Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Johnson Electric Co. v. Salce Contracting Associates, Inc. · filed 2002-09-17(a)

As a matter of law, to establish a CUTPA violation, the plaintiff had to establish that it was injured by “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” General Statutes § 42-110b (a).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Lenge v. Beizer, No. Cv 00-0802145 (Dec. 30, 2002) · filed 2002-12-30(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce." ... This court holds that the defendant Beizer has violated the provisions of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes §§ 42-110, et. seq. and finds for the plaintiff on the Sixth Count.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, and violating the Home Improvement Act is treated as a per se violation of it.

Clark v. Hunt, No. Cv 02-87877 (Jan. 16, 2003) · filed 2003-01-16

"[T]he failure to comply with the [Home Improvement Act] is a per se violation of CUTPA by virtue of General Statutes 20-427 (b), which provides that any violation of the Home Improvement Act is deemed to be an unfair or deceptive trade practice." Woronecki v. Trappe , 228 Conn. 574 , 579 , 637 A.2d 783 (1994). ... The court finds that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages (alternatively) but, exercising its discretion, finds they are not entitled to punitive damages under General Statutes § 42-110g on account of the defendant's violation of C.U.T.P.A., General Statutes § 42-110b .

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Roosevelt Building Prod. v. Morin Corp., No. Cv 00 0083595s (Feb. 6, 2003) · filed 2003-02-06(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... The facts of this case do not lend themselves to a finding that the defendant engaged in immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous behavior, or behavior which offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, common law or otherwise.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Votto v. American Car Rental, Inc., No. Cv 01 0456354 S (Mar. 6, 2003) · filed 2003-03-06(a)

The operative provision of the act, [General Statutes] § 42-110b (a), states merely that [n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. ... This conduct of refusing to explain the charges and answering his inquiry by referring him to its "Legal Department" which is located across the state with "no phone calls accepted" also constitutes a violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Bristol v. Hudson Oil Co., No. Cv02-0514416s (Jul. 12, 2002) · filed 2002-07-12(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... Hudson's notification of future noncompliance with the contract amounts to a single anticipatory breach of the contract and is insufficient to form a basis of a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b applies the CUTPA unfairness test, including public policy, immorality or unscrupulousness, and substantial consumer injury.

Nosik v. Bowman, No. Cv 00 0379089 (Jul. 12, 2002) · filed 2002-07-12

The plaintiff's allegations do not offend public policy, and therefore, do not meet the first prong of the cigarette test. These representations, even when read in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, are not necessarily immoral or unscrupulous. Finally, while the plaintiff pleads that the defendant's misrepresentations caused her substantial injury, she does not allege any facts in support of this contention. The plaintiff has therefore, not met the three-prong test for CUTPA, and therefore, the defendant's motion to strike the fourth count of the complaint is granted.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair competition and unfair or deceptive trade practices, and a practice may be unfair when it sufficiently meets one cigarette rule criterion or meets all three to lesser degrees.

Homestead Funding Corp. v. Welch, No. 067260 (Aug. 28, 2002) · filed 2002-08-28(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) states: "No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." ... In the present case, the defendants have not alleged facts to satisfy any of the three criteria of the "cigarette rule" and, thus, the defendants' third counterclaim is stricken.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair trade practices and requires a showing that the challenged conduct was unfair.

Subsolutions, Inc. v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. · filed 2006-03-30

The Plaintiffs, however, have produced no evidence beyond the alleged tying arrangement itself that would demonstrate that DAI’s conduct was either tortious or unfair. Because these state-law claims are based exclusively on their unsuccessful claims that the DAI violated federal antitrust laws, summary judgment on these claims is also warranted.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, assessed under the cigarette rule.

Larobina v. Home Depot, USA, Inc. · filed 2003-05-13(a)

It is well settled that in determining whether a practice violates CUTPA we have adopted the criteria set out in the cigarette rule by the federal trade commission for determining when apractice is unfair: (1) [Wjhether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise — in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, [competitors or other businesspersons].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ... On the basis of the referee’s report and the documentary evidence attached to the plaintiffs objection to the report, we conclude that the court properly could have accepted the referee’s finding that the defendant’s conduct relative to the plaintiff constituted a deceptive trade practice in violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and recognizes violations based on deceptive practices or public-policy violations.

Miller v. Guimaraes · filed 2003-08-19(a)

CUTPA provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” General Statutes § 42-110b (a). “Connecticut courts, when determining whether a practice violates CUTPA, will consider (1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise — whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers (or competitors or other businessmen). . . . Thus, a violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.”

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Bruce v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2004-03-09(a)

CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... The Court agrees and finds that these allegations sufficiently set forth a fact pattern upon which a jury could find that the Defendant’s acts were offensive to public policy in violation of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) requires proof that the defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc. · filed 2005-09-06(a)

Finally, in count four, which alleges a violation of CUTPA, the plaintiffs must prove that: (1) the defendant engaged in “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce”; General Statutes § 42-110b (a); and (2) each class member claiming entitlement to relief under CUTPA has suffered an “ascertainable loss of money or property” as a result of the defendant’s acts or practices. General Statutes § 42-110g (a).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Scrivani v. Vallombroso · filed 2007-02-20(a)

In determining whether a practice violates CUTPA, we are guided by the criteria set out in the Federal Trade Commission’s so-called cigarette rule: “(1) [W]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise—in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, [competitors or other businesspersons].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ... “All three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness. A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and assesses unfairness using three criteria, although all three need not be proved.

Central Sports, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA · filed 2007-03-15(a)

Plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” to establish a CUTPA violation. ... Three criteria are used in assessing whether a practice is unfair, although all three need not be proved: ... “(1) Whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise ...; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, competitors or other businesspersons.”

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Gervais v. Riddle & Associates, P.C. · filed 2007-03-19(a)

CUTPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a). To prevail on a claim under CUTPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she suffered “ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal” as a result of the conduct prohibited by the Act.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, evaluated under Connecticut's three-part unfairness test.

Chain Technology, Inc. v. Fleet National Bank (In Re Handy & Harman Refining Group, Inc.) · filed 2003-05-16(a)

Conn. Gen. State § 42-110b(a) (“CUTPA”) provides: “No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” In determining whether a practice violates CUTPA, Connecticut courts will consider: (1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise—whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers (or competitors or other businessmen).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair, unconscionable or deceptive practices, and the court found the defendant’s advertising did not meet that standard.

