Stephen Marks v. GLT Development Corporation, et al.

Fairfield, Connecticut personal injury lawyer presented the Plaintiff on a negligence theory.



In this personal injury action, which arose during the COVID-19 pandemic, the plaintiff, Stephen Marks, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the defendant GLT Development Corporation's motion to strike on statute of limitations grounds.[1] This appeal involves the question of how to calculate, in connection with the plaintiff's negligence claim arising from an accident that occurred on May 24, 2020, the statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52584.[2] The operability of that statute was suspended as a result of Governor Ned Lamont's Executive Order No. 7G, effective March 19, 2020, and that suspension subsequently was lifted on March 1, 2021, by Governor Lamont's Executive Order No. 10A. The plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly concluded that the two year limitations period began to run on March 1, 2021, and expired on March 1, 2023. The plaintiff argues instead that he was entitled to a suspension of 347 or 348 days,[3]representing the total number of days that the suspension was in effect, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff's cause of action did not exist when the suspension began. That is, the plaintiff contends that the proper calculation of his limitations period is effectively two years plus 347 or 348 days. The defendant argues to the contrary that the court properly concluded that the statute of limitations began to run on March 1, 2021, and expired on March 1, 2023. We agree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.



* * *



Legal issue Does the suspension of the statute of limitations due to a gubernatorial executive order reset the limitations period for a negligence claim if the cause of action arose during the suspension?

Headnote



CIVIL PROCEDURE. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The case addresses the calculation of the statute of limitations for personal injury claims during a period when such statutes were suspended by executive order due to the COVID-19 pandemic, determining that the limitations period commenced as soon as the suspension was lifted, not extended by the duration of the suspension.



CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. EXECUTIVE ORDERS. The court considered the legal impact of executive orders suspending statutes of limitations during a public health emergency and ruled that such suspensions do not grant additional time to potential claimants should their cause of action arise during the suspension period.



Key Phrases Personal injury action Statute of limitations Executive Order No. 7G Negligence claim Motion to strike

Affirmed