A trial court in Connecticut has ruled that an insurer's subrogation action was subject to a two-year statute of limitations and had to be dismissed, rejecting the insurer's contention that its action was grounded in equity and not subject to the statute.
The Case
On May 15, 2012, Joshua Mitchell, while operating a vehicle owned by William Planz, Jr., allegedly struck the vehicle owned by Patricia Tomczak, and she was injured. Ms. Tomczak received $50,000 in uninsured motorist benefits from GEICO, her insurer.
On October 23, 2015, GEICO, as subrogee, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Planz, seeking to recover the amount it had paid to Ms. Tomczak under its policy. GEICO asserted that it had demanded that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Planz pay it that amount, but that they had “neglected and refused to do so,” resulting in GEICO having a claim for money damages.
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Planz moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that GEICO's subrogation action was barred by the statute of limitations contained in Connecticut General Statutes §52-584 because it had not been filed within two years of the date of Ms. Tomczak's injury.
GEICO countered that its action was “grounded in equitable subrogation and therefore not subject to the statute of limitations” contained in Section 52-584.
Connecticut Law
Connecticut General Statutes §52-584, entitled:
Limitation of action for injury to person or property caused by negligence, misconduct or malpractice
provides:
No action to recover damages for injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by negligence . . . 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 three years from the date of the act or omission complained of. . . .
The Trial Court's Decision
The trial court granted the motion.
In its decision, the trial court found that the defendants had met their initial burden of showing “the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts” that GEICO had initiated its subrogation action after the lapse of the two-year statute of limitations provided in Section 52-584.
The trial court then found no reason to excuse GEICO's compliance with the applicable statute of limitations, observing that a subrogee was “subject to the same statutory obligations as [the insured/subrogor] would have been if it had brought this action.”
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].