Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b (2026)

Addition of person as defendant for apportionment of liability purposes

✓ 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 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. The person upon whom the apportionment complaint is served, hereinafter called the apportionment defendant, shall be a party for all purposes, including all purposes under section 52-572h.

(b) The apportionment complaint shall be equivalent in all respects to an original writ, summons and complaint, except that it shall include the docket number assigned to the original action and no new entry fee shall be imposed. The apportionment defendant shall have available to him all remedies available to an original defendant including the right to assert defenses, set-offs or counterclaims against any party. If the apportionment complaint is served within the time period specified in subsection (a) of this section, no statute of limitation or repose shall be a defense or bar to such claim for apportionment, except that, if the action against the defendant who instituted the apportionment complaint pursuant to subsection (a) of this section is subject to such a defense or bar, the apportionment defendant may plead such a defense or bar to any claim brought by the plaintiff directly against the apportionment defendant pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

(c) No person who is immune from liability shall be made an apportionment defendant nor shall such person's liability be considered for apportionment purposes pursuant to section 52-572h. If a defendant claims that the negligence of any person, who was not made a party to the action, was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries or damage and the plaintiff has previously settled or released the plaintiff's claims against such person, then a defendant may cause such person's liability to be apportioned by filing a notice specifically identifying such person by name and last-known address and the fact that the plaintiff's claims against such person have been settled or released. Such notice shall also set forth the factual basis of the defendant's claim that the negligence of such person was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries or damages. No such notice shall be required if such person with whom the plaintiff settled or whom the plaintiff released was previously a party to the action.

(d) Notwithstanding any applicable statute of limitation or repose, the plaintiff may, within sixty days of the return date of the apportionment complaint served pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, assert any claim against the apportionment defendant arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original complaint.

(e) When a counterclaim is asserted against a plaintiff, he may cause a person not a party to the action to be brought in as an apportionment defendant under circumstances which under this section would entitle a defendant to do so.

(f) This section shall be the exclusive means by which a defendant may add a person who is or may be liable pursuant to section 52-572h for a proportionate share of the plaintiff's damages as a party to the action.

(g) In no event shall any proportionate share of negligence determined pursuant to subsection (f) of section 52-572h attributable to an apportionment defendant against whom the plaintiff did not assert a claim be reallocated under subsection (g) of said section. Such proportionate share of negligence shall, however, be included in or added to the combined negligence of the person or persons against whom the plaintiff seeks recovery, including persons with whom the plaintiff settled or whom the plaintiff released under subsection (n) of section 52-572h, when comparing any negligence of the plaintiff to other parties and persons under subsection (b) of said section.

(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.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 58 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Lostritto v. Cmty. Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 848 A.2d 418 (Conn. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lostritto v. Cmty. Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 848 A.2d 418 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 136× “The principal issue in this appeal is whether General Statutes § 52-102b (a), 1 which *13 requires service of an apportionment complaint within 120 days after the return date of the original complaint, is mandatory or directory in nature.”

Viera v. Cohen, 927 A.2d 843 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 66× “, General Statutes § 52-102b (c) (holding defendant responsible for immune person's share of negligence by precluding defendant from bringing apportionment complaint against immune persons); General Statutes § 52-572h (g) (reallocating uncollectible amount from one defendant…”

Eskin v. Castiglia, 753 A.2d 927 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 32× “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-102b, 1 an *518 apportionment complaint seeking to add a person who may be liable to the plaintiff under General Statutes § 52-572h, 2 may be filed against an unidentified person.”

Pedro v. Miller, 914 A.2d 524 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 25× “, appeal 1 from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss the apportionment defendant, Edward Hargus, based on the failure of Miller to serve the apportionment complaint upon Hargus within 120 days of the return date of the original complaint, as required by…”

Paul v. McPhee Elec. Contractors, 698 A.2d 354 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 14× “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.”

Carlson v. Waterbury Hosp., 905 A.2d 654 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 19× “15 In so ruling, the court noted, preliminarily, that General Statutes § 52-102b, 16 the statutory provision governing *135 the procedure for seeking an apportionment of liability under § 52-572h, did not become effective until several months after the plaintiff had filed her…”

Bloom v. Gershon, 856 A.2d 335 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 11× “The principal issue in this appeal is whether the claims commissioner has jurisdiction, pur *99 suant to General Statutes § 4-160, 1 to waive the state’s sovereign immunity and grant a claimant permission to file an apportionment complaint, pursuant to General Statutes §…”

Allard v. Liberty Oil Equip. Co., 756 A.2d 237 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 10× “It is undisputed that Liberty Oil filed its apportionment complaint pursuant to General Statutes § 52-102b (a), 6 which provides in pertinent part: “A defendant in *792 any civil action to which section 52-572h applies may serve a writ, summons and complaint upon a person not a…”

Costanzo v. Plainfield, 344 Conn. 86 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 8× “See General Statutes § 52-102b (c).7 Specifically, the defendants maintained that, as the owners of the property, the Prinks bore the responsibility for ensuring compliance with any require- ments of the [building code], and that the Prinks had failed (1) to schedule an…”

Craig v. Driscoll, 813 A.2d 1003 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 4× “Among the drunken drivers who will be able to add the providers of alcohol as defendants for apportionment of liability purposes under General Statutes § 52-102b (a) will be some who have the ability to pay the full amount of damages.”

Carpenter v. Law Offices of Dressler & Assocs., LLC, 858 A.2d 820 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 19× “The court concluded that the plaintiffs legal malpractice claim did not fall into the categories of civil actions for which General Statutes § 52-102b (a) permits apportionment.”

Morgan v. Hartford Hosp., 21 A.3d 451 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 5× “The court concluded that the 120 day limitation was mandatory and that noncompliance with § 52-102b implicates a court’s personal jurisdiction, not subject matter jurisdiction.”

Show all 58 citing cases →

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

In Re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative, 511 F. Supp. 2d 742 (S.D. Tex. 2005).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b(a) — 9 cases

Pouliot v. Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Conn. 2004).

In Re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative, 511 F. Supp. 2d 742 (S.D. Tex. 2005).

Est. of Nobile v. United States, 193 F.R.D. 58 (D. Conn. 2000).

Abbate v. Northland Aeg, LLC, 788 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D. Conn. 2011).

Guigliano v. Danbury Hosp., 396 F. Supp. 2d 220 (D. Conn. 2005).

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

Pouliot v. Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Conn. 2004).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b(f) — 3 cases

Est. of Nobile v. United States, 193 F.R.D. 58 (D. Conn. 2000).

Marte-Carrasco v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Ltd. P'ship (D. Conn. 2023).

Roegiers v. United States (D. Conn. 2023).

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.