Nuzzo v. the Rockbestos Company, No. Cv 93-0355456 (Aug. 6, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Nuzzo v. the Rockbestos Company, No. Cv 93-0355456 (Aug. 6, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8988

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedAugust 6, 1998

DocketNo. CV93-0355456

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8988 (Nuzzo v. the Rockbestos Company, No. Cv 93-0355456 (Aug. 6, 1998)) 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

Nuzzo v. the Rockbestos Company, No. Cv 93-0355456 (Aug. 6, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8988 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The defendant has moved for summary judgment on the intervening complaint of Professional Driving Co., Inc., the named plaintiffs' employer, based on its contention that the intervening complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. Professional Driving opposes summary judgment. It acknowledges that its complaint was filed long after the statute of limitations on the underlying claim had expired. It points out, however, that the named plaintiff had filed his complaint well within the statute of limitations and that Professional Driving had filed its intervening complaint within 30 days after CT Page 8989 receiving notice pursuant to General Statutes Section 31-293(a).

At oral argument, the parties agreed that there were no facts in dispute, and that the case was controlled by Nichols v. TheLighthouse Restaurant, Inc., 46 Conn. App. 712 (1997), which was then on appeal to the Supreme Court. That court rendered its decision on August 4, 1998, reversing the judgment of the Appellate Court. Nichols v. Lighthouse Restaurant, Inc.,246 Conn. 156(1998). The Supreme Court unanimously held "that when an employer receives formal notice under Section 31-293(a) of an employee's timely filed action against third party tortfeasor, the applicable statute of limitations on the underlying claim is tolled if the employer intervenes within the 30 day period prescribed by Section 31-293(a). Id, 170. Based on that holding, the Motion for Summary Judgement is denied.

Jonathan E. Silbert, Judge

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 RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The defendant has moved for summary judgment on the intervening complaint of Professional Driving Co., Inc., the named plaintiffs' employer, based on its contention that the intervening complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. Professional Driving opposes summary judgment. It acknowledges that its complaint was filed long after the statute of limitations on the underlying claim had expired. It points out, however, that the named plaintiff had filed his complaint well within the statute of limitations and that Professional Driving had filed its intervening complaint within 30 days after CT Page 8989 receiving notice pursuant to General Statutes Section 31-293(a).

At oral argument, the parties agreed that there were no facts in dispute, and that the case was controlled by Nichols v. TheLighthouse Restaurant, Inc., 46 Conn. App. 712 (1997), which was then on appeal to the Supreme Court. That court rendered its decision on August 4, 1998, reversing the judgment of the Appellate Court. Nichols v. Lighthouse Restaurant, Inc.,246 Conn. 156(1998). The Supreme Court unanimously held "that when an employer receives formal notice under Section 31-293(a) of an employee's timely filed action against third party tortfeasor, the applicable statute of limitations on the underlying claim is tolled if the employer intervenes within the 30 day period prescribed by Section 31-293(a). Id, 170. Based on that holding, the Motion for Summary Judgement is denied.

Jonathan E. Silbert, Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nuzzo-v-the-rockbestos-company-no-cv-93-0355456-aug-6-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack