(a) As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, or over the executor or administrator of such nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, who in person or through an agent: (1) Transacts any business within the state; (2) commits a tortious act within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act; (3) commits a tortious act outside the state causing injury to person or property within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act, if such person or agent (A) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state, or (B) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; (4) owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state; or (5) uses a computer, as defined in subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 53-451, or a computer network, as defined in subdivision (3) of subsection (a) of said section, located within the state.

(b) Where personal jurisdiction is based solely upon this section, an appearance does not confer personal jurisdiction with respect to causes of action not arising from an act enumerated in this section.

(c) Any nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, or the executor or administrator of such nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, over whom a court may exercise personal jurisdiction, as provided in subsection (a) of this section, shall be deemed to have appointed the Secretary of the State as its attorney and to have agreed that any process in any civil action brought against the nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, or the executor or administrator of such nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association, may be served upon the Secretary of the State and shall have the same validity as if served upon the nonresident individual, foreign partnership or foreign voluntary association personally. The process shall be served by the officer to whom the same is directed upon the Secretary of the State by leaving with or at the office of the Secretary of the State, at least twelve days before the return day of such process, a true and attested copy thereof, and by sending to the defendant at the defendant's last-known address, by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, a like true and attested copy with an endorsement thereon of the service upon the Secretary of the State. The officer serving such process upon the Secretary of the State shall leave with the Secretary of the State, at the time of service, a fee of twenty-five dollars, which fee shall be taxed in favor of the plaintiff in the plaintiff's costs if the plaintiff prevails in any such action. The Secretary of the State shall keep a record of each such process and the day and hour of service.

(1969, P.A. 744, S. 1, 2; 1971, P.A. 213, S. 1; P.A. 82-160, S. 16; P.A. 85-303, S. 2, 5; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-6, S. 107, 117; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 98-1, S. 35, 121; P.A. 99-160, S. 4; P.A. 00-191, S. 5, 16; P.A. 04-240, S. 25.)

History: 1971 act designated existing provisions as Subsecs. (a) and (b) and added Subsec. (c) re service of process on secretary of the state; P.A. 82-160 rephrased section; P.A. 85-303 raised fee for service of process on secretary of the state from $5 to $10; May Sp. Sess. P.A. 92-6 amended Subsec. (c) to raise fee from $10 to $25; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 98-1 made a technical change in Subsec. (c), effective June 24, 1998; P.A. 99-160 made technical and gender neutral changes and amended Subsec. (a) to add new Subdiv. (5) allowing Connecticut courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who use computers or computer networks located in this state; P.A. 00-191 amended Subsec. (c) by adding requirement that registered or certified mail be “return receipt requested”, effective September 1, 2000; P.A. 04-240 added provisions re foreign voluntary associations in Subsecs. (a) and (c) and made a technical change in Subsec. (c), effective June 8, 2004.

See Sec. 52-57a re service of process beyond state borders upon persons domiciled or subject to jurisdiction of Connecticut courts.

Not retroactive to judgments rendered before effective date of passage. 160 C. 53. Cited. 170 C. 567, 578; 182 C. 14. The term “transacts any business” embraces a single purposeful business transaction; the execution of a warranty deed in Iowa concerning property in Connecticut constitutes transacting business within the state. 184 C. 471. Cited. 189 C. 162; 190 C. 48; 195 C. 191; 197 C. 34; 206 C. 125; Id., 374; 212 C. 311; 224 C. 730; 230 C. 472; 236 C. 602.

Cited. 1 CA 123; 16 CA 619; 23 CA 287; 31 CA 569; 46 CA 799. Where defendant was hired to practice law in New York, accepted contract in New York, and had no personnel, offices or assets in Connecticut, there was no conduct demonstrating a business transaction within the state. 121 CA 366. Out-of-state defendant signed and mailed contract with personal check to plaintiff in this state and purposefully entered into a contract with a Connecticut business that was to perform and deliver services to defendant from this state, therefore contract constituted business in this state. 146 CA 341. Subsec. (c) does not require that defendant receive the documents constituting process in order for service to be effective. 175 CA 757.

Cited. 30 CS 16. Under section, jurisdiction obtained by service on the executor of a Florida estate is valid where the nonresident decedent, were he alive, would be subject to personal jurisdiction. 31 CS 417. Service pursuant to section upon a nonresident who was a resident at the time he rendered the services complained of held valid. Id., 429. A Maryland business trust cannot be served as an entity, but it can be sued through service upon its officers and agents. 32 CS 124. Cited. 33 CS 562; 40 CS 15; Id., 327; 42 CS 25; 44 CS 400. Defendant's initiation of and engagement in numerous telephone conversations with plaintiff for its services in obtaining Super Bowl tickets constituted transaction of business within Connecticut for purpose of vesting court with personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to state long arm statute, notwithstanding plaintiff's actual delivery of tickets to defendant in Florida. 47 CS 476.

Subsec. (a):

Subdiv. (1): Preparation of Connecticut income tax return, along with New York and federal income tax returns, is not sufficient to provide court with personal jurisdiction over New York accountant who performed services exclusively in New York, especially since claim against accountant relates to negligent preparation of New York income tax returns; plaintiff seeking personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual must present evidence satisfying the “substantial revenue” requirement of Subdiv. (3)(B). 282 C. 109. In action to recover on a commercial note, where defendant's wife arranged for forwarding of mail and defendant is amenable to service of process under statute, statute of limitations was not tolled by defendant's absence from the country. 287 C. 379. Subdiv. (1): A host agreeing to provide lodging and transportation to guests previously unknown to her in return for money from the guests constitutes a purposeful business transaction. 303 C. 737.

Subdiv. (1): The phrase “transacts any business” embraces a single purposeful business transaction. 108 CA 731. The general long arm jurisdiction provisions of section apply to foreign limited liability companies, rather than the corporation specific long arm jurisdiction provisions in Sec. 33-929. 149 CA 513. “Substantial revenue” requirement of Subdiv. (3)(B) means enough revenue to indicate a commercial impact in the forum. 174 CA 368.

Subdiv. (1): Although copies of contract attached to complaint showed requirement of out-of-state acceptance, complaint need not contain all facts and circumstances bearing on its allegation of “transacting business in this state”, so motion to erase based on Sec. 33-397(b)(5) should have been denied; plea in abatement would allow proper formulation of issue. 33 CS 628. Subdiv. (2): Conclusion of trial court that allegation of false representation stated cause of action for “tortious act” was equally applicable to allegation of deceptive trade practice under Sec. 42-115d(a) and allegation based on confusion caused by use of corporate name; fact that these acts involved formation of contract in no way mitigates their tortious character. Id. Subdiv. (1) does not incorporate a “fiduciary shield doctrine” that protects individual from personal jurisdiction if his dealings in the forum state were solely in a corporate capacity. 47 CS 319. Personal jurisdiction under Subdiv. (2) existed because the posting by a nonresident of a threatening Internet video specifically targeting a Connecticut resident can be deemed a tortious act committed in this state, and such personal jurisdiction does not violate due process. 51 CS 212.