The Connecticut Supreme Court has narrowly construed the savings statute in a 7-2 decision, a move that plaintiffs’ attorneys warn could complicate reliance on abode service. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Paul Laiuppa against Mary Moritz following a major motor vehicle collision. According to court records, the marshal served the defendant at her last known address, unaware that Moritz had sold the property on June 8, 2018. The summons and complaint were dropped off ten days later, on June 18, 2018.
Justice Ecker, dissenting in the case, noted, “I would join the majority opinion but for one stubborn fact, which is that lawyers for the defendant, Mary Moritz, entered an appearance on her behalf in the original action on July 3, 2018, eleven days before the expiration of the statute of limitations.”