Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 925 — Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-568 (2026)

Damages for groundless or vexatious suit or defense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who commences and prosecutes any civil action or complaint against another, in his own name or the name of others, or asserts a defense to any civil action or complaint commenced and prosecuted by another (1) without probable cause, shall pay such other person double damages, or (2) without probable cause, and with a malicious intent unjustly to vex and trouble such other person, shall pay him treble damages.

(1949 Rev., S. 8309; P.A. 82-160, S. 234; P.A. 86-338, S. 9; P.A. 87-526, S. 1, 5; P.A. 93-191, S. 3, 4.)

History: P.A. 82-160 substituted “civil action” for “suit”; P.A. 86-338 made section applicable to any person who asserts a defense to an action or complaint and added provision requiring payment of double damages if an action is commenced or defense is asserted without probable cause; P.A. 87-526 added Subsec. (b), authorizing public agency to bring court action against person prosecuting freedom of information commission appeals found by commission to be frivolous, unreasonable and harassing; P.A. 93-191 deleted provisions authorizing court action against persons who brought frivolous, unreasonable or harassing appeals to the freedom of information commission, effective July 1, 1993.

See Sec. 1-241 re court action against persons who bring frivolous, unreasonable or harassing appeals to the Freedom of Information Commission.

See Sec. 52-226a re request for special finding.

Action lies at common law; 11 C. 586; but cannot be joined with count on statute. Id., 587. Joinder of plaintiffs. K. 146. Both malice and want of probable cause must be proved. 21 C. 515; 102 C. 444; 107 C. 294; 108 C. 40. “Malice” defined; may be inferred. 9 C. 313. Evidence of want of probable cause. 3 D. 432. Special damages. 2 D. 211. Excessive damages. 9 C. 313. Action for vexatious suit will lie against a private corporation. 22 C. 535. Is constitutional. 82 C. 5. Not a penal statute. 87 C. 468. Judgment in original action against plaintiff conclusive that it was not vexatious. 75 C. 637. Malice as a necessary element; evidence to prove; 69 C. 512; 86 C. 6; Id., 250; 91 C. 448; 102 C. 439; 105 C. 177; 107 C. 294; advice of counsel as rebutting. 70 C. 235; 107 C. 295. Damages. 69 C. 512; 84 C. 111; 86 C. 249; 91 C. 448; 102 C. 439. Various matters of evidence considered. 90 C. 545; 105 C. 177. Probable cause a defense; what constitutes. 93 C. 475; 105 C. 177; 107 C. 295. May not base action on statute for malicious prosecution of suit in New York. 110 C. 534. Whether particular facts constitute probable cause is always a question of law; conclusion of trier is reviewable on appeal. 132 C. 571. Cited. 176 C. 353; 205 C. 255; 214 C. 1; 220 C. 225; 224 C. 29. Statute applies equally to claims against private litigants and attorneys and does not suggest any basis for treating probable cause differently depending on the type of defendant against whom the action is brought, and therefore in a vexatious litigation action against a law firm, the presence or absence of probable cause should be judged by the general objective standard. 281 C. 84. Congress has occupied the field of penalties and sanctions for abuse of the bankruptcy process, implicitly preempting state law CUTPA and vexatious litigation claims; in field of bankruptcy law, the federal interest is so dominant that federal law is assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the subject, and even though state law actions are not in conflict with federal law, the former are still preempted under conflict preemption analysis because they are an obstacle to accomplishing Congress' purposes within the Bankruptcy Code. 333 C. 1.

Cited. 43 CA 1. Discussed re District Court ruling on evidence of reasonableness in pursuing a claim and “advice of counsel” defense. 49 CA 582. Plaintiff's vexatious litigation claim based on defendant's filing of an adversary proceeding in Bankruptcy Court is preempted by federal bankruptcy law that provides sanctions for filing frivolous and malicious pleadings. 86 CA 596. Court adopted Indiana Court of Appeals' articulation of objective standard of probable cause: Standard which should govern the reasonableness of attorney's action in instituting litigation for a client is whether claim merits litigation against defendant in question on the basis of facts known to the attorney when suit is commenced; on the basis of the facts known to the law firm, a reasonable attorney familiar with the law of this state would believe that applicable statutes of limitation could be tolled by fraudulent concealment on the part of Retirement Centers. 89 CA 459. Prejudgment remedy is not a civil action for purposes of vexatious litigation. 100 CA 63. Statutory action for vexatious litigation differs from a common-law action only in that a finding of malice is not an essential element, but will serve as a basis for higher damages; trial court properly concluded that law firm did not have a proper purpose in filing a shareholder litigation suit pursuant to Sec. 33-948 to permit inspection of corporate records, where stock repurchase offer had expired prior to filing of suit. 103 CA 20. Vexatious litigation counterclaim by defendant was premature where the original lawsuit had not yet been terminated in defendant's favor at the time of pleading. 110 CA 511. Trial court's determination that certificate of good faith that was attempted to be filed in malpractice action was insufficient did not equate to determination that there was lack of probable cause to bring such action; court's finding of blatant and egregious conduct did not collaterally estop party from litigating in vexatious litigation action the question of whether there was probable cause to bring malpractice action against hospital. 144 CA 100. All counts of the underlying action must be favorably terminated for a vexatious litigation claim to be ripe. 148 CA 176. Subdivs. (1) and (2) do not constitute two separate and distinct causes of action; to prevail under either Subdiv., plaintiff must prove four elements by preponderance of evidence. 156 CA 854. There is no indication that the use of the term “defense” was intended to have a technical or special meaning and, as such, it will be given its common usage which includes a denial. 227 CA 347.

