Opinion
No. (SC 16781).
Argued May 19.
Officially released July 13, 2004.
Action to recover damages for, inter alia, personal injuries sustained by the named plaintiff as a result of the defendants' alleged negligence, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London at Norwich, where the board of education of the town of New London intervened as a plaintiff; thereafter, the court, Teller, J., granted the named defendant's motion to implead Colonial Carpet and Tile Company, as a third party defendant and to file a third party complaint for indemnification, and granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint by citing in or substituting Colonial Carpet and Tile Company as a defendant; subsequently, the court, Parker, J., granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant Colonial Carpet and Tile Company, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of intention to appeal; the court, Parker, J., granted the named defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon in its favor, from which the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, Schaller, Mihalakos and O'Connell, Js., which affirmed the trial court's judgment, and the plaintiffs, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Donald R. Beebe, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Michael S. Burrell, for the appellee (named defendant).
Opinion
The plaintiffs, Judy Sandvig and Karl Sandvig, appeal, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court in favor of the named defendant, A. Dubreuil Sons, Inc. Sandvig v. A. Dubreuil Sons, Inc., 68 Conn. App. 79, 789 A.2d 1012 (2002). At issue is whether the plaintiffs' negligence and contract claims against the named defendant are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See General Statutes § 52-584 (providing two year statute of limitations on negligence actions); General Statutes § 52-576 (providing six year statute of limitations on contract actions). We granted the plaintiffs' petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) with respect to the plaintiffs' negligence count, the relation back doctrine did not apply; (2) with respect to the plaintiffs' contract count, the relation back doctrine did not apply; and (3) the statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs' causes of action was not tolled by the named defendant's bankruptcy proceedings?" Sandvig v. A. Dubreuil Sons, Inc., 260 Conn. 931, 799 A.2d 296 (2002).