Overview
How the Matter Unfolded
Defended a Connecticut municipality against a highway defect action filed under C.G.S. § 13a-149. The team challenged both the timeliness and the substantive content of the plaintiff's notice and addressed the plaintiff's invocation of the statute's savings clause. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, applying strict construction of the notice requirements and preserving the municipality's defense framework for similar matters.
The § 13a-149 Framework
Connecticut's C.G.S. § 13a-149 establishes the exclusive remedy for injuries caused by defective municipal roads and conditions claims on strict pre-suit notice. The notice must be filed with the town clerk within 90 days of the occurrence. It must state a description of the injury, cause, and time and place sufficient to permit the municipality to investigate. Connecticut courts strictly construe these requirements under Pratt v. Old Saybrook and Martin v. Town of Plainville, including the operation of the savings clause for technical defects.
Notice Challenge and Dismissal
The motion to dismiss identified material deficiencies in the plaintiff's notice and engaged the controlling Connecticut authority on strict construction. The team's briefing addressed the savings clause argument by showing that the deficiencies went to the core notice content rather than to technical form. The trial court granted dismissal and confirmed that the savings clause does not rescue a notice that fails to reasonably apprise the municipality of the claim. The ruling closed the matter without further litigation and preserved the municipality's framework for similar highway defect claims.
Engagement Details
The Record, Plainly Stated
These are the practical facts of this matter, set out as they stand for this engagement alone. Where a date, duration, or figure appears below, it describes this case and this case only, not a forecast for another.
- Outcome
- dismissal
- Resolution
- Secured dismissal of a Connecticut highway defect action against a municipal client based on the plaintiff's failure to comply with the 90-day notice requirements of C.G.S. § 13a-149. The trial court applied strict construction of the statute's content and timing requirements and rejected the plaintiff's invocation of the savings clause, preserving the municipality's defense framework.
- Geography
- CT, US
- Resolved
- April 18, 2026
- Duration
- 8 months
- Attorneys
- Mickey Haller
Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every engagement is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.
A candid look at where you stand
Facing a Notice-Based Claim?
Notice-compliance defenses like this one turn on details opposing counsel will test from every angle, and we bring that same scrutiny to every filing, not only the ones bound for trial. If your municipality is facing a comparable claim, we welcome a conversation about the record and how the engagement would be scoped and staffed. For more, browse our litigation experience.