What Is the Statute of Limitations for a Loss of Consortium Claim in Georgia?
On this page
Four years, in an ordinary injury case. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 sets two years for injuries to the person “except for actions for injuries to the person involving loss of consortium, which shall be brought within four years after the right of action accrues”. The exception that changes the answer: when the injury came from medical malpractice, the spouse’s consortium claim has two years.
Which deadline applies
| Source of the injury | Injured spouse's claim | Other spouse's consortium claim |
|---|---|---|
| Car crash, fall, product, other ordinary negligence | 2 years (§ 9-3-33) | 4 years (§ 9-3-33) |
| Medical malpractice | 2 years from injury, 5-year repose (§ 9-3-71) | 2 years (Beamon v. Mahadevan, 2014) |
| Workplace injury covered by workers' compensation | No tort claim against the employer (§ 34-9-11) | No claim against the employer (Henderson v. Hercules, 1985) |
Why malpractice is different
Section 9-3-34 provides that the article containing § 9-3-33, including its four-year consortium rule, does not apply to medical malpractice actions. In Beamon v. Mahadevan (2014), a spouse’s consortium claim arising from an alleged malpractice injury was held untimely under the two-year malpractice period; the Court of Appeals rejected her argument for four years on the basis of § 9-3-34. The malpractice timing rules are in the Georgia malpractice limitation period.
The consortium claim is separate, but tied to the injury
Georgia decisions describe the consortium claim in two ways that both matter:
- Separate for timing and judgments. In Stapleton v. Palmore (1982), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that a verdict for the defendant in the injured spouse’s case did not bar the other spouse’s later consortium suit, because the consortium claim belongs to “another person who was not a party or privy to the previous proceedings”. The Court also observed that the longer four-year period “would permit a spouse to sue for loss of consortium even though the spouse injured personally did not file suit within the shorter period of limitation”.
- Derivative of a right to sue. In Henderson v. Hercules, Inc. (1985), the Court quoted an earlier Court of Appeals statement of the rule: “One spouse’s right of action for the loss of the other’s society or consortium is a derivative one, stemming from the right of the other”. It held that a wife had no consortium claim against her husband’s employer because workers’ compensation was his exclusive remedy. If the injured spouse never had a tort claim against that defendant, the consortium claim against it fails too.
Stapleton also held that the two spouses’ claims should be joined in one action when both spouses can be served, under Georgia’s joinder rule. That makes the shorter two-year date the practical deadline for a couple who want to sue together.
What the claim covers
A consortium claim belongs to the spouse who was not physically injured and compensates for the effect of the injury on the marriage: lost companionship, society, and services. It does not recover the injured spouse’s medical bills or pain and suffering, which belong to that spouse’s own claim. How noneconomic losses are valued is covered in how pain and suffering is valued in a Georgia injury case.
Dates to fix for a married couple after an injury
- The date of injury (starts both clocks in an ordinary case).
- Whether the claim is for medical malpractice, which shortens the consortium period to two years.
- Whether the defendant is the injured spouse’s employer, which removes both tort claims.
- Whether the defendant is a government entity, which adds a written notice deadline of 6 or 12 months; see Georgia ante litem notice rules.
Sources
- O.C.G.A. §§ 9-3-33, 9-3-34, 9-3-71, 34-9-11.
- Stapleton v. Palmore, 250 Ga. 259 (1982)
- Henderson v. Hercules, Inc., 253 Ga. 685 (1985)
- Beamon v. Mahadevan, 329 Ga. App. 685 (2014)
General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.