Connecticut Statutes

§ 52-102a — Impleading of third party by defendant. Rights and remedies of third-party defendant.

Connecticut § 52-102a
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 52Civil Actions
Ch. 898Pleading

This text of Connecticut § 52-102a (Impleading of third party by defendant. Rights and remedies of third-party defendant.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102a (2026).

Text

(a)A defendant in any civil action may move the court for permission as a third-party plaintiff to serve a writ, summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him. The motion may be filed at any time before trial and permission may be granted by the court if, in its discretion, it deems that the granting of the motion will not unduly delay the trial of the action nor work an injustice upon the plaintiff or the party sought to be impleaded.
(b)The writ, summons and complaint so served shall be equivalent in all respects to an original writ, summons and complaint and the person upon whom it is served, hereinafter called the third-party defendant, shall have available to him all remedies availabl

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

Related

Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Lake Phipps Land Owners Corp.
485 A.2d 580 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1985)
40 case citations
Sheehan v. Superior Ambulance, No. Cv 95 59460 S (Jun. 8, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 7556 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Smith v. Hartford D. Mktg Mail Ser., No. Cv-00-0595496 (Sep. 7, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10939 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
The Milford Bank v. Beazley Milford Rlty., No. Cv95 04 92 81 (Nov. 16, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 12516-O (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Shoreline Care v. Jansen Rogan C., No. X06 Cv94-0155982 S (Jul. 18, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 8526 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Maresca v. De Longhi, No. Cv 94-0462046-S (Dec. 12, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12668 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Simkins Industries, Inc. v. Marsh USA, No. X01 Cv 01 0166142 (Aug. 7, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10637 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Whitney v. Burns, No. 5275 (Jan. 16, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 1063 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Citicorp Mortgage Inc. v. Ferrato, No. Cv 97-0488915s (Dec. 22, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15302 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Sherman v. Waban, Inc., No. 123630 (May 30, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4255-BBBB (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Ronzone v. Eastland Derby Realty Trust, No. Cv97-0397780s (Sep. 21, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10798 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Fuda v. Judd Square Associates, No. 251564 (Aug. 18, 1997)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3174 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)

Legislative History

(February, 1965, P.A. 417; P.A. 82-160, S. 38.) History: P.A. 82-160 inserted Subsec. indicators and made minor technical changes. Third-party complaint must contain sufficient allegations to state cause of action equivalent to requirements of original complaint. 156 C. 92. Impleader lies against insurance company notwithstanding a “no action” clause which prohibits suit against the company until judgment has been rendered against insured; section is procedural in nature and applies to all pending actions although contract of insurance giving rise to interpleader was executed prior to passage of statute. Id., 471. Summary judgment granted third-party defendant insurer where pleadings showed action arose from use of the insured's car while away from the premises insured by the insurer under a homeowner's policy. 167 C. 572. Since neither of the third parties could have been liable to plaintiff, consolidation was not required. 180 C. 355. Cited. 187 C. 637; 191 C. 1; 207 C. 575; 210 C. 189; 212 C. 138; 225 C. 401; 239 C. 93. Cited. 3 CA 100; 13 CA 223; 16 CA 558; 17 CA 159; 25 CA 360; 33 CA 714; 46 CA 18. Statements made in stricken apportionment complaint cannot be used as evidential admissions. 53 CA 373. Nothing in section indicates that court should base decision to grant permission to implead third-party defendant solely on equitable considerations; trial court correctly concluded that defendant was required to file motion to implead before filing third-party complaint and that court lacked personal jurisdiction over person served with third-party complaint because defendant failed to seek and receive trial court's permission before serving third-party complaint. 198 CA 24. Cited. 26 CS 188. Statute does not apply where person is already party to action; cross complaint not allowed when based on claim different from that of principal complaint. Id., 191. Insurer who disclaimed liability under a policy of insurance may be impleaded by defendant. Id., 483. In absence of legislative intent, statute presumed not to apply to pending proceedings and does not operate retrospectively to defeat barring of claims by statutes of limitations. 27 CS 46. Third-party defendant's motion for nonsuit because of plaintiffs failure to comply with order that plaintiffs make first count of their complaint more specific denied. Id., 465. Sufficiency of third-party complaint may be tested by demurrer; cause of action for breach of contract of sale stated in third-party complaint commenced 4 years and 4 months after breach is barred by statute of limitations and is demurrable. 28 CS 385. Defendant, as third-party plaintiff, may implead, as third-party defendant, executor of operator of car even though defendant's liability to original plaintiff had not yet been determined. 29 CS 9, 13. Statute includes accelerations effect on obligations to indemnity. Id., 171. Plaintiff need not show existing right to relief to institute third-party action for indemnity; before judgment right applies to indemnitors who may be liable in expressed or implied obligations. Id., 192. The purpose of section is to obviate a multiplicity of actions. 33 CS 1, 2. Cited. Id., 188; 34 CS 287, 289. Third-party complaint must contain sufficient allegations to state cause of action equivalent to requirements of an original complaint. 35 CS 82, 88. Motion to strike third-party complaint granted since complaint failed to allege liability of third-party defendant to third-party plaintiff. 36 CS 134. Cited. 40 CS 63; 44 CS 510. Applies only to person not a party to the action. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 419. Guarantee given by third party is sufficient cause for defendant to implead third party. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 369. Subsec. (c): Filing of third-party complaint by original defendant does not toll running of statute of limitations on a cause of action between plaintiff and a third-party defendant. 21 CA 524. Trial court erred in strictly enforcing the 20-day time limit in case in which the length of delay did not prejudice third-party defendant and would not have delayed trial. 52 CA 136.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 52-102a, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/52-102a.