Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 07 — MUNICIPALITIES · Chapter 104 — Police and Fire Protection
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-322a (2026)

Benefits for volunteers rendering service to another fire company

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any active member of a volunteer fire company who offers his services to an officer or person in charge of another fire company which is actively engaged in fire duties, and whose services are accepted by such officer or person, shall be entitled to receive all benefits payable under the provisions of sections 7-314 and 7-314a. Such payments shall be made by the municipality in which the fire company of which such a fireman is a member is located.

(February, 1965, P.A. 264; 1967, P.A. 892, S. 3; 1969, P.A. 464, S. 2.)

History: 1967 act made technical changes; 1969 act deleted provision restricting offer of services to other volunteer fire companies by removing word “volunteer”.

Applies to conduct of individuals. 209 C. 268.

Cited. 15 CA 84.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2010 · leading case: DERRANE v. City of Hartford, 988 A.2d 297 (Conn. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
DERRANE v. City of Hartford, 988 A.2d 297 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 15× “2d 894 (1988), wherein this court concluded that General Statutes § 7-322a 6 — a statute similar to § 7-433d, but applicable to volunteer firefighters rather than to paid firefighters — did not apply to a situation wherein volunteer firefighters from the town of Lisbon had been…”
Collins v. City of Milford, 543 A.2d 291 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 5× “We note that the claimant’s conduct, helping to return the antique fire engine, on the date of his injury is within the purview of General Statutes § 7-322a 3 as he was an active member of a volunteer fire company, whose services were accepted by an officer in charge of another…”
Thomas v. Town of Lisbon, 550 A.2d 894 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 11× “The parties agree that if General Statutes § 7-314a 2 is controlling, then the city of Norwich is responsible for the payments in issue, and if General Statutes § 7-322a 3 *270 is controlling, the town of Lisbon is responsible.”
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.