Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a (2026)

Limitation of action based on product liability claim

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(a) No product liability claim, as defined in section 52-572m, shall be brought but within three years from the date when the injury, death or property damage is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, except that, subject to the provisions of subsections (c), (d) and (e) of this section, no such action may be brought against any party nor may any party be impleaded pursuant to subsection (b) of this section later than ten years from the date that the party last parted with possession or control of the product.

(b) In any such action, a product seller may implead any third party who is or may be liable for all or part of the claimant's claim, if such third party defendant is served with the third party complaint within one year from the date the cause of action brought under subsection (a) of this section is returned to court.

(c) The ten-year limitation provided for in subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to any product liability claim brought by a claimant who can prove that the harm occurred during the useful safe life of the product. In determining whether a product's useful safe life has expired, the trier of fact may consider among other factors: (1) The effect on the product of wear and tear or deterioration from natural causes; (2) the effect of climatic and other local conditions in which the product was used; (3) the policy of the user and similar users as to repairs, renewals and replacements; (4) representations, instructions and warnings made by the product seller about the useful safe life of the product; and (5) any modification or alteration of the product by a user or third party.

(d) The ten-year limitation provided for in subsection (a) of this section shall be extended pursuant to the terms of any express written warranty that the product can be used for a period longer than ten years, and shall not preclude any action against a product seller who intentionally misrepresents a product or fraudulently conceals information about it, provided the misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment was the proximate cause of harm of the claimant.

(e) The ten-year limitation provided for in subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to any product liability claim, whenever brought, involving injury, death or property damage caused by contact with or exposure to asbestos, except that (1) no such action for personal injury or death may be brought by the claimant later than eighty years from the date that the claimant last had contact with or exposure to asbestos, and (2) no such action for damage to property may be brought by the claimant later than thirty years from the date of last contact with or exposure to asbestos.

(f) The definitions contained in section 52-572m shall apply to this section.

(g) The provisions of this section shall apply to all product liability claims brought on or after October 1, 1979.

(P.A. 76-293, S. 1, 2; P.A. 77-604, S. 36, 84; P.A. 79-483, S. 3; 79-631, S. 107, 111; P.A. 82-160, S. 247; P.A. 87-537, S. 12, 13; P.A. 90-191, S. 1; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-11, S. 40, 70; P.A. 05-288, S. 180; P.A. 11-200, S. 1; P.A. 17-97, S. 1.)

History: P.A. 77-604 made slight change in wording of Subsec. (a); P.A. 79-483 restated existing provisions, changing deadline for bringing action from 8 to 10 years from date party against whom action is brought parted with possession or control of product and changing applicable date re pending claims or bringing of claims from June 4, 1976, to October 1, 1979, and inserted new provisions clarifying 10-year limitation designated as Subsecs. (c) and (d), relettering former Subsec. (c) as (e); P.A. 79-631 deleted reference to pending claims in Subsec. (e); P.A. 82-160 added a new Subsec. (e) concerning the applicability of definitions in Sec. 52-572m, redesignated the former Subsec. (e) as Subsec. (f) and made minor technical changes; P.A. 87-537 inserted new Subsec. (e) re exception to 10-year limitation on claims resulting from contact with or exposure to asbestos, relettering remaining Subsecs. accordingly and made technical changes; P.A. 90-191 amended Subsec. (e) to increase from 30 to 60 years the period of time after the claimant last had contact with or exposure to asbestos within which an action for personal injury or death may be brought, retaining a time limitation of 30 years for an action for damage to property; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-11 amended Subsec. (e) to reposition the words “for personal injury or death” from Subdiv. (2) to Subdiv. (1) to correct a typographical error; P.A. 05-288 made technical changes in Subsecs. (a) to (e), effective July 13, 2005; P.A. 11-200 amended Subsec. (e)(1) to substitute “eighty years” for “sixty years” re last contact or exposure to asbestos, effective July 13, 2011, and applicable to any cause of action arising from any contact with or exposure to asbestos occurring prior to, on or after that date; P.A. 17-97 amended Subsec. (c) by deleting reference to claimant who is not entitled to compensation under Ch. 568 and making a conforming change.

When the wrong sued upon consists of a continuing course of conduct, statute does not begin to run until that course of conduct is completed. 180 C. 230. Cited. 187 C. 363; 191 C. 150. Court held act to be constitutional; not in violation of equal protection or open access to courts. 200 C. 562. Cited. 203 C. 156; 205 C. 219; 207 C. 496; Id., 599; 210 C. 189; 212 C. 462; Id., 509; 213 C. 282; 214 C. 464; 230 C. 335. Doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi, i.e. no time runs against the king, exempts state from operation of section. 307 C. 412.

Cited. 16 CA 558; 31 CA 824; 46 CA 18; Id., 699. Under section, claimant is not time-barred until he knows, or should have known, the identity of the negligent person who caused his injury to occur. 75 CA 560.

Cited. 37 CS 735; 44 CS 510. Statutes of repose allow defendants at some point to be free from liability, absent unclean or fraudulent conduct, and logical conclusion is that legislature intended state to abide by statutes of repose. 51 CS 265.

Subsec. (a):

Section held constitutional. 207 C. 599.

Statute of limitations began to run when damage was first discovered. 48 CA 160.

Subsec. (b):

Requirement to serve third-party complaint within one year of case being returned to court is mandatory, not directory. 198 CA 24.

