Thereafter, on June 25, 1999, Tyler Equipment sold the excavator to King Construction. On August 17, 1999, while the excavator was still in the possession of Tyler Equipment, a service employee at Tyler Equipment installed a hydraulic quick fit attachment on the excavator's arm. On September 22, 1999, Tyler Equipment delivered the excavator to King Construction.

On November 19, 1999, King Construction enrolled the excavator in Volvo's component assurance program, an extended warranty that covered certain aspects of the machine, including the quick fit attachment. The extended warranty period expired after either 24 months or 4,000 hours, whichever occurred earlier. Therefore, the extended warranty expired no later than November 19, 2001.

Under the terms of the extended warranty, Tyler Equipment performed all warranty repair work. Tyler Equipment performed the last repair work under the extended warranty on May 11, 2001, when it serviced the power controls and gearbox.

On September 4, 2015, Donita J. King, individually and as executrix of Mr. King's estate, sued Volvo Group North America, LLC ("VGNA"), VCENA, and Tyler Equipment. She alleged that the Volvo defendants were "liable and legally responsible for the injuries and damages to the plaintiff and the death [of] the decedent by virtue of [the Connecticut Product Liability Act, General Statutes] § 52-572m et seq. . . ."

Ms. King also alleged that Tyler Equipment was "liable and legally responsible for the injuries and damages to the plaintiff and the death [of] the decedent by virtue of [the Product Liability Act]. . . ."

The Volvo defendants and Tyler Equipment asserted that Ms. King's claims under the Product Liability Act were barred by the applicable 10 year statute of repose, which provided that no product liability action could be brought against any party later than 10 years from the date that the party last parted with possession or control of the product.

While the defendants' motions for summary judgment were pending, the Connecticut legislature amended the Product Liability Act's statute of repose by passing P.A. 17-97, which became effective October 1, 2017. It allowed employees to bring claims under the Product Liability Act beyond the 10 year limitation period if they could prove that the injury occurred during the useful safe life of the product.

In ruling on the motions, the trial court recognized that P.A. 17-97 had been signed into law and had become effective on October 1, 2017. The trial court, however, determined that this amendment to the Product Liability Act's statute of repose was not retroactively applicable to Ms. King's claims.

The trial court granted the summary judgment motions filed by the Volvo defendants and Tyler Equipment, and the dispute reached the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

The Connecticut Supreme Court's Decision

The court reversed, holding that P.A. 17-97 applied retroactively to Ms. King's claims.

In its decision, the court explained that there was "no express language in P.A. 17-97" to indicate that the legislature did not intend the amendment to apply retroactively.

It then pointed out that the Product Liability Act itself provided, in Section 52-577a(g), that "[t]he provisions of this section shall apply to all product liability claims brought on or after October 1, 1979."

The court then presumed that when the legislature amended the statute by P.A. 17-97 to remove the exclusive time impediment imposed only on employees entitled to workers' compensation, it was aware of subsection (g) but chose not to amend it.

Accordingly, the court said, the legislature knew that P.A. 17-97's amendment to the Product Liability Act, when read in conjunction with Section 52-577a (g), would apply to "all product liability claims brought on or after October 1, 1979" insofar as no final judgment had been rendered.

The court then reasoned that because the trial court had concluded that P.A. 17-97 did not apply retroactively, it had not considered whether the defendants had met their burden of establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the harm alleged by Ms. King had occurred during the useful safe life of the product so as to avoid the 10 year limitation period. Therefore, the court concluded, the trial court had improperly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The case is King v. Volvo Excavators AB, No. SC 20097 (Conn. Oct. 1, 2019). Attorneys involved include: Ralph J. Monaco, with whom, on the brief, was Eric J. Garofano, for the appellants (plaintiffs). Francis H. LoCoco, pro hac vice, with whom, on the brief, was Mark J. Claflin, for the appellees (defendants).