In any action, the plaintiff may, within sixty days after being notified by the defendant of the filing of an offer of compromise, file with the clerk of the court a written acceptance of the offer signed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney agreeing to settle the underlying action for the sum certain specified in the defendant's offer of compromise. Upon the filing of the written acceptance and receipt by the plaintiff of such sum certain, the plaintiff shall file a withdrawal of the action with the clerk of the court and the clerk shall record the withdrawal of the action against the defendant accordingly. No trial may be postponed because the period within which the plaintiff may accept the offer has not expired, except at the discretion of the court.
(1949 Rev., S. 7943; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 111; P.A. 82-160, S. 95; P.A. 05-275, S. 6.)
History: 1959 act deleted provisions for actions before justices of the peace; P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section; P.A. 05-275 increased from 10 days to 60 days the time period for acceptance of the offer, replaced “offer of judgment” with “offer of compromise”, provided that by filing the acceptance the plaintiff was “agreeing to settle the underlying action for the sum certain specified in the defendant's offer of compromise” and replaced “Upon the filing of the written acceptance, the court shall render judgment against the defendant as upon default for the sum so named and for the costs accrued at the time of the defendant's giving the plaintiff notice of the offer” with “Upon the filing of the written acceptance and receipt by the plaintiff of such sum certain, the plaintiff shall file a withdrawal of the action with the clerk of the court and the clerk shall record the withdrawal of the action against the defendant accordingly”, effective October 1, 2005, and applicable to actions accruing on or after that date.
Cited. 163 C. 445; 239 C. 708. Language of section unambiguously provides that written acceptance of a party's offer of judgment against defendant must result in court's rendering judgment against defendant. 258 C. 299.
Cited. 10 CS 166.
Notes of Decisions
Wallerstein v. Stew Leonard's Dairy, 780 A.2d 916 (Conn. 2001).
· cites it 14× “The dispositive issue in this products liability case is whether, after the defendant, Stew Leonard’s Dairy, had made an offer of judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 52-193 1 and the plaintiff, Steven Wallerstein, had accepted the offer pursuant to General Statutes § 52-194,…”
Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc., 687 A.2d 506 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 4× “to 1983) §§ 52-192a and 52-193, and General Statutes §§ 52-194 and 52-195, 3 treat plaintiffs and defendants so differently as to violate the due process and equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”
Frillici v. Town of Westport, 823 A.2d 1172 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 2× “2d 916 (2001), this court determined that a party in whose favor judgment is rendered pursuant to the offer of judgment statute; General Statutes § 52-194; is the prevailing party as that term is used in the statute governing the award of attorney’s fees in a product liability…”
Krawiec v. Kraft, 311 A.2d 82 (Conn. 1972).
· cites it 6× “We must therefore conclude that in this case the offer of judgment was filed in compliance with General Statutes § 52-193. In General Statutes § 52-194 provision is made for the time and manner of acceptance of an offer of *449 judgment.”
Martin v. Todd Arthurs Co., 225 Conn. App. 844 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Because the plaintiff failed to file a written acceptance of the offer of compromise as is required by statute, and because there was no issue raised on appeal regarding the court’s determination that the objection to the with- drawal of the offer of compromise was moot, our…”
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.