Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 46a-58

Citation
§ 46a-58
Parent Document
Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert, 343 Conn. 90 (2022)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2022-04-26

Other Sections in This Document (128)

Full Text

2,606 chars
principles that ‘‘[a]ny statutory waiver of immunity must
          be narrowly construed’’ and that ‘‘[t]he state’s sovereign
          right not to be sued may be waived by the legislature
          [only if] clear intention to that effect is disclosed by
          the use of express terms or by force of a necessary
          implication.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.,
          558. Consistent with those principles, the court adopted
          the majority view that ‘‘a statute that generally allows
          interest awards does not waive a state’s sovereign
          immunity unless there is an express provision to that
          effect in the statute.’’ Id., 559; see White Oak Corp. v.
          Dept. of Transportation, 217 Conn. 281, 298, 585 A.2d
          1199 (1991) (concluding that state is immune from
          award of interest under general interest statute, General
          Statutes § 37-3a, in absence of express statutory autho-
          rization).21
             We applied these principles again in Hicks v. State,
          297 Conn. 798, 1 A.3d 39 (2010), in which we held that
          postjudgment interest is not available against the state
          for damages awards under General Statutes § 52-556,
          which expressly waives the state’s sovereign immunity
          with regard to damages for injuries caused by motor
          vehicles operated by state employees and owned and
          insured by the state. See id., 799–800 and n.2. Relying
          on Struckman and its progeny, we explained that ‘‘stat-
          utes in derogation of sovereign immunity should be
          strictly construed. . . . [When] there is any doubt
          about their meaning or intent they are given the effect
          [that] makes the least rather than the most change in
          sovereign immunity.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal
          quotation marks omitted.) Id., 802. We also rejected the
          plaintiff’s argument in Hicks that postjudgment interest
            21
               An example of a statute that contains an express waiver of sovereign
          immunity with respect to interest is General Statutes § 4-61 (a) which, in
          the context of discussing interest awards in breach of contract actions
          against the state in connection with highway and public works contracts,
          provides in relevant part that ‘‘[a]ll legal defenses except governmental
          immunity shall be reserved to the state. . . .’’
Page 64                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        April 26, 2022