Janusauskas v. Fichman · filed 2003-07-22(a)

Although the defendant’s advertising was, independent of the other evidence proffered by the plaintiff, entrepreneurial in nature, the plaintiff has not shown that this advertising was unfair, unconscionable or deceptive. See General Statutes § 42-110b (a).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Hudson United Bank v. Cinnamon Ridge Corp. · filed 2004-02-24(a)

“General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides that [n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. [I]n determining whether a practice violates CUTPA we have adopted the criteria set out in the cigarette rule by the federal trade commission for determining when a practice is unfair: ... All three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness.” ... Applying that criteria to the facts in this case, the jury reasonably could have concluded that Cinnamon failed to prove that Hudson’s breach of the handwritten agreement resulted in a “substantial injury.” ... The jury therefore reasonably could have concluded that Hudson’s breach, on the basis of an allegation that the writing was not “formalized,” was something that Cinnamon could have reasonably avoided. ... Because the jury reasonably could have concluded that Hudson breached the handwritten agreement, thereby violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which was implicit within the overall agreement, without the breach rising to the level of a CUTPA violation, the court did not abuse its discretion when denying Hudson’s motion to set aside the verdict on the basis of that claim.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Locascio v. Imports Unlimited, Inc. · filed 2004-03-12

Under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b. ... IUI’s withholding of the certificate of title and IUI’s misrepresentation of the title’s contents did violate CUTPA. At a minimum, the conduct satisfies the first two prongs of the “cigarette rule.” ... Accordingly, I conclude that IUI’s sale to Locascio, as well as its general practice of withholding titles branded “rebuilt” and misinforming purchasers about the contents of those titles, violated CUTPA.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce, and a breach of contract requires sufficiently aggravating circumstances to support a CUTPA claim.

A Slice of Pie Productions, LLC v. Wayans Bros. Entertainment · filed 2005-09-21

The central prohibition of CUTPA is that: no person shall engage in unfair methods of competition or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. ... Plaintiff makes no specific factual allegations with respect to Gold sufficiently “aggravating” to state a claim for a CUT-PA violation. Gold’s motion to dismiss count VII of the complaint is therefore granted.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Omega S.A. v. Omega Engineering, Inc. · filed 2005-09-30(a)

The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act proscribes “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... OSA has not, however, raised a triable issue of material fact with respect to the likelihood of confusion. ... That is insufficient to establish “substantial injury to consumers, competitors or other businessmen.” Accordingly, OSA’s CIJTPA claim fails as a matter of law.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Redican · filed 2005-11-21

The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts of practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b. ... A violation of the ACPA meets the first prong of the test for CUTPA liability. ... However, the court finds that Redican’s conduct toward Mashantucket and the public satisfies the second consideration in the CUTPA test because it was unethical or unscrupulous. ... However, the court finds that the plaintiff has made a sufficient showing under the first two factors to support a finding that the defendant violated CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Independence Insurance Service Corp. v. Hartford Life Insurance · filed 2007-01-29(a)

Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a) provides that, “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” ... Because this evidence indicates an awareness of Hartford’s intention to abandon the long-term care initiative prior to September 10, 2001, when the statute of limitations on IISC’s CUTPA claim began to accrue, and because none of the other evidence supports the “unbeknownst to IISC” portion of this paragraph, IISC’s CUTPA claim must fail.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Rodriguez v. AUTO SALES, INC. · filed 2007-03-07(a)

To establish a CUTPA violation, a plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Lentini v. FIDELITY NAT. TITLE INS. CO. NEW YORK · filed 2007-03-23(a)

Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a) provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” ... The court concludes that the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim under this standard. ... The court concludes that the plaintiff has, at minimum, adequately pled a claim for immoral or unethical conduct under this test.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Global Naps, Inc. · filed 2007-03-27(a)

Under the CUTPA, “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... While Global protests SNET’s assertions, the court finds that there are material issues of fact as to whether Global’s conduct constitutes a CUTPA violation. ... The court therefore denies Global’s motion for summary judgment on SNET’s CUTPA claim.

Subsection (c) directs courts interpreting CUTPA's unfairness standard to follow Federal Trade Commission and federal court interpretations of the Federal Trade Act.

American Car Rental, Inc. v. Commissioner of Consumer Protection · filed 2005-04-12(c)

Although we consistently have followed the cigarette rule in CUTPA cases, we also note that, when interpreting “unfairness” under CUTPA, our decisions are to be guided, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110b (c), by the Federal Trade Commission and federal court inteipretations of the Federal Trade Act.

Section 42-110b(c) directs courts interpreting CUTPA's unfairness standard to consider interpretations by the Federal Trade Commission and federal courts.

Glazer v. Dress Barn, Inc. · filed 2005-06-07(c)

Although we consistently have followed the cigarette rule in CUTPA cases, we also note that, when interpreting “unfairness” under CUTPA, our decisions are to be guided by the interpretations of the Federal Trade Act by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts. See General Statutes § 42-110b (c).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce and requires conduct that meets the statutory CUTPA standard.

TD Properties, LLC v. VP Buildings, Inc. · filed 2009-03-13(a)

CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a). To demonstrate a violation of CTJTPA, a plaintiff must show that a defendant’s conduct offends public policy, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, or causes substantial injury to consumers.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Utzler v. Braca · filed 2009-06-23(a)

It “applies only to acts in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” ... see also General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... “[A] violation of CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” ... The court’s careful consideration of the evidence at trial and its numerous findings that the defendant’s “unethical and unscrupulous” and “unfair and deceptive acts and practices” caused an ascertainable loss to the plaintiff support its conclusion that the defendant not only violated CUTPA, but did so in a manner that merited awarding punitive damages and attorney’s fees to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court did nothing improper in so holding.

Section 42-110b does not cover negligent or intentional tax miscollection because it is not an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce.

Blass v. Rite Aid of Connecticut, Inc. · filed 2009-08-07(a)

Second, the application of CUTPA is inappropriate because that law seeks to protect consumers from “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... The miscollection of taxes, whether negligent or intentional, does not constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of any trade or commerce under the language of CUTPA or the FTCA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Neighborhood Builders, Inc. v. Town of Madison · filed 2010-02-02(a)

To prevail on a CUTPA claim, the plaintiffs must prove that (1) the defendant engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce; General Statutes § 42-110b (a); and (2) each class member claiming entitlement to relief under CUTPA has suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the defendant’s acts or practices. General Statutes § 42-110g (a).

Section 42-110b does not impose liability for negligence alone without evidence of oppressive or unscrupulous conduct sufficient to support a CUTPA violation.

VIP MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. Bank of America · filed 2011-02-11(a)

To assess liability under CUT-PA, courts consider the “cigarette rule”: (I) whether the practice offends public policy; (ii) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and (iii) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers. ... The Bank’s conduct vis a vis Rhodes may have caused injury to VIP, but there is no evidence of the kind of oppressive or unscrupulous behavior that the case law demands. ... Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED vis a vis the plaintiffs CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Ulster Savings Bank v. 28 Brynwood Lane, Ltd. · filed 2012-04-10(a)

CUTPA provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... Because the defendant’s claim of unfair trade practices rests entirely on a factually unsupported allegation that the plaintiff failed to honor a promised modification of the note contained in the January, 2004 letter, the CUTPA claim fails as a matter of law, and the court was legally and logically correct in having granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

A merely technical FDCPA violation does not constitute the unfair conduct required for a CUTPA claim.

