DocketNumber: No. CV93 0305616S
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 1781-T
Judges: COCCO, J.
Filed Date: 3/1/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
FACTS
On June 23, 1993, the plaintiffs' Matthew and Denise Doty, filed a one count complaint against the defendant, Steve Mucci d/b/a Steve's Oil Burning Service. The plaintiffs allege the following facts. On September 17, 1988, the defendant was hired to install an oil tank at property located in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. On June 21, 1991, the plaintiffs purchased the Sandy Hook property. In July 1991, the plaintiffs discovered their well was contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon. The plaintiffs also claim that the defendant negligently installed the oil tank and, therefore, he is liable for containment costs pursuant to General Statutes §
On December 28, 1993, the defendant filed an amended answer and special defense. In his special defense, the defendant alleges that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, General Statutes §§
On October 25, 1994, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations defense. Pursuant to Practice Book § 380, the defendant filed memoranda in support of the motion. The plaintiffs timely filed memoranda in opposition to the motion.
DISCUSSION
The motion for summary judgment is "designed to eliminate CT Page 1782 delay and expenses of litigating an issue when there is no real issue to be tried." Wilson v. New Haven,
The defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations bars the action. The defendant argues that since the action was filed more than three years after the occurrence of the alleged negligent act, either General Statutes §§
General Statutes §
"Any person, firm, corporation or municipality which contains or removes or otherwise mitigates the effects of oil or petroleum or chemical liquids or solid, liquid or gaseous products or hazardous wastes resulting from any discharge, spillage, uncontrolled loss, seepage or filtration of such substance or material or waste shall be entitled to reimbursement from any person, firm or corporation for the reasonable costs expended for such petroleum or chemical liquids or solid, liquid or gaseous products or hazardous wastes pollution or contamination or other emergency resulted from the negligence or other action of such person, firm or corporation."
It appears that no Connecticut court has defined which statute of limitations applies for reimbursement under General Statutes §
The statute of limitations for negligence actions involving injury to person or property provides that:
"No action to recover damages for injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by negligence, or by reckless or wanton misconduct . . . shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, and except that no such action may be brought more than the three years from the date of the act or omission complained of . . . ."
General Statutes §
The statute of limitations for general tort claims provides that:
"No action founded upon a tort shall be brought but within three years from the date or the act or omission complained of."
General Statutes §
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
52-577 and52-577a , no action to recover damages for personal injury or property damage caused by exposure to a hazardous chemical substance or mixture or hazardous pollutant released into the environment shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury or damage complained of is discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered."
(Emphasis added.) General Statutes §
"The Connecticut statute of limitations or torts, unlike those of most other jurisdictions which begin to run when a cause of action has accrued, commence with the act or omission complained of, which is when the tortious conduct or the defendant occurs and not the date when the plaintiff first sustains damage."Electroformers, Inc. v. Emhart Corporation, supra, 310.
In the present case, the defendant installed the oil tank on September 17, 1988. The plaintiffs discovered damage to their property in July 1991, and filed the present action on June 23, 1993. Regardless of which statute of limitations applies to actions brought no pursuant to General Statutes §
COCCO, J.