Supreme Court Clarifies CPLA Contribution & Comparative Fault

Product Liability / Comparative Responsibility & Contribution

Supreme Court defines who is a “party” and when the one-year contribution clock starts under the CPLA

In the underlying case, a patient suffered serious burns when a therapeutic heat lamp manufactured by Health Body World Supply, Inc. (HBWS) came into contact with her foot during an acupuncture session; she sued her treating physician (Wang) for medical malpractice and HBWS under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, and a jury found HBWS 80% responsible and Wang 20% responsible for $1 million in damages after answering comparative-responsibility interrogatories under General Statutes § 52-572o. After HBWS’ insurer paid $1.2 million in satisfaction of the judgment (including costs and interest), HBWS and its carrier filed a separate contribution action under § 52-572o (e) seeking to recover Wang’s 20% share; Wang argued he was never a “party” to a product liability claim once he withdrew his third-party CPLA complaint, and that the contribution action was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the trial-court judgment. The Supreme Court rejected both arguments, holding that the comparative-responsibility provisions apply to any actor whose fault is actually adjudicated in an action involving a CPLA claim—explaining that “the text of § 52-572o (b) does not state or imply that the class of parties subject to comparative responsibility is limited” to plaintiffs and formally named product-defect defendants—and further holding that a contribution claim “accrues for purposes of § 52-572o (e) when all appellate proceedings are terminated,” i.e., when the judgment in the underlying action truly “becomes final” after the expiration or completion of appellate review. Health Body World Supply, Inc. v. Wang, 353 Conn. 296 (2025).