Laiuppa v. Moritz

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendant as a result of a motor vehicle collision that allegedly was caused by the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff had sought to commence a previous action against the defendant prior to the expiration of the two year statute of limitations (§ 52-584) applicable to negligence actions. After a state marshal left a copy of the writ of summons and complaint at the defen- dant's last known address on file with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the plaintiff's counsel sent a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant's insurance company, and the defendant's counsel, who had been appointed by the insurance company, thereafter filed an appear- ance and certain discovery motions on the defendant's behalf. The defen- dant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action, which was accompanied by an affidavit from V, her attorney-in-fact, who averred that, prior to the time the marshal attempted abode service at the defendant's last known address, the defendant's property at that address had been sold and the defendant had relocated to Rhode Island. V further averred that she first learned of the action through a reservation of rights letter that was sent to her by the defendant's insurance carrier several weeks after the marshal attempted abode service. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant due to insufficient service of process. After the plaintiff commenced the second action, which he claimed was saved by the accidental failure of suit statute (§ 52-592), the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that § 52-592 was inapplicable because the original action had not been commenced within the two year limitation period set forth in § 52-584. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that a genuine issue of