consortium on behalf of the spouses of the terminated hourly employees. Such a claim, however, must be predicated on a tort involving a bodily injury, and the district court properly dismissed the Workers’ claim for failure to allege that any bodily injuries were sustained by the terminated employees as a result of the underlying tort claims (namely, a claim of fraud and violations under the WARN Act, which is defined below). “[A] claim for loss of consortium is derivative in that the claim is dependent upon the defendant’s having committed a legally cognizable tort upon the spouse who suffers bodily injury.” Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc., 63 Ohio St.3d 84, 585 N.E.2d 384, 392 (1992) (emphasis added); see also Blatnik v. Avery Dennison Corp., 148 Ohio App.3d 494, 774 N.E.2d 282, 297 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Cunningham v. Hildebrand, 142 Ohio App.3d
recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse holding loss of consortium claim is derivative of spouses substantive claim recognizing loss of consortium claims holding that a claim for loss of consortium  cannot stand because there is no evidence of bodily injury sustained