Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102a (2026)

Impleading of third party by defendant. Rights and remedies of third-party defendant

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(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 available to an original defendant, including the right to assert set-offs or counterclaims against the third-party plaintiff, and shall be entitled to file cross-complaints against any other third-party defendant. The third-party defendant may also assert against the plaintiff any defenses which the third-party plaintiff has to the plaintiff's claim and may assert any claim against the plaintiff arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim against the third-party plaintiff.

(c) The plaintiff, within twenty days after the third-party defendant appears in the action, may assert any claim against the third-party defendant arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original complaint, and the third-party defendant, as against such claim, shall have available to him all remedies available to an original defendant, including the right to assert set-offs or counterclaims against the plaintiff.

(d) A third-party defendant may proceed under this section against any person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or any part of the third-party plaintiff's claim against him.

(e) When a counterclaim is asserted against a plaintiff, he may cause a third party to be brought in under circumstances which under this section would entitle a defendant to do so.

(f) When any civil action in which such a third-party brought in is reached for trial, the court hearing the case may order separate trials of different parts of the action and may make such other order respecting the trial of the action as will do justice to the parties and expedite final disposition of the case.

(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.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Malerba v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 554 A.2d 287 (Conn. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Malerba v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 554 A.2d 287 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 12× “6 While *194 § 52-572o (e) establishes preconditions to the initiation of a contribution action, this statute must be construed in harmony, if that is possible, with General Statutes § 52-102a (a), which authorizes the impleading of third parties by a defendant in a civil action…”

Beaudoin v. Town Oil Co., 542 A.2d 1124 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 7× “In that action, Beaudoin moved to implead Town Oil as a third party defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 52-102a. 1 The court, Kelly, J.”

Cupina v. Bernklau, 551 A.2d 37 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 10× “The defendant moved pursuant to General Statutes § 52-102a 3 to implead the plaintiff’s daughter, Mary Ellen Bernklau, who was then his estranged wife.”

Tarzia v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 727 A.2d 219 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 8× “, granted the motion on August 27, 1996, finding that it was not a proper pleading under General Statutes § 52-102a. Although the motion to strike the plaintiffs pleading called “assertion of claim” was granted as to Kerrigan, the plaintiff did not seek to amend his complaint to…”

Vincent v. Litchfield Farms, Inc., 574 A.2d 834 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990). · cites it 11× “The plaintiff claims (1) that compliance with General Statutes § 52-102a (c) and Practice Book § 117 insulated her from the granting of summary judgment and (2) that her direct claim against the third party defendants relates back to the date of the defendant’s third party…”

Senior v. Hope, 239 A.2d 486 (Conn. 1968). · cites it 9× “We have not heretofore had occasion to consider the rights conferred by § 52-102a to implead “a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable” for all or part of a claim made against a defendant in a civil action. The first sentence of the statute, however, finds its…”

Ferryman v. City of Groton, 561 A.2d 432 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 2× “” See also General Statutes § 52-102a. Practice Book § 157 provides in part: “[I]n those instances where an entire complaint .”

Comm'r of Env't Prot. v. Lake Phipps Land Owners Corp., 485 A.2d 580 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 6× “2 The third party complaint was correctly dismissed because, by its very language, it failed to meet the requirements of General Statutes § 52-102a and Practice Book § 117.”

Protter v. Brown Thompson & Co., 593 A.2d 524 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 5× “Rather, Butler contends, because the fourth party complaint claimed a right of indemnification, the event that would trigger the limitations period contained in § 52-577 was the potential future judgment and resulting demand for payment of said judgment on which the right to…”

Paul v. McPhee Elec. Contractors, 698 A.2d 354 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 5× “The defendant did not move for permission to implead under General Statutes § 52-102a, 4 but served an apportionment complaint on the apportionment defendants pursuant to General Statutes § 52-102b.”

Schurgast v. Schumann, 242 A.2d 695 (Conn. 1968). · cites it 6× “699 , 701, 212 N.E.2d 464 . Aetna also urges that, since the original contract of insurance was dated November 1, 1959, the trial court, by its decision, gave retrospective effect to General Statutes § 52-102a, which was adopted in 1965.”

Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Pumphrey, 535 A.2d 396 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 52-102a provides, in pertinent part: “(a) A defendant in any civil action may move the court for permission as a third-party 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…”

Show all 44 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102a(a) — 1 case

Curtis James Jackson, III - Adversary Proceeding (Bankr. D. Conn. 2020).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102a(c) — 1 case

Gerald Metals, LLC v. Davidson (D. Conn. 2021).

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.