Connecticut Statutes

§ 52-102b — Addition of person as defendant for apportionment of liability purposes.

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

This text of Connecticut § 52-102b (Addition of person as defendant for apportionment of liability purposes.) 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. § 52-102b (2026).

Text

(a)A defendant in any civil action to which section 52-572h applies may serve a writ, summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable pursuant to said section for a proportionate share of the plaintiff's damages in which case the demand for relief shall seek an apportionment of liability. Any such writ, summons and complaint, hereinafter called the apportionment complaint, shall be served within one hundred twenty days of the return date specified in the plaintiff's original complaint. The defendant filing an apportionment complaint shall serve a copy of such apportionment complaint on all parties to the original action in accordance with the rules of practice of the Superior Court on or before the return date specified in the apportionment complaint.

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

Related

Sharif v. Peck, No. 429034 (Mar. 27, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 4282 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
1 case citations
Nemechek v. Town of Ashford, No. X07 Cv 97-0070811 S (May 11, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 5564 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Lobovits v. Nemeth, No. Cv97 034 89 92 S (Apr. 27, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 4234 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Peloquin v. Stop Shop Holdings, Inc., No. Cv97-0082759-S (Mar. 3, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2760 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Berlepsch v. Peck, No. 423137 (Jan. 25, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 1329 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Ciaburri v. Shaws Supermarket, No. Cv 00-0442894 S (May 15, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 6195 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Tarnowsky v. Socci, No. Cv00 0177148 S (Oct. 11, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 13988 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Allen v. Hutchinson, No. 404673 (Apr. 10, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5000 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Carrano v. Mjm Studios, Inc., No. Cv 99-0423267 (Mar. 12, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2672 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Rodriguez v. Smith, No. Cv 98 0144464 (Jul. 22, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 10021 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Collins v. Mahon, No. Cv98 0063836s (Nov. 1, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14371 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Griffin v. Arduini, No. Cv00 037 72 55 (Mar. 30, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 4430 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Nationwide Insurance Ent. v. a G Dev., No. Cv 99 0362565 S (Jul. 23, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 10428 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Allstate Insurance Company v. Lerer, No. X03 Cv95 0502559s (Jan. 16, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 1003 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Mazzola v. Yaghma, No. 403943 (Nov. 15, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 15342 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)
Nave v. Rivera, No. 552716 (Feb. 7, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 1553 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Bracero v. Thames River Association, No. Cv 98 545594 (Dec. 10, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 14192 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Precision Electronic Assembly v. Goodman, No. Cv98 0063451s (Jul. 5, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 9071 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Sibilla v. Savin Harbor Condominium Association., No. 445433 (Oct. 18, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14694 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Casey v. Allegheny Teledyne, Inc., No. X04-Cv-00-0121238s (Aug. 23, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 11548 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)

Legislative History

(P.A. 95-111, S. 1, 2.) History: P.A. 95-111 effective July 1, 1995, and applicable to any civil action filed on or after said date. Significance of appeal undermined by legislation; certification to appeal was improvidently granted; appeal dismissed. 239 C. 798. Apportionment complaint seeking to add a person who may be liable to plaintiff under Sec. 52-572h may not be filed against an unidentified person. 253 C. 516. Defendant may assert under a general denial that the negligence of an employer who is not a party to the action is the sole proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. 287 C. 20. Cited. 46 CA 18. Reaffirmed previous holdings that section implicates personal jurisdiction and not subject matter jurisdiction and applies to legal malpractice claims against apportionment defendants. 85 CA 655. Subsec. (a): Time limitation on bringing apportionment complaint is substantive and mandatory and implicates personal jurisdiction. 269 C. 10. Although compliance with the 120-day limit is mandatory, equitable reasons may excuse compliance, and fact that legal basis for apportioning liability arose only after the 120-day limit had expired constitutes an equitable reason justifying excusal from compliance with the limit. 281 C. 112. Subsec. (d): Because language of Subsec. does not include a provision for a nonappearing party, the rules of practice control and plaintiff could not accomplish service through the mail but was required to serve the new claim on the nonappearing party in the same manner as an original complaint is served. 112 CA 28.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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