Elements of a vexatious suit. 14 CS 293. In an action for vexatious suit, plaintiff must show that the suit complained of terminated in his favor and that there was want of probable cause; where defendants showed they had knowledge of facts sufficient to justify reasonable men in the belief that there were reasonable grounds for commencing and prosecuting the original action, there was no want of probable cause. 22 CS 272. Section relates only to vexatious suit and has no application to malicious prosecution. 24 CS 256. Complaint in action for vexatious suit must contain allegation prior suit terminated in plaintiff's favor. 31 CS 305.

Vexatious suit may be brought as cause of action created by statute in which treble damages may be awarded or may be instituted under common law in which case damages must be compensatory only. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 666.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 114 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 929 A.2d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 929 A.2d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 34× “" [6] General Statutes § 52-568 provides in relevant part: "Any person who commences and prosecutes any civil action or complaint against another, in his own name or the name of others .”
Rogan v. Rungee, 140 A.3d 979 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 11× “General Statutes § 52-568 provides in relevant part: "Any person who commences and prosecutes any civil action or complaint against another .”
Falls Church Grp., Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 912 A.2d 1019 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 6× “A statutory action for vexatious litigation under General Statutes § 52-568; see footnote 1 of this opinion; differs from a common-law action only in that a finding of malice is not an essential element, but will serve as a basis for higher damages.”
Norse Sys., Inc. v. Tingley Sys., Inc., 715 A.2d 807 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 9× “On September 20,1993, Norse commenced the present action against Tingley alleging vexatious litigation with malice pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568 (2), vexatious litigation pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568 (1), abuse of process and CUTPA violations.”
Tatoian v. Tyler, 194 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 23× “In count two, the plaintiff, relying on the allegations set forth in count one, asserted a claim of statutory vexatious litigation, seeking double damages pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568 (1).4 In count three, the plaintiff, also relying on allegations set forth in count…”
Somers v. Chan, 955 A.2d 667 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 7× “Because it found that the plaintiff brought that action without probable cause, the court ruled in favor of the defendant on his vexatious litigation counterclaim and awarded him $4410 in damages pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568. 11 Additionally, the court issued an…”
DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven, 597 A.2d 807 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 4× “” That term usually refers to the malicious instigation, without probable cause, of a criminal prosecution, whereas the term “vexatious suit” more commonly refers to the malicious institution, without probable cause, of a civil suit.”
Label Sys. Corp. v. Samad Aghamohammadi, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 959 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 5× “These awards were doubled automatically pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568 (l), 6 which provides for the doubling of damages for groundless or vexatious actions.”
Bernhard-Thomas Bldg. Sys., LLC v. Dunican, 944 A.2d 329 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 6× “2 Counts five and six of the complaint alleged that the defendant had violated General Statutes § 52-568 (1) and (2). 3 Count seven set forth a cause of action for common-law vexatious litigation [against the defendant].”
Diamond 67, LLC v. Oatis, 144 A.3d 1055 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 6× “CV-07-4007520S) constituted both common-law vexatious litigation and statutory vexatious litigation for which double and treble damages should be awarded under General Statutes § 52-568. 2 In particular, the plaintiff alleged that Batchelder and Montigny, who were represented by…”
Rieffel v. Johnston-Foote, 139 A.3d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 10× “, LLC (collectively, Moger), have moved for summary judgment dismissing claims of common-law and statutory vexatious litigation, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568, and abuse of process, contained in the second amended complaint of the plaintiffs.”
Orsini v. Tarro, 834 A.2d 776 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 9× “The defendant claims that the court improperly granted the prejudgment remedy on the basis of General Statutes § 52-568. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
Show all 114 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-568(1) — 2 cases
Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 929 A.2d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). “" [6] General Statutes § 52-568 provides in relevant part: "Any person who commences and prosecutes any civil action or complaint against another, in his own name or the name of others .”
Rieffel v. Johnston-Foote, 139 A.3d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). “, LLC (collectively, Moger), have moved for summary judgment dismissing claims of common-law and statutory vexatious litigation, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568, and abuse of process, contained in the second amended complaint of the plaintiffs.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-568(2) — 3 cases
Rogan v. Rungee, 140 A.3d 979 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). “General Statutes § 52-568 provides in relevant part: "Any person who commences and prosecutes any civil action or complaint against another .”
Embalmers' Supply Co. v. Giannitti, 929 A.2d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). “" [6] General Statutes § 52-568 provides in relevant part: "Any person who commences and prosecutes any civil action or complaint against another, in his own name or the name of others .”
Rieffel v. Johnston-Foote, 139 A.3d 729 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). “, LLC (collectively, Moger), have moved for summary judgment dismissing claims of common-law and statutory vexatious litigation, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-568, and abuse of process, contained in the second amended complaint of the plaintiffs.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-568(a) — 2 cases
Shaumyan v. O'NEILL, 716 F. Supp. 65 (D. Conn. 1989).
Garcia v. Amaranto (In Re Amaranto), 252 B.R. 595 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2000).
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.