"The determination of when a plaintiff in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered `actionable harm' is ordinarily a question reserved for the trier of fact," pursuant to Tarnowsky v. Socci, a 2004 decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. In November 2009, the plaintiff, Israel Reyes, allegedly fell on property owned by the defendant, Webster Bank. In May 2012, Reyes brought a claim against New England Mechanical Services Inc., or NEMSI, which was responsible for maintenance at the property. NEMSI moved for summary judgment and argued that the two-year statute of limitations expired, before the plaintiff filed suit against NEMSI. The plaintiff objected that he was unaware of NEMSI's identity until 2012. The plaintiff brought his action against NEMSI within the three-year statute of repose, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §52-584. The court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the plaintiff knew, or should have known, NEMSI's identity, prior to May 2010. "[B]ased on Tarnowsky," wrote the court, "the `injury' did not occur for purposes of §52-584 until Webster Bank's response in 2012 when the plaintiff learned of NEMSI's identity as tortfeasor." The court denied NEMSI's motion for summary judgment.

VIEW FULL CASE