323 Conn. 741
Conn.2016Background
- Plaintiff Anna Marie Gillotti Blakely (administratrix) sued Danbury Hospital for wrongful death under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-555 after an earlier timely suit in the estate’s name was dismissed for lack of capacity.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the new suit was time-barred because the two-year wrongful-death limitation had run and the savings statute (§ 52-592) did not save the claim where the prior dismissal resulted from counsel’s mistake of law.
- Trial court denied summary judgment, treating the earlier dismissal as a "matter of form" and concluding the savings statute could apply.
- Defendant sought an interlocutory appeal under the second prong of State v. Curcio, claiming the lapse of a jurisdictional statute of limitations confers immunity from suit (a right to be free from litigation).
- The Appellate Court dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of a final judgment; the defendant obtained certification to appeal to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held that the lapse of a jurisdictional time limitation does not create immunity from suit for purposes of Curcio; interlocutory appeal was improper, and the savings statute question should be resolved after final judgment on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lapse of a jurisdictional statute of limitations (wrongful death § 52-555) creates immunity from suit permitting immediate interlocutory appeal under Curcio | Blakely: § 52-555’s time limit is modified by the savings statute (§ 52-592); no immunity arises and interlocutory appeal is improper | Danbury Hospital: Jurisdictional lapse confers a right to freedom from suit (immunity), so Curcio second prong permits immediate appeal | Held: No immunity from suit arises; interlocutory appeal under Curcio not allowed; appeal properly dismissed for lack of final judgment |
| Whether Korb/Isaac treatment (reading wrongful death limitation with savings statute) controls | Blakely: Isaac and Korb show §§52-555 and 52-592 are read together so savings statute can save otherwise untimely wrongful-death claims | — | Held: Court adheres to Korb/Isaac principle that savings statute can modify wrongful-death time limit; merits deferred to final judgment |
| Whether jurisdictional characterization of statutory time limits mandates interlocutory review | Blakely: (implicitly) savings statute governs timeliness; no separate immunity to invoke Curcio | Danbury Hospital: jurisdictional limits distinguishable and should confer immediate protection | Held: Although such time limits are jurisdictional, that status does not equate to immunity from suit for Curcio purposes; allowing appeals would undermine final-judgment rule |
| Whether defendant could obtain immediate relief via declaratory action and thus Curcio should yield | Blakely: Declaratory action doctrine and pending suit bar make that avoidable; irrelevant to Curcio analysis | Danbury Hospital: permitting interlocutory appeal prevents circumvention and protects rights | Held: Declaratory action option does not affect Curcio analysis; Curcio appeal still improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27 (Conn. 1983) (two-prong test for interlocutory appeals)
- St. Paul Travelers Cos. v. Kuehl, 299 Conn. 800 (Conn. 2011) (discussed distinction between nonjurisdictional limitations and jurisdictional ones)
- Isaac v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 210 Conn. 721 (Conn. 1989) (reads wrongful-death limitation together with savings statute)
- Korb v. Bridgeport Gas Light Co., 91 Conn. 395 (Conn. 1917) (time limit in wrongful-death statute is part of the cause of action and subject to savings-statute modification)
- Dayner v. Archdiocese of Hartford, 301 Conn. 759 (Conn. 2011) (Curcio second-prong permits appeal when immunity from suit is at stake)
- Doe v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 317 Conn. 357 (Conn. 2015) (distinguishing ordinary statutes of limitations from vested jurisdictional defenses)
- State v. Coleman, 202 Conn. 86 (Conn. 1987) (denial of statute-of-limitations defense not generally appealable)
- Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 230 Conn. 335 (Conn. 1994) (statute of repose/right-extinguishing time limits discussion)
- State v. Lombardo Bros. Mason Contractors, Inc., 307 Conn. 412 (Conn. 2012) (discussion of jurisdictional characterization of statutory time limits)