Derisme v. Hunt Leibert Jacobson P.C. · filed 2012-07-23(a)

CUTPA provides: “No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... Here, Hunt Leibert’s purported failure to send a validation notice within 5 days, to the extent it can be said to constitute a violation of the FDCPA, is merely technical in nature and therefore simply does not rise to the egregious level of conduct which constitutes conduct which offends public policy or other established concept of unfairness as required under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Stuart v. Freiberg · filed 2013-05-21(a)

CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... The plaintiffs have not offered evidence sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant’s alleged actions fall under CUTPA. ... For the foregoing reason, we conclude that the court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC · filed 2015-08-04(a)

To determine whether conduct is unfair under CUTPA, Connecticut courts apply the cigarette rule and look to “(1) [w]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise — in other words, is it within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, [competitors or other businesspersons].” Naples v. Keystone Bldg. & Dev. Corp., 295 Conn. 214, 227-28, 990 A.2d 326 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). A practice need not meet ah three criteria to constitute an unfair practice under CUTPA, and “[a] practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, using the cigarette rule to assess unfairness.

Halkiotis v. WMC Mortgage Corp. · filed 2015-11-17(a)

As to the limited breach of contract claim that survives summary judgment, there is no evidence to suggest that Saxon’s holding a payment in suspense after it failed to indicate to Halkiotis how much in escrow he was obligated to pay was unfair or deceptive. ... No reasonable juror could conclude from the evidence presented that Saxon had engaged in immoral, unethical, or unscrupulous conduct.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Gallinari v. Kloth · filed 2015-12-01(a)

CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... When determining whether a practice violates CUTPA, Connecticut courts consider “(1) whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise — whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common-law, statutory, or other established -concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers (or competitors or other businessmen).” ... Plaintiffs allegations give rise to a plausible inference that Defendants engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce which offended public policy and/or was immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous, see Compl. ¶¶ 84-88, and that Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss as a proximate result, id, ¶89. Accordingly, Plaintiffs CUTPA claim survives Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and identifies alternative ways to establish a CUTPA violation.

Ferguson v. Zering (In re Zering) · filed 2016-11-02

Section 42-110b provides, “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b. A violation of CUTPA may be established either by showing an actual unfair or deceptive practice, or by showing a practice to violate public policy. ... As a claim under CUTPA can be decided under multiple criteria for unfair practices, and under entirely separate elements for deceptive practices, CUTPA cannot preclude the Debtor’s ability to defend against Plaintiffs nondischargeability claims in the present proceeding, as it is unclear on what basis within CUTPA the Connecticut court granted its monetary award.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and a deceptive practice requires a misleading practice, reasonable consumer interpretation, and materiality.

Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC · filed 2017-03-31(a)

CUTPA prohibits the use of “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... Three conditions must be met for an act or practice to be deceptive under CUTPA. “First, there must be a representation, omission, or other practice likely to mislead consumers; second, the consumers must interpret the message reasonably under the circumstances; and, third, the misleading representation, omission, or practice must be material — that is, likely to affect consumer decisions or conduct.”

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Liston-Smith v. Csaa Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. · filed 2017-12-15

CUTPA prohibits the use of "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce," Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b, while CUIPA defines "unfair methods of competition" in the insurance trade, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-815. ... When CUTPA and CUIPA claims are premised on denial of coverage under an insurance policy and the insurer's interpretation of the policy is correct, "there can be no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the application of that interpretation as a general business practice constituted oppressive, unethical or unscrupulous conduct in violation of the statutes." Zulick v. Patrons Mut. Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 367, 378, 949 A.2d 1084 (2008). Because the court concludes that CSAA's denial of coverage was proper, plaintiffs' claim that CSAA's alleged breach of contract was part of a general unfair business practice fails as a matter of law.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce and requires an ascertainable loss for a CUTPA claim.

CSL Silicones, Inc. v. Midsun Grp. Inc. · filed 2018-03-15(a)

CUTPA prohibits any person from engaging in "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... To prevail its CUTPA-based counterclaims, Midsun must prove that: "(1) [CSL] engaged in 'unfair or deceptive' acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, and that (2) [Midsun] has suffered an 'ascertainable loss of money or property.' " Indiaweekly.com, LLC v. Nehaflix.com, Inc. , No. 07-CV-0194 (TLM), 2011 WL 13228167, at *12 (D. Conn. Jan. 19, 2011) (citations omitted).

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Royal Indemnity Co. v. King · filed 2008-01-08(a)

CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” ... “[T]o prevail in a CUTPA action, a plaintiff must establish both that the defendant has engaged in a prohibited act and that, ‘as a result of this act, the plaintiff suffered an injury.”

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Seligson v. Brower · filed 2008-08-19(a)

CUTPA provides in relevant part that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... We do not retry the facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses and thus cannot conclude that the court’s finding that the defendant failed to prove a violation of CUTPA was clearly erroneous.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Centimark Corp. v. Village Manor Associates Ltd. Partnership · filed 2009-04-07(a)

“CUTPA provides in relevant part that ‘[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.’ General Statutes § 42-110b (a). It is well settled that in determining whether a practice violates CUTPA we have adopted the criteria set out in the cigarette rule by the federal trade commission for determining when a practice is unfair: (1) [W]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise — in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, [competitors or other businesspersons]. ... All three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness. A practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three. . . .”

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, including practices that violate public policy.

Flemming v. Goodwill Mortgage Services, LLC · filed 2009-08-27(a)

CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... Thus, a plaintiff may establish a CUTPA violation “by showing either an actual deceptive practice or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.” ... Thus, the plaintiffs have not alleged facts that would support a claim that Deutsche Bank engaged in a deceptive practice or practice amounting to a violation of public policy. ... Therefore, the Fifth Cause of Action is being dismissed with respect to Deutsche Bank because it fails to state a claim for a CUTPA violation against Deutsche Bank.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Naples v. Keystone Building & Development Corp. · filed 2010-03-30(a)

CUTPA provides: “No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... We conclude that the trial court’s determination that the defendants’ conduct did not amount to a CUTPA violation was not clearly erroneous, notwithstanding their unworkmanlike construction of the plaintiffs’ home. ... In the absence of aggravating unscrupulous conduct, mere incompetence does not by itself mandate a trial court to find a CUTPA violation. ... Given the support in the record for the trial court’s finding that the defendants’ actions constituted nothing other than mere incompetence, we conclude that its determination that they did not violate CUTPA was not clearly erroneous.

Section 42-110b does not treat a lender’s denial of income based repayment during deferment or forbearance, with instructions to reapply afterward, as an unfair practice on the theory that it offends the Higher Education Act’s public policy.

Parola v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. · filed 2012-09-10(a)

Since she would not have begun making payments under the IBR until the deferment or forbearance periods ended, Citibank’s denial and instruction to reapply at the end of those periods could not have offended the public policy of the HEA as the public policy of the HEA provides that repayments can only begin after deferment or forbearance has ended.

Section 42-110b(a) can support a CUTPA claim against a person who personally engages in unfair conduct in trade or commerce, even without a contract with the claimant.

