DocketNumber: No. 517124
Citation Numbers: 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 7151
Judges: TELLER, J.
Filed Date: 8/12/1993
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The State of Connecticut, the plaintiff's employer, filed a motion to intervene as plaintiff on February 11, 1991, which was granted by the court, Teller, J., on February 19, 1991.
The defendant filed an answer to the plaintiff's complaint on August 22, 1991. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion to cite in Pasquale P. Tine, another of the drivers involved in the accident, which was granted by the court, Teller, J. Thereafter, the defendant filed a third party complaint against the third party defendant, Pasquale P. Tine, alleging he was negligent and seeking apportionment and contribution.
The third party defendant filed a motion to strike the third party plaintiff's complaint, together with a memorandum of law, on the ground that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, General Statutes
The third party plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the third party defendant's motion to strike.
The purpose of a motion to strike is to test the legal sufficiency of a pleading. Practice Book 152; Ferryman v. Groton,
A claim that an action is barred by the lapse of the statute of CT Page 7153 limitations must be pleaded as a special defense, not raised by a motion to strike. Practice Book 164; see Mac's Car City, Inc. v. DeNigris,
18 Conn. App. 525 ,528 ,559 A.2d 712 (1989). The `advantage of the statute of limitations cannot be taken by [a motion to strike]. . . .' O'Connor v. Waterbury,69 Conn. 206 ,210 ,37 A. 499 (1897).
Forbes v. Ballaro,
However, there are three exceptions where a court has allowed the use of a motion to strike to raise a statute of limitations to a claim. One is where the statute of limitations is embodied in the statute that creates the right of action. Forbes, supra, 240. Another instance is where the parties agree that the complaint sets forth all the facts necessary to decide the statute of limitations issue. Forbes, supra, 239. The third is when a plaintiff anticipates a statute of limitations defense and seeks to avoid its effect by appropriate allegations in the complaint. See Morrisette v. Archambault,
As the instant case does not involve any of the exceptions recognized, the court denies the third party defendant's motion to strike.
Teller, J.