Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 28-13 (2026)

Immunity from liability. Penalty for denial of access to property during civil preparedness emergency

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Neither the state nor any political subdivision of the state nor, except in cases of wilful misconduct, the agents or representatives of the state or any political subdivision thereof nor any member of the civil preparedness forces of the state nor any person authorized by such civil preparedness forces or by any member of such civil preparedness forces complying with or attempting to comply with this chapter or any order or regulation promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, or pursuant to any ordinance relating to blackout or other precautionary measures enacted by any political subdivision of the state nor any person employed by or authorized to assist any agency of the federal government in the prevention or mitigation of any major disaster or emergency, shall be liable for the death of or injury to persons or for damage to property as a result of any such activity. The Attorney General shall appear for and defend the state, any political subdivision of the state and the agents or representatives of the state or any political subdivision thereof or any member of the civil preparedness forces of the state or any other person exempted from liability for his acts under this section in any civil action brought for the death of or injury to persons or for damage to property as a result of any civil preparedness activity.

(b) Any person, corporation, partnership or association who denies access to property owned or under the control of such entity to any person acting in accordance with this chapter during a civil preparedness emergency shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or more than five hundred dollars.

(June, 1951, S. 1917d; P.A. 73-544, S. 13; P.A. 79-417, S. 4; P.A. 07-217, S. 132.)

History: P.A. 73-544 substituted “civil preparedness” for “civil defense” throughout; P.A. 79-417 extended exemption from liability and subsequent defense by attorney general to persons authorized by civil preparedness forces or any of its members to act within provisions of the chapter and to persons employed by or authorized to assist agency of federal government in cases of major disasters or emergencies and added new Subsec. (b) providing for fines for those who deny access to property for those acting in accordance with provisions of chapter; P.A. 07-217 made technical changes in Subsec. (b), effective July 12, 2007.

Section extends state's sovereign immunity, including both immunity from suit and liability, to political subdivisions and such immunity applies to activities discussed therein, including measures to be taken in preparation for, during, and following a major disaster or emergency. 333 C. 30.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case: Sena v. Am. Med. Response of Connecticut, Inc..

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sena v. Am. Med. Response of Connecticut, Inc. (Conn. 2019). · cites it 50× “This appeal requires us to consider the nature and scope of the immunity provided to the state and its political subdivisions by General Statutes § 28-13 (a)1 for actions taken in connection with a civil preparedness emergency declared by the governor pur- suant to General…”

Graham v. Friedlander (Conn. 2020). · cites it 2× “Specifically, this case addresses whether the legislature extended the state’s immunity from suit to the board defendants for the kind of relief that the plaintiffs seek.”

Petition of Klarman (D. Conn. 1967). “, § 28-13 (1958)). On the present record, at least, denial of petitioner’s motion would be unjustified.”

Smith v. Supple (Conn. 2023). · cites it 5× “3d 1110 (2019), we looked ‘‘to [General Statutes] § 28-13 to determine the nature of the immunity afforded to political subdivi- sions’’ when they are sued for actions taken by their police and fire departments in response to declared state emergencies.”

Borelli v. Renaldi (Conn. 2021). · cites it 2× “93- 290 (adding subdivision (10), regarding preexisting conditions on land sold or transferred by the state, to subsection (b)). 42 I am aware of a single exception to this proposition, which is the immunity provided to the state and its political subdivisions by General…”

Smith v. Supple (Conn. 2023). · cites it 2× “52 (legislature intended protections under state of emergency statute, General Statutes § 28-13, to provide political subdivi- sions of state with ‘‘immunity from suit and not just immunity from liability,’’ thereby rendering denial of motion for summary judgment appealable…”

Smith v. Supple (Conn. 2023). · cites it 2× “52 (legislature intended protec- tions under state of emergency statute, General Statutes § 28-13, to provide political subdivisions of state with ‘‘immunity from suit and not just immunity from liabil- ity,’’ thereby rendering denial of motion for summary judgment appealable…”

Klarman v. Santini (D. Conn. 1973). · cites it 2× “§ 7-465; (3) release; (4) immunity under Conn.Gen. Stat. § 28-13. Thereafter, Santini moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the petition of Klarman.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.