Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-598a (2026)

Limitation of action for indemnification

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, an action for indemnification may be brought within three years from the date of the determination of the action against the party which is seeking indemnification by either judgment or settlement.

(P.A. 93-370, S. 1.)

Cited. 41 CA 686; 46 CA 699.

Cited. 44 CS 207.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1995–2018 · leading case: Amoco Oil Co. v. Liberty Auto & Elec. Co., 810 A.2d 259 (Conn. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amoco Oil Co. v. Liberty Auto & Elec. Co., 810 A.2d 259 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 12× “First, Amoco contends that the trial court improperly treated the first count of its complaint as a claim for breach of contract and, therefore, improperly applied § 52-576 (a), 6 the statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, instead of General Statutes § 52-598a, 7…”
Randazzo v. Sakon, 189 A.3d 616 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 10× “The defendant argues that the court should have applied the three year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-598a, 8 concerning actions for indemnification, rather than the six year statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-576 (a), 9…”
Dowling v. Finley Assocs., Inc., 727 A.2d 1245 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 4× “See General Statutes § 52-598a. Although the present indemnification action is premised on a violation of certain legal duties, which formed the foundation for the 1992 action, the claim is separate and distinct.”
Sivilla v. Philips Med. Sys. of North Am., Inc., 700 A.2d 1179 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 5× “Philips contends, however, that § 52-577a applies only to product liability claims, *711 and, since its claim is a contractual claim for indemnification, § 52-577a does not apply and General Statutes § 52-598a, which provides the time limitation for actions for indemnification,…”
Peerless Ins. v. Tucciarone, 708 A.2d 611 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 52-598a provides: “Limitation of action for indemnification.”
City of Bristol v. Dickau Bus Co., 779 A.2d 152 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, General Statutes § 52-598a provides: “Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, an action for indemnification may be brought within three years from the date of the determination of the action against the party which is seeking indemnification by either…”
Repub. Ins. v. Pat Dinardo Auto Sales, Inc., 678 A.2d 516 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “Public Act 93-370, now codified as General Statutes § 52-598a and entitled, “An Act Concerning the Statute of Limitations in Actions for Indemnification and Attorney Grievance Procedures,” provides in pertinent part: “Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 926 of the general…”
Walsh v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D. Conn. 2000). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on all of these counterclaims, claiming that they are barred by a three-year statute of limitations set forth in Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-598a. Plaintiffs argue that the parties’ rights and liabilities were fixed more than three years ago on June…”
Alfred Chiulli & Sons, Inc. v. Hanover Ins., 989 A.2d 675 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “, rendered a decision in favor of Chiulli on his motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations holding that a three year statute of limitations, General Statutes § 52-598a, bars count one of Hanover’s counterclaim alleging breach of an indemnification contract.”
Discover Bank v. Hill, 93 A.3d 159 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 6× “6 General Statutes § 52-598a provides: ‘‘Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, an action for indemnification may be brought within three years from the date of the determination of the action against the party which is seeking indemnification by either judgment or…”
Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Barros (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “8 In its brief, the plaintiff argued that even if a statute of limitations applies, the applicable statute of limitations is that governing indemnification claims, General Statutes § 52-598a. Because we conclude that no particular statute of limitations strictly applies, we do…”
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.