Opinion
No. CV-075012267
January 14, 2008
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before this court is a motion for summary judgment and memorandum of law in support filed by the defendants, Alyssa V. Noller and Amy Macher, aka Amy Moore dated September 25, 2007. The plaintiff, David Vertefeuille, filed his objection on November 14, 2007 with accompanying memorandum of law. The court heard argument on December 10, 2007 and accepted supplemental briefs by the parties, dated December 11, 2007 by the defendants and December 18, 2007 by the plaintiff.
"Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brown v. SOH, 280 Conn. 494, 500-01, 909 A.2d 43 (2006). "In seeking summary judgment, it is the movant who has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact. The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Zielinski v. Kotsoris, 279 Conn. 312, 318, 901 A.2d 1207 (2006).
In this matter, there are no material facts in dispute. Involving a motor vehicle accident which occurred in the state of Minnesota on July 29, 2001, this matter was filed in this court on August 8, 2001, with service being made upon the defendants on July 29, 2007.
The defendants claim that the action is barred given the plaintiff's failure to sue within two years, asserting that Connecticut General Statutes § 52-584 is the applicable statute of limitations in this matter. The plaintiff asserts in his supplemental brief that Section 541.31 of the Minnesota statutes applies which articulates Minnesota's conflict of laws and limitations provision.
As the parties agree, "[u]nder Connecticut choice of law rules, for the plaintiff's claims that sound in tort, . . . we apply the law of the state in which the plaintiff was injured, unless to do so would produce an arbitrary or irrational result." Macomber v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., 277 Conn. 617, 640, 894 A.2d 240 (2006). As such, there is no dispute that Minnesota substantive law applies. The defendant correctly argues, however, that this principle does not apply to procedural rules, including, as a general matter, statutes of limitation.
"A statute of limitations is generally considered to be procedural, especially where the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action . . . This is so because it is considered that the limitation merely acts as a bar to a remedy otherwise available." Moore v. McNamara, 201 Conn. 16, 22, 513 A.2d 660 (1986). "A limitation period is considered one of the congeries of elements necessary to establish the right, and therefore characterized as substantive, only when it applies to a new right created by statute . . . In such circumstances, [t]he time within which the suit must be brought operates as a limitation of the liability itself as created, and not of the remedy alone. Thus, for the limitation period of the lex loci to apply, the underlying right upon which the lawsuit is based must not have existed at common law. Otherwise, the limitation period established by the lex fori governs." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger Co., 230 Conn. 335, 340, 644 A.2d 1297 (1994).
Here, the cause of action asserted is a common law negligence action stemming from a car accident. The plaintiff does not claim or attempt to establish that Minnesota's six-year statute of limitation for tort actions is intertwined with the applicable substantive law, such that the statute of limitations travels with the cause of action filed in Connecticut. As such, by not timely complying with the statute of limitations under Connecticut law, specifically General Statutes § 52-584, the plaintiff is precluded from bringing this action.
This court grants the defendant's motion for summary judgment.