333 Conn. 283
Conn.2019Background
- On May 30, 2014 a quick-fit bucket detached from a Volvo EC340 excavator and fatally injured Daniel King, an employee of King Construction.
- The excavator was manufactured and distributed in 1997; Tyler Equipment installed the quick-fit in 1999 and sold the machine to King Construction in 1999.
- King Construction enrolled the machine in Volvo’s extended component warranty on Nov. 19, 1999; that extended warranty expired by Nov. 19, 2001, and Volvo/VCENA never performed post-warranty repairs.
- The plaintiff sued the manufacturer/distributor (Volvo defendants) and Tyler Equipment under the Connecticut Product Liability Act; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting the ten-year statute of repose (§ 52-577a) barred the claims.
- While summary judgment motions were pending the legislature enacted P.A. 17-97 (effective Oct. 1, 2017), removing language that had prevented employees from invoking the useful-safe-life exception to the ten-year repose period.
- The trial court applied the pre-amendment statute (held P.A. 17-97 nonretroactive) and granted summary judgment; the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding P.A. 17-97 retroactive and remanding for consideration whether the injury occurred during the product’s useful safe life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of P.A. 17-97 | P.A. 17-97 should apply to her pending claims and permit proof that harm occurred during useful safe life | Amendment not retroactive; pre-amend employee limitation bars suit | P.A. 17-97 applies retroactively; issue reviewable on appeal |
| Character of § 52-577a (procedural vs substantive) | The ten-year statute of repose is procedural and thus presumptively retroactive | The pre-amend scheme created a substantive limitation for employees | Court: statute of repose is procedural (act codified common law), so presumption of retroactivity applies |
| Whether defendants met burden on possession/control within 10 years | Genuine factual disputes exist about post-sale repairs/possession and whether useful safe life continued | Defendants showed last possession/control > ten years before suit so claims time-barred | Court: trial court did not decide useful-safe-life under amended law; remand required to resolve factual disputes |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Trial court erred by granting SJ without applying P.A.17-97 and without assessing useful-safe-life | SJ proper because claims were time-barred under pre-amend statute | Court: reversed insofar as SJ was granted and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Investment Assocs. v. Summit Assocs., Inc., 74 A.3d 1192 (Conn. 2013) (retroactivity principles; procedural statutes presumed retroactive)
- Neighborhood Assn., Inc. v. Limberger, 136 A.3d 581 (Conn. 2016) (test whether limitation creates new substantive right)
- Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., Inc., 627 A.2d 1288 (Conn. 1993) (Product Liability Act codified common-law causes of action)
- Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 136 A.3d 1232 (Conn. 2016) (act does not prescribe substantive elements of causes of action)
- State v. Lombardo Bros. Mason Contractors, 54 A.3d 1005 (Conn. 2012) (statute-of-repose characterization follows statute-of-limitations test)
- Lucenti v. Laviero, 176 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2018) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Chase Sec. Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1945) (Supreme Court precedent that legislatures may revive barred civil claims)