Bruno v. Whipple · filed 2012-10-16(a)

We conclude that such allegations of collusion and conspiracy, as pleaded, describe behavior by Whipple in the conduct of trade or commerce that, if proved at trial, would constitute a violation of CUTPA. Because such allegations are sufficient to state a viable CUTPA claim against Whipple that does not depend upon the existence of a contractual relationship between himself and the plaintiff, we reverse the trial court’s rendering of summary judgment in favor of Whipple on the fifth count of the complaint.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Kosiorek v. Smigelski · filed 2012-10-23(a)

CUTPA provides in relevant part that [n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... In general, CUTPA applies to attorney conduct, but only as to the entrepreneurial aspects of legal practice. . . . Professional negligence, or malpractice, does not fall under CUTPA. ... Accordingly, the court properly submitted the CUTPA claim for the jury’s consideration.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Joseph General Contracting, Inc. v. Couto · filed 2013-07-23(a)

These findings, which we find to be supported in the record, justify a court’s determination of a personal violation of CUTPA, even without a finding of fraud. “Although CUTPA is primarily a statutory cause of action; see General Statutes § 42-110b; ... it equally is recognized that CUTPA claims may arise from underlying causes of action, such as contract violations or torts . . . .” ... Accordingly, we conclude that the court’s finding that Silvestri was personally liable for his conduct under CUTPA was not clearly erroneous.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and a CUTPA claim need not allege fraud unless fraudulent conduct is its necessary foundation.

In re Trilegiant Corp. · filed 2014-03-28(a)

CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... The Court holds that to the extent the Plaintiffs have alleged a CUTPA action based on fraud, they have failed to sufficiently plead with the particularity required in Rule 9(b) for the same reasons discussed supra. To the extent that their claims are not based on fraud, the Court must examine those claims under the standard of Rule 8.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Leary v. Manstan · filed 2015-07-15(a)

Plaintiffs CUTPA claim also fails. CUTPA prohibits the use of “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(a). Here, it is difficult to discern which of defendants’ acts or practices are alleged to be unfair or deceptive, because plaintiffs complaint does not contain any factual allegations that are specific to the CUTPA claim. To the extent that the CUTPA claim is based on defendants’ alleged copying of plaintiffs manuscript, that claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. See Kregos, 3 F.3d at 666 (holding that “unfair-competition and misappropriation claims, based solely on the copying of the protected expression ... are preempted by [17 U.S.C.] § 301”). In his memorandum in opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion, plaintiff contends that his CUTPA claim is “based on the authorized use of [his] manuscript by Defendants.” Doc. # 53 at 22. This argument is without merit, because consulting a manuscript that one has been given when writing a non-fiction book is not actually deceptive, nor does it offend public .policy. See Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., 95 F.Supp.3d 284, 288-89, 2015 WL 1476400, at *2 (D.Conn.2015) (noting that CUTPA claims can be based on either actually deceptive practices or violations of public policy, and detailing requirements for both types of claims). Because there is no factual or legal basis for a viable CUTPA claim, I will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Greenwich Taxi, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · filed 2015-08-13

CUTPA prohibits persons from engaging in “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-110b. ... Therefore, the court is dismissing Count III.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and a claim must allege such conduct with sufficient factual notice.

At Engine Controls Ltd. v. Goodrich Pump & Engine Control Systems, Inc. · filed 2016-02-05(a)

In other words, ATEC’s assertion that GPECS committed “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” because it “improperly used” ATEC’s proprietary technology did not provide GPECS with sufficient notice of the CUTPA claim asserted against it—the “central purpose of a complaint.” ... Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the CUTPA claim was time-barred because ATEC’s pleadings were insufficient to allege that GPECS engaged in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices within three years of initiating this action.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, evaluated under the cigarette rule.

Federal Insurance Co. v. Speedboat Racing Ltd. · filed 2016-08-09

That statute provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b. ... The Connecticut Supreme Court has adopted the “cigarette rule by the federal trade commission for determining when a practice is unfair” under CUTPA: “(1) [W]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise—in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; [and] (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, [competitors or other businesspersons].”

Section 42-110b (a) prohibits unfair competition methods and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Pedrini v. Kiltonic · filed 2017-01-24(a)

CUTPA provides that ‘‘[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.’’ General Statutes § 42-110b (a). ... Upon review of the record before us, we conclude that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the court’s finding that the defendant did not violate CUTPA, and, therefore, that the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages or attorney’s fees, was not clearly erroneous.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Papallo v. Lefebvre · filed 2017-04-25(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) provides: ‘‘No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.’’ ... The court’s stated rationale is sufficient basis for affirmance. ... Accordingly, we reject this claim.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, applying the cigarette rule to determine unfairness.

Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. · filed 2017-07-18(a)

[Section] 42-110b (a) provides that [n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. . . . [I]n determining whether a practice violates CUTPA we have adopted the criteria [formerly] set out in the cigarette rule by the [F]ederal [T]rade [C]ommission for determining when a practice is unfair: (1) [w]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law, or otherwise—in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, [competitors or other businesspersons]. . . . All three criteria do not need to be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Stanley Works Isr. Ltd. v. 500 Grp., Inc. · filed 2018-08-01(a)

CUTPA prohibits any person from engaging in "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... In the present case, the Amended Complaint alleges that the subject matter of the underlying arbitration and resultant settlement was directly related to Defendants' primary trade. ... Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, as I am bound to do, the conduct that forms the basis of the CUTPA claim - the wrongful retention of the money associated with the settlement sum - is directly connected to the Defendants' primary trade of "the receipt of royalty payments and the monetization of intellectual property rights." Doc. 24 ¶ 32. Accordingly, the Court will not dismiss the CUTPA claim on this basis.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Chung Family Realty Partnership, LLC · filed 2010-12-28(a)

Given the wrongful termination and the aggravating circumstances, there is ample support for the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant’s actions violated CUTPA. Therefore, the court’s finding of a CUTPA violation was not clearly erroneous.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce and permits liability for deceptive practices or conduct violating public policy.

Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Calco Construction & Development Co. · filed 2013-02-26(a)

Section 42-110b (a) provides: “No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” ... None of the court’s findings, either legally or logically, lead to a conclusion that the defendants’ actions were unfair, deceptive or contrary to public policy. To the contrary, the court’s findings reflect that the defendants acted in accordance with common business norms. Because we are not left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made by the court in concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish probable cause that the defendants’ actions constituted a CUTPA violation, we conclude that there was no clear error.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair competition and unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce, and a breach of contract supports a CUTPA claim when accompanied by substantial aggravating circumstances.

Anthem Sports, LLC v. Under the Weather, LLC · filed 2018-03-06(a)

CUTPA provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... As noted previously, Mr. Pescovitz's comments on Anthem's Facebook page were opinions or puffery. As a result, I conclude that his statements do not support CUTPA liability. ... Here, the plaintiffs allege sufficient aggravating circumstances to set out a cognizable CUTPA claim. ... Thus, when the plaintiffs' breach of contract allegations are combined with the other circumstances of this case, they give rise to a cognizable CUTPA claim. ... The plaintiffs' CUTPA claim may therefore move forward with respect to UTW's alleged breach of contract and trademark infringement.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce, and a CUTPA unfairness claim requires plausible allegations under the cigarette rule.