Subsec. (c):

Statute of repose in section is procedural in nature, thus amendment by P.A. 17-97 is to be applied retroactively absent express language to the contrary. 333 C. 283.

Enumerated factors merely are guidelines to aid fact finder in determining whether a product is within its safe and useful life. 76 CA 137.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 80 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 562 A.2d 1100 (Conn. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 562 A.2d 1100 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 26× “As part of the product liability act, the legislature repealed and replaced General Statutes § 52-577a, the statute of limitations for product liability actions.”

Daily v. New Britain Mach. Co., 512 A.2d 893 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 17× “Thereafter, on February 23,1983, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by General Statutes § 52-577a, the Connecticut products liability statute of limitations insofar as the defendant had parted with possession and…”

Kelemen v. Rimrock Corp., 542 A.2d 720 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 20× “This appeal concerns the applicability of the ten year statute of repose for prod *601 uct liability claims; General Statutes § 52-577a (a); 1 to an action filed by the plaintiff, David Kelemen, Sr.”

Hubbard-Hall, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 98 F. Supp. 3d 480 (D. Conn. 2015). · cites it 25× “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-577a(a). Statutes of repose are not subject to equitable tolling, and apply even if the actionable harm underlying the claim has yet to be discovered.”

Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., 627 A.2d 1347 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 9× “9 The issue was whether a two year statute of limitations provision, General Statutes § 52-577c (b), 10 or a three year provision, General Statutes § 52-577a, 11 applied in this case.”

Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., 562 A.2d 517 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 6× “The trial court granted the defendant vendor’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by General Statutes § 52-577a, 5 the Connecticut products liability statute of limitations, since the defendant had parted with possession and control of *467 the…”

Batte-Holmgren v. Comm'r of Pub. Health, 914 A.2d 996 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 4× “2d 893 , the plaintiffs contended that the product liability statute of limitations, General Statutes § 52-577a, violated equal protection because employees were barred from suit after ten years and nonemployees were permitted to sue for the useful life of the product.”

Kearney v. Philips Indus., Inc., 708 F. Supp. 479 (D. Conn. 1989). · cites it 19× “The appellate court rejected this argument, noting that the complaint relied on the product liability act, which states: “[a] product liability claim ... may be asserted and shall be in lieu of ■ all other claims against product sellers____” Conn.”

West Haven Sch. Dist. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 721 F. Supp. 1547 (D. Conn. 1988). · cites it 11× “Section 52-577a, or by the two-year statute of limitation provided in Conn.”

Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 644 A.2d 1297 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 7× “A salient example is the case *342 law under General Statutes § 52-577a, which is a statute of repose because the rights that it delimits can expire “before an individual has been injured and the cause of action has begun to accrue.”

Ecker v. Town of West Hartford, 530 A.2d 1056 (Conn. 1987). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff further argues that the three year repose period in question, when compared to the periods of limitation for death actions under General Statutes § 52-577a 15 (ten years or longer for product liability *242 claims), § 52-584a 16 (seven years for action against an…”

Malerba v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 554 A.2d 287 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 4× “) 7 General Statutes § 52-102a is similar in content to General Statutes § 52-577a (b) which is the statute of limitations in product liability actions.”

Show all 80 citing cases →

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a(a) — 17 cases

Barrett v. Montesano, 849 A.2d 839 (Conn. 2004).

Coldwell Banker Manning Realty, Inc. v. Cushman & Wakefield, 980 A.2d 819 (Conn. 2009).

Nicholson v. United Tech. Corp., 697 F. Supp. 598 (D. Conn. 1988).

Wingfield v. United Tech. Corp., 678 F. Supp. 973 (D. Conn. 1988).

Yarchak v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 208 F. Supp. 2d 470 (D.N.J. 2002).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a(a)(b)(c) — 1 case

Pinto v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 72 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D. Conn. 1999).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a(b) — 3 cases

Kearney v. Philips Indus., Inc., 708 F. Supp. 479 (D. Conn. 1989). “The appellate court rejected this argument, noting that the complaint relied on the product liability act, which states: “[a] product liability claim ... may be asserted and shall be in lieu of ■ all other claims against product sellers____” Conn.”

Stefano v. Smith, 705 F. Supp. 733 (D. Conn. 1989).

Williams v. Hoffman/New Yorker, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 350 (D. Conn. 1996).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a(c) — 4 cases

Hubbard-Hall, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 98 F. Supp. 3d 480 (D. Conn. 2015). “” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-577a(a). Statutes of repose are not subject to equitable tolling, and apply even if the actionable harm underlying the claim has yet to be discovered.”

Ferguson v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 1042 (D. Conn. 1981).

Montgomery v. Wyeth, 540 F. Supp. 2d 933 (E.D. Tenn. 2008).

Mancinone v. Allstate Ins. Co. (D. Conn. 2020).

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a(c)(1) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a(c)(3) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a(d) — 1 case

— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a(e) — 5 cases

Nicholson v. United Tech. Corp., 697 F. Supp. 598 (D. Conn. 1988).

West Haven Sch. Dist. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 721 F. Supp. 1547 (D. Conn. 1988). “Section 52-577a, or by the two-year statute of limitation provided in Conn.”

Ferguson v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 1042 (D. Conn. 1981).

Collucci v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 585 F. Supp. 529 (D. Conn. 1984).

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.