Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 926 — Statute of Limitations
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577e (2026)

Limitation of action for damages caused by sexual assault

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 52-577 and 52-577d, an action to recover damages for personal injury caused by sexual assault may be brought at any time after the date of the act complained of if the party legally at fault for such injury has been convicted of a violation of section 53a-70 or 53a-70a.

(P.A. 02-138, S. 3.)

History: P.A. 02-138 effective May 23, 2002, and applicable to any cause of action arising from an incident committed prior to, on or after said date.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1993–2020 · leading case: Doe v. Boy Scouts of Am. Corp., 147 A.3d 104 (Conn. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Doe v. Boy Scouts of Am. Corp., 147 A.3d 104 (Conn. 2016). · cites it 3× “Under General Statutes § 52-577e, there is no limitation on bringing an action when an injury has been caused by sexual assault and the party legally at fault for the injury has been convicted of sexual assault.”
Sharp v. Wyatt, Inc., 627 A.2d 1347 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 52-577a provides that a product seller may implead any third party if the third party is served within one year from the date the original action is returned to court.”
Doe v. Rackliffe, 337 Conn. 627 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 3× “02-138), codified at General Statutes § 52-577e (‘‘[n]otwithstanding the provisions of sections 52-577 and 52-577d, an action to recover damages for personal injury caused by sexual assault may be brought at any time after the date of the act complained of if the party legally…”
Caprio v. Upjohn Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 168 (D. Conn. 2001). “Because the Court has found that plaintiff has a viable claim based on negligent acts in violation of the CWPCA, and because the Court has found Section 52-577c(b) to be procedural, it need not consider whether the second cause of action states a claim based on a private right…”
Pinto v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 72 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D. Conn. 1999). “However, Pinto argues that the appropriate statute of limitations is not 577a, but instead is Section 52-577e of the Act, which applies to claims in which the damages are caused by exposure to hazardous chemical substances or mixtures or hazardous pollutants.”
Doe v. Boy Scouts of Am. Corp. (Conn. 2016). “…§ 52-577d applies in place of § 52-577 and fails to consider § 52-577d in the context of related statutes, such as § 52-577e. I also disagree with the District Court’s conclusion that, because § 52-577d is focused on providing victims with a recovery for a particular type…”
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.