Zito v. United Technologies Corporation · filed 2016-12-21(a)

CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a). ... In sum, because Zito failed adequately to allege a plausible basis for concluding that any of the three prongs of the “cigarette rule” were satisfied, the district court did not err in dismissing Zito’s CUTPA unfairness claim.

Section 42-110b(a) does not treat prolonged business negotiations as an unfair practice when they involve no misleading promise of a future contract.

Cadco, Ltd. v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. · filed 2019-03-05(a)

We agree with the trial court that the defendants’ prolonged negotiations with the plaintiff do not offend public policy in such a way as to violate an established concept of unfairness within the meaning of the first prong of the cigarette rule.

A practice may be unfair under § 42-110b even if it does not meet all three criteria for unfairness; the degree to which it meets one criterion may suffice.

McNeil v. Yale University · filed 2020-01-30(a)

All three criteria need not be met to find unfairness; “[a] practice may be unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.”

Conduct that violates public policy can qualify as an unfair or deceptive practice under § 42-110b.

Conn. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Corelogic Rental Prop. Solutions, LLC · filed 2019-03-25

Here, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged unfair or deceptive practices that violate the cigarette rule. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's actions offend the public policy set forth in the FHA and related HUD Guidance, the FCRA and Connecticut's conservatorship statute. Because they alleged practices amounting to public policy violations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled an unfair or deceptive practice.

Section 42-110b prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices, including a car dealer’s negligent misrepresentation of a vehicle’s safety and merchantability.

Hernandez v. Apple Auto Wholesalers of Waterbury LLC · filed 2020-05-18(a)

Accordingly, the Court will grant Mr. Hernandez default judgment on his CUTPA claims against Apple Auto based on his Truth and Lending Act claim, Apple Auto’s negligent misrepresentation of the safety and merchantability of the car, and its failure to comply with safety inspection requirements under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-62(g).

A bank’s failure to disclose information it had a duty to disclose can satisfy CUTPA’s deceptive act prong.

Adams v. Liberty Bank · filed 2021-08-23(a)

Adams can satisfy the “deceptive” prong of CUTPA if the bank failed to disclose information it had a duty to disclose.

A claim that using a shell entity to sign a term sheet was deceptive fails without evidence of representations about the entity’s role or capitalization.

NovaFund Advisors, LLC v. Capitala Group, LLC · filed 2022-03-03(a)

First, I find that NovaFund has failed to demonstrate that the Defendants acted deceptively by allegedly using a shell entity to sign the Term Sheet. As discussed above, NovaFund provides no evidence that the Defendants made affirmative representations about CGLLC’s role or CGLLC’s capitalization.

Unauthorized use of models’ images to promote a business can plausibly constitute an unfair practice under § 42-110b(a).

Moreland v. Beso Lounge & Restaurant, LLC · filed 2020-09-04(a)

The complaint alleges Defendants misappropriated Plaintiffs’ commercialized images without compensation or their permission for Defendants’ pecuniary benefit to advertise and promote Defendants’ night club. That action could plausibly constitute unlawful action or could offend an “established concept of unfairness.” Gaynor, 149 Conn. App. at 275.

Section 42-110b(b) does not require Connecticut courts to adopt the federal substantial unjustified injury test; the cigarette rule remains the standard for unfair trade practice claims under CUTPA.

Kent Literary Club of Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University · filed 2021-03-05(b)

Until such time as the legislature chooses to enact a different standard, the cigarette rule is and will remain the operative standard for unfair trade practice claims under CUTPA.

A fraudulent transfer may support a claim under § 42-110b(a) for unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Featherston v. Katchko & Son Construction Services, Inc. · filed 2020-12-22(a)

As we concluded in part III A 1 of this opinion, the court properly determined that the defendants had engaged in a fraudulent transfer in violation of § 52- 552e (a) (1). Accordingly, we reject the defendants’ assertion that the court committed error in rendering judgment in the plaintiff’s favor on his CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b(a) requires unfair conduct by the defendant; merely benefiting from another person’s allegedly improper conduct is insufficient.

Vanguard Dealer Services, LLC v. Bottom Line Driven, LLC · filed 2022-02-07(a)

The mere allegation that CreditGuard benefitted from allegedly improper actions taken by others is insufficient to state a claim under CUTPA.

Deciding not to invest is not unfair conduct under CUTPA when the other party said either decision would be respected.

Regional Industrial Services Corp. v. Pure Hedge, LLC · filed 2022-06-13

No reasonable jury could find that Oppenheim, by ultimately deciding not to invest, however, was acting unfairly.

Section 42-110b(a) allows a CUTPA claim to proceed when allegations support an inference of reckless conduct and substantial consumer injury.

De Fries v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA · filed 2024-03-26(a)

De Fries has added allegations to the Second Amended Complaint that suggest Wells Fargo’s conduct was reckless and substantially harmed consumers. As such, I find that the Second Amended Complaint states a claim for violations of CUTPA.

A violation of § 42-110b(a) may be established by an actual deceptive practice or a practice that violates public policy.

New Colt Holding Corp. v. RJG Holdings of Florida, Inc. · filed 2004-03-29(a)

Thus, a violation of the CUTPA may be established by showing either an actual deceptive practice ... or a practice amounting to a violation of public policy.”

Section 42-110b(a) permits an unfair trade practice claim based on an insurer’s alleged intentional, unilateral discontinuance of workers’ compensation benefits in violation of statute.

Carpentino v. Transport Insurance · filed 1985-03-13(a)

Second, unilateral discontinuance of the voluntary agreement, expressly prohibited by statute, may be deemed to violate public policy. ... For these reasons, the motion to dismiss count two for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted is denied.

Section 42-110b applies to insurance practices, but a claim based on unfair settlement conduct described in CUIPA requires more than an isolated incident.

Mead v. Burns · filed 1986-05-20(a)

The definition of unacceptable insurer conduct in § 38-61 reflects the legislative determination that isolated instances of unfair insurance settlement practices are not so violative of the public policy of this state as to warrant statutory intervention. ... Under CUTPA, as under CUIPA, a litigant is bound by this legislative determination.

A CUTPA claim derived from CUIPA requires an alleged general business practice; a single unfair act by an insurer is insufficient.

Cohen v. U.S. Life Insurance Co., No. Cv90 0108351 S (Nov. 21, 1991) · filed 1991-11-21

Likewise, a single unfair act of unacceptable insurer conduct, absent a claim of general business practice, would not allow a litigant proceeding under CUTPA to enforce a claim derived from CUIPA.

Section 42-110b requires more than one instance of unfair insurance settlement practices to support a CUTPA claim.

Elstein v. Ins. Co. of North America, No. Cv 91-0281737 (Dec. 4, 1992) · filed 1992-12-04

Thus, claims of unfair settlement practices under CUTPA require a showing of more than a single act of insurance misconduct. Id. The plaintiff's complaint only alleges one instance of unfair settlement practices. Therefore, the plaintiff's CUTPA claim is legally insufficient and the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the fourth count is granted.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance claim settlement practices requires proof that the insurer engaged in those practices frequently enough to constitute a general business practice.

Lees v. Middlesex Insurance · filed 1994-06-28

Because the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to satisfy the requirement under CUIPA that the defendant’s alleged unfair claim settlement practices constituted a “general business practice,” the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim could not survive the failure of her CUIPA claim.

A CUTPA claim based on alleged Workers' Compensation Act violations is not subject to CUIPA's general business practice requirement.

Rotz v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., No. Cv930307488 (Jan. 27, 1995) · filed 1995-01-27

Rather, the plaintiff bases his CUTPA claim upon alleged violations of certain provisions of Workers' Compensation Act. Thus the holding in Lees v. Middlesex Insurance Co. , is not a valid ground for striking the plaintiff's second count.

A CUTPA claim alleging that an insurer denied the plaintiffs’ claim and other claims is not limited to a single transaction and can survive a motion to strike.

Foley v. Connecticut Life Casualty Ins. Co., No. 128539 (Dec. 21, 1995) · filed 1995-12-21

Paragraph 12d of the second count, CUTPA, states" . . . has denied this claim and other claims to make the company more attentive to prospective buyers." Contrary to the assertion of the defendant, the plaintiffs have not alleged only a single transaction in this count. The motion to strike the second count of the complaint is denied.

A CUTPA claim based on an insurer’s alleged unfair claim settlement practices requires facts supporting a general business practice under CUIPA.

Butler v. Bankers Shippers Insurance Co., No. Cv 96-0131722 (Jan. 8, 1998) · filed 1998-01-08(a)

Further, because the plaintiff has not alleged facts supporting a general business practice sufficient to support a claim under CUIPA, those same allegations are also insufficient to support a claim under CUTPA.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance claim settlement practices must allege misconduct involving more than a single claim.

Gold v. American Economy Insurance, No. Cv-95-0380475s (Jun. 23, 1998) · filed 1998-06-23(a)

Despite the lack of appellate authority on the issue of whether CUIPA recognizes a private cause of action, both CUIPA and CUTPA require that a claimant allege more than a single transaction in order to raise a violation of the statutes. Counts four and five of the plaintiff's substituted amended complaint fail to allege sufficient facts to show a "general business practice" of unfair claim settlement practices.

A CUTPA claim based on alleged CUIPA violations can proceed when facts about the handling of multiple claims sufficiently allege a general business practice.

Ferriolo v. Nationwide Insurance, No. Cv 97 0403433 S (Mar. 11, 1998) · filed 1998-03-11

Here, the plaintiff has alleged facts pertaining to the defendant's handling of her claim, and the claims of three other people. ... These facts are sufficient to support the allegation that the defendant's conduct is a general business practice. Therefore, construing the facts most favorably to sustaining the sufficiency of the complaint, this court will deny the motion to strike the fourth count of the complaint.

A violation of CUIPA may form the basis for a CUTPA claim.

Pierce v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., No. Cv 97 63296 (Mar. 24, 1998) · filed 1998-03-24

Finally, a violation of CUIPA may also form the basis for a violation of CUTPA.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance practices cannot proceed when the alleged CUIPA violation does not support a claim by the plaintiff.

Calnan v. Allstate Indemnity Company, No. 98-0264160s (Dec. 3, 1998) · filed 1998-12-03

The Supreme Court sanctioned a CUTPA cause of action based upon an unfair insurance practice provided it builds upon the public policy embodied in a specific statutory provision, in this instance CUIPA, and is consistent with the regulatory principles established by the underlying statute, in this instance, CUIPA. ... Accordingly, the court will grant the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint because the CUIPA violation alleged in the CUTPA count is not authorized by the statute.

An unfair insurance practice that does not violate CUIPA is not an unfair practice under § 42-110b.

D'Alessandro v. Clare, No. Cv 97-0084006 S (Apr. 1, 1999) · filed 1999-04-01

The court thus answered its own question by implicitly holding that conduct that does not violate CUIPA does not constitute an unfair act or practice under CUTPA. Therefore, in the present case, because the court has found that the alleged conduct of Allstate does not violate CUIPA, it follows that it does not violate CUTPA.

A CUTPA claim based on an insurer’s alleged unfair settlement practices is insufficient when the complaint does not plead facts supporting a CUIPA violation.

Currie v. the Aetna Casualty Surety Co., No. Cv-96-0558900 (Aug. 12, 1999) · filed 1999-08-12(a)

Since the viability of the CUTPA claim is, in these circumstances, premised on the sufficiency of the CUIPA allegations; cf. Waugh v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. , supra; the CUTPA claim is also legally insufficient.

A CUTPA claim arising from insurance practices fails when the complaint does not allege facts supporting a CUIPA violation or unfair or deceptive conduct.

Finkeldey v. Newcomb, No. Cv-98-0084847s (Sep. 21, 1999) · filed 1999-09-21(a)

The plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support their underlying claim that the defendants violated CUIPA and, as a necessary corollary, have failed to allege a violation of CUTPA. As pleaded, the complaint fails to show or imply that the defendants purposefully engaged in any deceptive practice or other "immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous" conduct necessary to justify invoking the remedial provisions of CUTPA.

Section 42-110b permits a CUTPA claim against an insurer based on a single insurance policy misrepresentation that violates CUIPA; a general business practice is not required for that claim.

Rizza v. Fisher, No. Cv 97-0574138s (Mar. 23, 1999) · filed 1999-03-23

In order to establish a cause of action against an insurer CT Page 3904 under CUTPA, General Statutes § 42-110b , the plaintiff must prove a violation of CUIPA, General Statutes § 38a-816 . ... In light of the substantial number of Superior Court cases sustaining such a claim based on a single act under General Statutes § 38a-816 (1), I conclude that plaintiff has sufficiently stated a CUTPA/CUIPA claim against Preferred Mutual.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance settlement practices must allege that the insurer’s conduct was a general business practice.

Walker v. Allstate Indemnity Co., No. Cv 035 76 41 S (May 16, 2000) · filed 2000-05-16

Since a CUTPA claim based on violations of CUIPA requires allegations of a general business practice consistent with the regulatory principles of CUIPA, and since the plaintiff offers no such allegations in his complaint, the plaintiff's CUTPA claim is legally insufficient.

Section 42-110b does not require a plaintiff suing a bond issuer under CUTPA to allege a CUIPA violation, because issuing bonds is not insurance.

Legowski v. O'keefe, No. Cv 98 0584404s (Mar. 2, 2000) · filed 2000-03-02

Thus, the plaintiffs need not allege a violation of CUIPA in order to state a cause of action under CUTPA for unfair and deceptive trade practices against the defendants.

A CUTPA claim against an insurer for unfair claim settlement practices requires an underlying CUIPA violation.

Shemitz Lighting v. Hartford Fire Ins., No. Cv 96-0052970 (Nov. 9, 2000) · filed 2000-11-09

Further, because one cannot maintain a CUTPA claim against an insurer absent an underlying CUIPA claim, the plaintiff's CUTPA claim fails as well.

A proven violation of CUIPA § 38a-816(16) supports judgment on a CUTPA claim.

Family Leasing Finance v. Infinity Ins., No. Cv97 0060951s (Oct. 3, 2000) · filed 2000-10-03(a)

Here, because the plaintiff has established a violation of § 38a-816 (16), the court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110b permits a private CUTPA action to enforce alleged CUIPA violations.

Tucci v. Cgu Insurance Company, No. Cv00 037 39 38 S (Nov. 21, 2000) · filed 2000-11-21

However, a private cause of action exists under CUTPA to enforce alleged CUIPA violations.

A CUTPA claim alleging violations of § 38a-816(1) or (15) need not allege a general business practice to survive a motion to strike, even if it also alleges a violation of § 38a-816(6).

Turner v. Allstate Insurance, No. Cv00 017 7471 S (Dec. 8, 2000) · filed 2000-12-08

As a result, the plaintiffs are not required to allege that the defendant's acts constituted a "general business practice" under § 38a-816 (1) and (15). ... Therefore, the defendant's motion to strike count ten is hereby denied.

Section 42-110b(a) regulates businesses generally and can apply to insurers, but it was not enacted specifically to regulate insurance.

L. Claire Lander, Charles M. Droz, Julian Block, and Zelda Block v. Hartford Life & Annuity Insurance Company and Hartford Life Insurance Company · filed 2001-05-25(a)

However, as discussed earlier, CUTPA is a statute of general applicability, and therefore was not enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance.

A CUTPA claim based on insurance practices governed by CUIPA depends on the alleged CUIPA violation rather than generalized CUTPA allegations.

Lawlor v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. Cv990081104 (Jun. 11, 2001) · filed 2001-06-11

In Mead v. Burns , 199 Conn. 651 , 663-66 (1986), the Supreme Court established that when a CUTPA claim is based on public policy governing insurance practices as set forth in CUIPA, it is the CUIPA allegation rather than the generalized CUTPA language that forms the basis of the plaintiff's allegations. ... The plaintiffs' allegations as to § 38a-336 (a)(1) and (2) do not establish a violation of 38a-816 (1). ... For the foregoing reasons, the motion to strike counts nine, twelve, twenty one and twenty four is granted.

A CUTPA claim based on misconduct in the insurance industry requires an unfair insurance practice that violates CUIPA.

Thompson Peck v. Reliance Ins. Co., No. Cv 99-0267591 S (Aug. 29, 2001) · filed 2001-08-29(a)

Furthermore, since the misconduct complained of is related to the insurance industry, the alleged unfair insurance practice must violate CUIPA in order for TPECK to bring an action under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b does not make an insurer’s claim investigation an unfair trade practice without proof of harassment or other improper conduct.

Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hughes, No. Cv-98-0086850 S (Nov. 15, 2001) Ct Page 15252 · filed 2001-11-15

In addition, she has not proved that Amica harassed her or engaged in oppressive, unethical, unscrupulous or unfair conduct in violation of CUTPA.

A CUTPA claim against an insurer for unfair claim settlement practices requires allegations of a CUIPA violation, including conduct frequent enough to indicate a general business practice.

Delpier v. Conn. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. A., No. Cv 01 0164366 (Nov. 28, 2001) · filed 2001-11-28

The failure to properly allege the facts of a CUIPA violation are fatal to the plaintiff's CUTPA count.

Section 42-110b does not support a CUTPA claim against an insurer for unfair claim settlement practices without an underlying CUIPA claim.

Anely v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. Cv98 0166413 S (Jan. 9, 2002) · filed 2002-01-09

Furthermore, one cannot maintain a CUTPA claim against an insurer absent an underlying CUIPA claim, and therefore, the plaintiffs CUTPA claim fails as well.

Section 42-110b(a) requires a third-party claimant alleging unfair settlement practices against another's insurer to allege a contractual relationship with the insurer.

Chieffo v. Yannielli, No. Cv00 0159940 (Jul. 10, 2001) · filed 2001-07-10(a)

Generally, CUTPA provides that "[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." General Statutes § 42-110b (a); Hartford Electric Supply Co. v. Allen-Bradley Co., 250 Conn. 334 , 367 , 736 A.2d 824 (1999). ... In light of the foregoing, counts nine, twelve, fifteen and nineteen are legally insufficient because the plaintiffs did not allege a contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and Windsor. Accordingly, the motion to strike such counts is hereby granted.

A reasoned denial of disability benefits that is neither arbitrary nor capricious does not establish an unfair practice under § 42-110b(a).

Dunn v. Standard Insurance · filed 2001-08-23(a)

As the court finds that Standard’s denial of benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious and that it was not without reason, the plaintiff cannot succeed in asserting that Standard’s conduct offended public policy, or that it was immoral and caused substantial injury. Thus, Standard is entitled to summary judgment on Count III.

An adequately alleged CUIPA violation can support a CUTPA claim against an insurer.

Martinez v. Allstate Indemnity Company, No. Cv01-0381077-S (Sep. 19, 2001) · filed 2001-09-19(a)

Because the plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Allstate violated CUIPA, their allegations are legally sufficient to form the basis of the claim that Allstate also violated CUTPA.

Section 42-110b requires a CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance practices to allege conduct performed with enough frequency to indicate a general business practice.

Cirrito v. Crawford Company, No. Cv 01-0456052 S (Dec. 23, 2002) · filed 2002-12-23

Count four alleges that Insura has violated General Statutes § 38a-816 (6), Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), and count six alleges that Insura has violated General Statutes § 42-110b et seq., Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). ... Construing the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff, because the plaintiff alleges that the wrongful conduct was performed by Insura with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice, Insura's motion to strike counts four and six of the plaintiffs complaint is denied.

Section 42-110b does not allow a CUTPA claim to rest on facts insufficient to establish a general business practice under CUIPA.

Santone v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. Cv 98 0354105 (Mar. 18, 2003) · filed 2003-03-18

What is more, when the facts a plaintiff alleges are insufficient to satisfy the requirement of a general business practice under CUIPA, those same facts cannot be used to support a CUTPA claim. Id. , 850-51. Here, the plaintiff's CUTPA count is premised entirely on the defendant's alleged violation of CUIPA. For that reason, summary judgment is likewise granted as to the third count of the plaintiff's amended complaint.

A CUTPA claim based on an alleged CUIPA violation fails if the alleged conduct does not state a CUIPA claim.

New England Systems, Inc. v. Citizens Insurance Company of America · filed 2021-05-17(a)

Where a plaintiff alleges that an unfair insurance practice under CUIPA also constitutes a CUTPA violation, the failure of the CUIPA claim is fatal to the CUTPA claim.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance claim settlement practices must plausibly allege misconduct frequent enough to show a general business practice; a conclusory reference to other policyholders is insufficient.

Florimon v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2022-07-22(a)

Where not a single other insurance policy holder is alleged with specificity, however, these claims are insufficient to plausibly allege a “general business practice,” as required to survive a motion to dismiss.

A CUTPA claim based on an insurer’s denial of coverage fails when the insurer did not breach the policy.

