The Connecticut Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury
Connecticut General Statutes §52-584 sets the filing deadline for personal injury claims based on negligence, reckless or wanton misconduct, and professional malpractice. The statute operates on a two-tier structure that every injured person in the state needs to understand before the calendar runs out.
The primary deadline is two years from the date the injury was first sustained, discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered. That discovery rule is meaningful for cases like toxic exposure or latent medical conditions, where the harm may not be immediately apparent. A Hartford resident who develops symptoms from a workplace chemical exposure in 2024 but does not connect the dots until 2025 would have until 2027 under the discovery trigger — in theory.
But §52-584 contains a hard outer limit that cuts off the discovery rule: no action may be brought more than three years from the date of the act or omission complained of. This is a statute of repose, not just a limitations period. It does not pause for discovery. If the negligent act occurred in January 2023, the absolute deadline to file is January 2026, regardless of when injury was discovered. Courts have consistently held that this three-year ceiling is jurisdictional.
Filing deadline warning: Do not treat the 2-year discovery rule as your safety net. Connecticut's 3-year absolute outer limit runs from the date of the negligent act — not from discovery. If you are approaching either deadline without having filed, consult a Connecticut personal injury attorney immediately. Missing the deadline almost certainly means your claim is gone.
Tolling for Minors
Connecticut generally tolls civil statutes of limitations for minors. A child injured by negligence typically has until two years after reaching the age of majority (18) to file, subject to the three-year statute of repose under §52-584, which can interact with the tolling doctrine in complicated ways depending on the circumstances. CGS §52-577d addresses a specific and distinct category: claims by minors for damages caused by sexual abuse or exploitation, where tolling extends to 30 years after the victim reaches age 21. For standard personal injury claims involving children, parents should not assume the tolling period is unlimited or uncomplicated.
Claims Against Government Entities
Suing a Connecticut municipality or state agency layers procedural requirements on top of the standard limitations period. Under CGS §52-557n, municipalities can be held liable for employee negligence, but notice requirements are strict. For claims involving defective roads and bridges, written notice must be filed within 90 days of the injury. For other municipal employee negligence claims, the notice period is typically six months. Claims against the State of Connecticut itself must go through the Claims Commissioner's office, with a one-year notice window. Missing these notice deadlines kills an otherwise valid claim, regardless of time remaining on the general SOL.
The official text of §52-584 and surrounding limitations statutes is published at cga.ct.gov — Chapter 926, Statute of Limitations.
Connecticut's Negligence Rule: Modified Comparative Fault (51% Bar)
Connecticut follows modified comparative fault under CGS §52-572h. The statute governs how responsibility is divided when multiple parties share fault for an accident — a common scenario in car crashes on I-95, slip and falls in New Haven retail stores, and construction site injuries across Fairfield County.
The core principle: a plaintiff's damages are reduced proportionally by their own percentage of fault. A jury finds a plaintiff 25% responsible for a rear-end collision and awards $80,000 in total damages. That plaintiff collects $60,000 — the award reduced by their 25% share.
The 51% bar is where the system draws a hard line. A plaintiff found 51% or more at fault for their own injuries recovers nothing. At exactly 50%, they retain the right to recover, albeit at a 50% reduction. At 51%, the door closes completely. This distinguishes Connecticut from pure comparative fault states, where even a plaintiff who is 90% at fault can still recover 10% of their damages.
How Fault Is Apportioned Among Multiple Defendants
CGS §52-572h also governs multi-defendant cases. The jury assigns a percentage of fault to each party — plaintiff and all defendants. The plaintiff cannot recover if their fault share exceeds the combined fault of all defendants. In a three-party scenario where the plaintiff is 40% at fault, Defendant A is 35%, and Defendant B is 25%, the plaintiff may recover from both defendants with damages reduced by 40%.
Connecticut modified its joint and several liability rules through tort reform. Defendants are generally severally liable for their proportionate share of non-economic damages. Joint and several liability for the full judgment applies in more limited circumstances, such as when defendants acted in concert. The practical effect: an injured plaintiff cannot always collect the full judgment from a single solvent defendant when others were also assigned fault.
Damage Caps in Connecticut Personal Injury Cases
Connecticut imposes no statutory cap on compensatory damages in general personal injury cases. Economic damages — medical bills, lost wages, future care costs, reduced earning capacity — are fully recoverable based on evidence. Non-economic damages, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of consortium, are also uncapped. A Stamford or Bridgeport jury can award whatever the evidence supports.
This places Connecticut among the more plaintiff-friendly states on the damages side, compared to states like California, which caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice at $350,000, or Virginia, which maintains an overall med mal cap.
Punitive Damages: Connecticut's Unusual Rule
Connecticut's approach to punitive damages is genuinely distinctive. Under the general common law rule applied by Connecticut courts, punitive damages in personal injury cases are limited to attorney's fees and litigation costs — not a multiplier of compensatory damages, as is the standard in most other states. A plaintiff who proves reckless indifference to their rights can receive punitive damages, but that award is capped at the cost of bringing the lawsuit.
Two statutory exceptions apply. In product liability cases, CGS §52-240b allows punitive damages up to twice the compensatory award — a more conventional multiplier approach. In medical malpractice cases, punitive damages remain subject to the common law limitation of court costs and attorney fees. There is no general statute authorizing multiplied punitive damages in standard negligence or premises liability claims.
The practical consequence: Connecticut defendants who acted outrageously do not face the runaway punitive verdicts common in some other jurisdictions. For plaintiffs, this means punitive damages carry less settlement leverage in Connecticut than in many peer states.
Auto Insurance and Personal Injury Claims in Connecticut
Connecticut is an at-fault (tort) state for auto insurance. It abandoned a no-fault system in 1994, restoring full tort rights to injured drivers. The at-fault driver's liability insurer pays the damages suffered by the other party — economic and non-economic alike. Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage is not required under Connecticut law, and there is no injury threshold to cross before you can sue.
Minimum Liability Coverage Requirements
Connecticut law requires all registered vehicle operators to carry:
| Coverage Type | Minimum Required |
|---|---|
| Bodily Injury — per person | $25,000 |
| Bodily Injury — per accident | $50,000 |
| Property Damage — per accident | $25,000 |
| Uninsured Motorist — per person | $25,000 |
| Underinsured Motorist — per person | $25,000 |
Mandatory UM/UIM Coverage
Unlike states where uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is optional, Connecticut mandates it. Insurers must include UM/UIM coverage in every auto policy issued in the state, at the same minimum levels as the liability requirements. This matters in practice: Connecticut has a meaningful population of uninsured drivers, particularly in urban areas. Without the mandatory UM coverage requirement, injured claimants hit by uninsured drivers would be left chasing judgment-proof defendants. The mandatory structure closes that gap, at least up to the policy limits the injured party carries on their own policy.
Because Connecticut is an at-fault state, the fault investigation is central to every auto injury claim. An adjuster's fault determination interacts directly with the §52-572h comparative fault framework. Disputes over fault percentages — particularly in multi-vehicle accidents on the Merritt Parkway or I-84 — are frequently the primary battleground in Connecticut auto injury litigation.
Estimate Your Connecticut Settlement Value
Use our free calculator to see what your Connecticut personal injury case may be worth.
Use the Free Calculator →