In recent years, in the rulings of the Supreme Court there has become a predominant the view that the family members and/or cohabitees who have suffered harm due to their family bond being broken as a result of serious bodily injury or serious health disorder of the injured person are entitled to a claim for compensation. Thus, their rights were equated with the rights of those indirectly affected by the death of a family member or cohabitee. When the above view seemed to be already well-established, a resolution of the Supreme Court of 22 October 2019 (I NSNZP 2/19), changed profoundly the existing line of case law. As a result, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court received a motion from the Financial Ombudsman of 13 December 2019 asking the Court to resolve the question which of the Supreme Court resolutions should shape the practice and how parties to civil law transactions should deal with the discrepancies between the resolutions issued by panels of seven judges in two chambers of the Supreme Court. In response to the request, the First President of the Supreme Court decided that this issue would be adjudicated on by the joined chambers of the Supreme Court: the Civil Chamber and the Extraordinary Review and Public Affairs Chamber. It is worthwhile to take a closer look at the views expressed in case law and legal scholarship on the issue at hand, as well as the proposals of regulating it.