Nationwide Ins. v. Valenti Auto Sales, No. Cv91 04 07 87s (Feb. 2, 1993)

Connecticut Superior Court

Nationwide Ins. v. Valenti Auto Sales, No. Cv91 04 07 87s (Feb. 2, 1993)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1389

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 2, 1993

DocketNo. CV91 04 07 87S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1389 (Nationwide Ins. v. Valenti Auto Sales, No. Cv91 04 07 87s (Feb. 2, 1993)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nationwide Ins. v. Valenti Auto Sales, No. Cv91 04 07 87s (Feb. 2, 1993), 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1389 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT JOHN PIERLONI CT Page 1390 This action was not commenced until May 19, 1992 against the defendant John Pierloni, more than three years from his May 1, 1989 acts or omissions complained of. As such, it is barred by the statute of limitations, 52-584. Prokolkin v. General Motors Corporation, 170 Conn. 289, 303 (1976). "The date of the act or omission complained of is the date when the negligent conduct of the defendant occurs and is not the date when the plaintiff first sustains damage." McDonald v. Hayes Medical Laboratory Inc.,192 Conn. 327, 330 (1984); see also Stein v. Katz, 213 Conn. 282, 285 (1989). Pierloni's motion against the plaintiff is granted.

Flynn, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT JOHN PIERLONI CT Page 1390 This action was not commenced until May 19, 1992 against the defendant John Pierloni, more than three years from his May 1, 1989 acts or omissions complained of. As such, it is barred by the statute of limitations, 52-584. Prokolkin v. General Motors Corporation, 170 Conn. 289, 303 (1976). "The date of the act or omission complained of is the date when the negligent conduct of the defendant occurs and is not the date when the plaintiff first sustains damage." McDonald v. Hayes Medical Laboratory Inc.,192 Conn. 327, 330 (1984); see also Stein v. Katz, 213 Conn. 282, 285 (1989). Pierloni's motion against the plaintiff is granted.

Flynn, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nationwide-ins-v-valenti-auto-sales-no-cv91-04-07-87s-feb-2-1993-connsuperct-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack