Opinion
No. CV 08-6003185
July 28, 2009
CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, Guy Champ, filed a complaint dated September 2, 2008, alleging a slip and fall on ice on December 19, 2000 against the defendants, Ahlstrom Nonwovens LLC, Ahlstrom Windsor Locks LLC, Ahlstrom USA Inc., and Ahlstrom Capital Corporation pursuant to General Statutes § 52-593. Previously the plaintiff brought a timely action naming "ALSTOM, Inc., et al.," in Windsor, Connecticut, as defendant. On March 4, 2008, summary judgment was entered by the court against plaintiff on the basis that the wrong defendant was sued in the action. It is not disputed that Alstom, Inc. was not the proper defendant; the proper defendant was ALSTROM NONWOVENS LLC, et al., in Windsor Locks, Connecticut.
On February 26, 2009, the defendants filed this motion for summary judgment claiming that the present action is barred by General Statutes § 52-584, because it was brought more than two years from the date of the injury. The defendants argue that General Statutes § 52-593, the "wrong defendant" statute, is inapplicable in this case because the plaintiff's previous action failed due to the plaintiff's inability to correctly identify the location of the accident in the complaint and "because [the] [p]laintiff did not make an honest mistake and did not act reasonably under the circumstances in failing to identify Ahlstrom in the 2005 Action."
Plaintiff argues that, in good faith, he made an honest mistake in suing the wrong Defendant, because of the substantial similarity between the business names "Alstom" and "Ahlstrom."
-I-
The Appellate Court has stated General Statutes § 52-584 provides, in part "[w]hen a plaintiff in a civil action has failed to obtain judgment by reason of a failure to name the right person as defendant therein, the plaintiff may bring a new action and the statute of limitations shall not be a bar thereto if service of process in the new action is made within one year after the termination of the original action." The court went on to state "Our Supreme Court has recognized that § 52-593 applies only in circumstances in which the plaintiff's original action failed by reason of naming, in fact, the wrong defendant; that is, in cases in which the naming of the wrong defendant was the product of a reasonable and honest mistake of fact as to the identity of the truly responsible individual." Isidro v. State, 62 Conn.App. 545, 549-50, 771 A.2d 257 (2001).
"Under Connecticut law, a `right person,' as that term is used in § 52-593, is one who, as a matter of fact, is a proper defendant for the legal theory alleged." Cogan v. Manhattan Auto Financial Corp., 276 Conn. 1, 8, 882 A.2d 597 (2006). Section 52-593 would apply in a situation in which a plaintiff erroneously sues A under the mistaken belief that A negligently operated or owned a vehicle, when in fact B operated or owned the vehicle. Kronberg v. Peacock, 67 Conn.App. 668, 673, 789 A.2d 510 (2002).
Where a prior action fails as a result of a legal mistake, as opposed to a factual mistake, the subsequent action is not saved by § 52-593. In Isidro, "the Appellate Court concluded that the subsequent suit was properly dismissed because the plaintiff's original action was not dismissed because she failed to name the proper defendant as a matter of fact. Instead, the plaintiff's original action was dismissed because . . . the defendant was immune from liability." Walker v. Gray, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 08-5018430 (September 19, 2008, Robinson, J.) [ 46 Conn. L. Rptr. 353]. Id.
-II-
In the present case, the plaintiff confused the defendants' collective name "Ahlstrom" with that of the prior defendant "Alstom." So similar are these names that, in his own deposition, the plaintiff incorrectly referred to "Alstrom" as the name of the proper defendant. Under the ruling in Isidro, this case appropriately is brought under § 52-593 because the plaintiff made an honest factual mistake as to the identity of the truly responsible party. This was not a mistake of law. Cases cited by the defendants decided prior to Isidro are hardly controlling.
At the very least, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's error was a "reasonable and honest mistake of fact" as required by § 52-593.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.