Laiuppa v. Moritz

Citations

• 350 Conn. 457

Syllabus

The plaintiff, who had sought to recover damages from the defendant for her alleged negligence in connection with a motor vehicle accident, appealed from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which upheld the trial court's granting of the defendant's motion for summary judgment and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The plaintiff claimed that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the present action was not saved by the accidental failure of suit statute (§ 52-592) because his original action, which previously had been dismissed for insufficient service of process, was not commenced within the time limited by law, as required by § 52-592 (a). Held: An action is ''commenced'' for purposes of § 52-592 (a) when a defendant has actual or effective notice that the action is pending through the defendant's receipt of the summons and complaint within the time permitted by law, even if such process was improperly served. The plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant had actual or effective notice of the original action sufficient to commence the action for purposes of § 52-592 (a), as there was no evidence establishing that the defendant or her designated agent had received the summons and complaint within the time limited by law. (Two justices dissenting in one opinion) Argued December 13, 2023—officially released August 16, 2024 August 16, 2024, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes. 458 NOVEMBER, 2024 350 Conn. 457 Laiuppa v. Moritz