of Conner vs. Hodges, answered in the negative. In so ruling, the Court stated:
An action for the loss of consortium vindicates a right growing out of the marriage relation, for loss of which recovery may be had, and includes the exclusive right to the services of the spouse (which contemplates not so much services or reward earned as assistance and helpfulness in the relations of conjugal life according to their situation) and also the exclusive right to the society, companionship, and conjugal affection towards each other.
Since the family is the core of our society, the law seeks to foster and preserve marriage. To adopt [a contrary] rule of law proposed would be to adopt a vague, indefinite standard that would be incapable of just or predictable application. In the words of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama: “Would the giving of an engagement ring qualify as creating a significant relationship? If not, how long would the engagement have to exist? Would “going steady” be sufficient? Is co-habitation sufficient? If it is, how much cohabitation? Would a simple ‘rent sharing’ do the trick? The answer to all of those questions, of course, is that no one knows.
For these reasons, we decline to extend the right to recover for loss of consortium to unmarried partners and hold that the district court properly dismissed Ryan’s claim.