Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 922b — Fact-Finding and Arbitration
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-549n (2026)

Certain contract actions referred to fact-finders. Rules of procedure

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In accordance with the provisions of section 51-14, the judges of the Superior Court may make such rules as they deem necessary to provide a procedure in accordance with which the court, in its discretion, may refer to a fact-finder for proceedings authorized pursuant to this chapter, any contract action pending in the Superior Court, except claims under insurance contracts for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, in which only money damages are claimed and which is based upon an express or implied promise to pay a definite sum, and in which the amount, legal interest or property in controversy is less than fifty thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs. Such cases may be referred to a fact-finder only after the certificate of closed pleadings has been filed, no claim for a jury trial has been filed at the time of reference, and the time prescribed in section 52-215 for filing a jury trial claim within thirty days of the return day or within ten days after the issue of fact has been joined has expired.

(P.A. 81-462, S. 8, 13; P.A. 82-441, S. 1, 13, 23; P.A. 97-24, S. 1, 7; 97-40, S. 6; P.A. 15-118, S. 64.)

History: P.A. 82-441 deleted provisions re arbitration of civil actions and substituted provisions re rules of procedure for fact-finding in certain contract actions, and postponed effective date of section from July 1, 1982, to July 1, 1983; P.A. 97-24 added exception for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, increased limit for amount in controversy from less than $15,000 to less than $50,000 and, using language identical to that in P.A. 97-40, made change in procedure by requiring filing of certificate of closed pleadings, effective January 1, 1998; P.A. 97-40 required filing of certificate of closed pleadings; P.A. 15-118 made a technical change.

Cited. 199 C. 496; 237 C. 758.

Cited. 5 CA 469; 12 CA 348; 15 CA 185; Id., 194; 17 CA 294; 20 CA 420; 24 CA 223; 28 CA 693; Id., 693; 35 CA 353; 38 CA 772; 42 CA 763.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Beizer v. Goepfert, 613 A.2d 1336 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beizer v. Goepfert, 613 A.2d 1336 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 21× “I The plaintiff claims that these matters should not have been referred to an attorney factfinder because the requirements of General Statutes § 52-549n were not satisfied.”
Rostenberg-Doern Co. v. Weiner, 552 A.2d 827 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 10× “It is undisputed that the attorney trial referee in this case was appointed pursuant to General Statutes § 52-434 (a) (4) 4 and not General Statutes § 52-549n. 5 *298 These two statutes authorize the appointment of qualified members of the bar to sit as adjuncts to the trial…”
State v. DeJesus, 953 A.2d 45 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 4× “nant summary process actions); General Statutes § 51-15 (rules of procedure for various civil actions and modification of rules of pleadings, practice and evidence for small claims actions); General Statutes § 52-191c (rules for precedence of actions involving terminally ill…”
Seal Audio, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 508 A.2d 415 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 52-549n. Number 82-441, § 1, of the 1982 Public Acts, supplanted a provision for arbitration of civil actions in which the amount in controversy did not exceed $5000 that were referred for arbitration pursuant to a written agreement of the parties.”
Ramirez v. Health Net of the Ne., Inc., 938 A.2d 576 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 2× “2d 1336 (quoting dictionary definition of “ ‘[a]ny’ ” in concluding that “phrase ‘any contract action’ also lends itself to a broad construction of what claims are included” under attorney trial referee statute, General Statutes § 52-549n), cert. denied, 224 Conn.”
Wilcox Trucking, Inc. v. Mansour Builders, Inc., 567 A.2d 1250 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 2× “In 1983, the legislature enacted General Statutes §§ 52-549n through 549t, creating the factfinder program for specified types of contract actions, and shortly thereafter Practice Book §§ 546B through 546K implemented that legislation.”
Stamford Hosp. v. Schwartz, 209 A.3d 1243 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 52-549n provides in relevant part: "[T]he judges of the Superior Court may make such rules .”
Banks Bldg. Co. v. Malanga Fam. Real Est. Holding, LLC, 885 A.2d 204 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 6× “See General Statutes § 52-549n; Practice Book § 23-53.”
O'Connell, Flaherty & Attmore, LLC v. Doody, 3 A.3d 969 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 5× “The case was referred to Callahan in accordance with General Statutes § 52-549n and Practice Book § 23-53.”
John M. Glover Agency v. RDB Bldg., LLC, 760 A.2d 980 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-549n provides in relevant part: “In accordance with the provisions of section 51-14, the judges of the Superior Court may malee such rules as they deem necessary to provide aprocedure in accordance with which the court, in its discretion, may refer to a…”
De Leonardis v. Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc., 646 A.2d 230 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “They are procedural cousins to committees appointed by the court under Practice Book § 431, and to factfinders appointed by the judges of the Superior Court under General Statutes § 52-549n and Practice Book §§ 546C and 546E, but with greater authority than such factfinders.”
Mitchell v. Guardian Sys., Inc., 804 A.2d 1004 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-549n provides in relevant part: “[T]he judges of the Superior Court may malee such rules as they deem necessary to provide a procedure in accordance with which the court, in its discretion, may refer to a fact-finder for proceedings authorized pursuant to…”
Show all 28 citing cases →
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.