Farmington Village Dental Associates, LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-19(a)

Again, because Farmington Village’s breach of contract claim fails, its CUTPA and CUIPA claims fail as well.

A justified denial of insurance coverage does not support a CUTPA claim based on that denial.

ENT and Allergy Associates, LLC v. Continental Casualty Company · filed 2022-03-03(a)

Accordingly, because the Court concludes that defendants’ denial of coverage was justified, plaintiffs fail to state a claim for violation of CUTPA/CUIPA on this basis.

A CUTPA claim based on an unfair insurance practice requires a plausible violation of CUIPA.

Murphy Medical Associates, LLC v. Yale University · filed 2023-03-24(a)

Because Murphy Medical has failed to allege a plausible CUIPA violation, the CUTPA claim necessarily fails.

Section 42-110b permits a standalone CUTPA claim based on a violation of a statute regulating a specific type of insurance related conduct.

Murphy Medical Associates, LLC v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company · filed 2023-05-12(a)

As such, Plaintiffs may bring certain standalone CUTPA claims based on alleged violations of statutes regulating a specific type of insurance related conduct.

An unfair insurance practice supports a CUTPA claim only if it violates CUIPA or another statute regulating that practice.

Candeloro v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2025-03-26(a)

As a result, “the failure of the CUIPA claim is fatal to the CUTPA claim.” Artie’s Auto Body, Inc., 317 Conn. at 624.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance settlement practices requires evidence of a general business practice; a single coverage denial is insufficient.

A Priori Family Office LLC v. Valley Forge Insurance Company · filed 2025-04-25(a)

The record evidence includes only a single coverage denial. That is plainly insufficient to get this CUTPA/CUIPA claim to a jury.

Healthcare providers may bring CUTPA claims based on insurers’ failure to pay health claims under CUIPA without subrogation or a prior judicial determination of liability.

Murphy Medical Associates, LLC v. United Medical Resources, Inc. · filed 2024-03-12(a)

Because health care providers are the party most directly harmed by violations of § 38a-816(15), it is unlikely that the legislature intended to bar health care providers from bringing CUTPA claims based on those violations.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance claim settlement practices requires allegations that the insurer's conduct occurred often enough to constitute a general business practice.

Philson v. U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Company, No. Cv96 0382992 (May 3, 1996) · filed 1996-05-03

Philson has failed to allege that USFG has engaged in unfair claim settlement practices with such frequency so as to rise to a "general business practice." Accordingly, USFG's motion to strike should be granted as to the first count.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance settlement practices can proceed when the complaint alleges facts sufficient to support a CUIPA violation.

Cloutier v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, No. Cv90 27 81 84 S (Aug. 9, 1996) · filed 1996-08-09

The cause of action alleged in the fourth count is based on proof of a CUIPA violation. ... Because the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to support a CUIPA violation under § 38a-816 (6), it is not necessary to determine whether those facts also support a violation of subsection (15). The motion to strike the fourth count must be denied.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance settlement practices must allege a general business practice involving claims of other insureds.

Ortilia v. Liberty Insurance Corp., No. Cv96 0388981 (Apr. 15, 1997) · filed 1997-04-15

The fourth count fails to allege that the defendant has engaged in these practices in the processing of other claims with other insureds. The fourth count is legally insufficient.

A CUTPA claim based on an insurer’s unfair claim settlement practices must allege conduct frequent enough to indicate a general business practice.

Delorge v. United States Fire Insurance Co., No. 116794 (Aug. 15, 2002) · filed 2002-08-15(a)

The plaintiffs CT Page 10481 in the present case do not allege that the defendant treated other claimants in a similar manner or that the defendant's wrongful conduct was sufficient to constitute a general business practice.

A CUTPA claim alleging unfair handling of an insurance claim fails when the alleged conduct does not amount to a general business practice under CUIPA.

Almada v. Wausau Business Insurance Co., No. 067022 (Sep. 3, 2002) · filed 2002-09-03(a)

As such, the plaintiffs CUTPA claim cannot survive the failure of her CUIPA claim.

A CUTPA claim based on CUIPA or its policy requires unfair insurance conduct occurring frequently enough to constitute a general business practice.

ANTHONY STERLING v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. · filed 2007-06-19(a)

This means that any CUTPA violations based on CUIPA, either as CUIPA through CUTPA, or CUTPA independently, must have been engaged in with such frequency as to constitute a general business practice.

A CUTPA claim based on unfair insurance claims settlement practices requires facts supporting a general business practice; a conclusory allegation alone is insufficient.

Van Dorsten v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company · filed 2008-05-21

Once again the parties agree that a mere breach of an insurance contract, or even a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, is not sufficient to make out a CUTPA claim. Instead, Ms. Van Dorsten must allege and prove that Provident Life’s conduct constituted a “general business practice.”

A CUTPA claim for unfair insurance practices requires admissible evidence that the insurer engaged in a general business practice violating CUIPA.

Sterling v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance · filed 2009-03-27(a)

Because the plaintiff has not identified admissible evidence showing that the defendants engaged in a pattern of unfair business practices violative of the statutes, the CUTPA and CUIPA claims will be dismissed.

A violation of the Connecticut Franchise Act does not necessarily establish a violation of § 42-110b.

Grand Light & Supply Co., Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Honeywell, Inc., Micro Switch, Cross-Appellees · filed 1985-09-10(a)

It is clear to us that a violation of the Franchise Act would not necessarily implicate the interests protected by CUTPA.

Section 42-110b(a) treats conduct that violates the Lanham Act as a CUTPA violation.

Dial Corp. v. Manghnani Investment Corp. · filed 1987-03-19(a)

To the extent defendants’ actions violated the Lanham Act, ... they should be held automatically to violate CUTPA. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on count five should be granted.

Section 42-110b(a) does not treat a contractually authorized termination for good cause or a later offer to supply former customers directly as an unfair or deceptive practice.

McKeown Distributors, Inc. v. Gyp-Crete Corp. · filed 1985-07-25(a)

The court already has found that Gyp-Crete terminated the Agreement for good cause, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement itself. Accordingly, there can be nothing unfair or deceptive either in Gyp-Crete’s termination of the Agreement, or in its offer, made only after the termination, to supply the product directly to McKeown’s former customers.

Section 42-110b(a) is not violated when a registered home improvement contractor hires an unregistered subcontractor, because that hiring does not violate the Home Improvement Act.

O'Donnell v. Rindfleisch · filed 1988-01-05(a)

In view of that conclusion, we also hold that the plaintiff did not thereby commit an unfair or deceptive trade practice under § 42-110b (a) as alleged in the defendants’ counterclaim.

Section 42-110b treats a franchisor’s failure to disclose that termination of a related lease will terminate the franchise as an unfair and deceptive practice.

Aurigemma v. Arco Petroleum Products Co. · filed 1990-04-16(a)

Although Arco is correct in that it would be unreasonable to require them to disclose the myriad of possibilities which might lead to the termination of the premises lease and petroleum franchise under the PMPA, the interrelation of the agreements and that they were tied together for purposes of termination is material information regarding the term of the franchise agreement and grounds for termination and should have been disclosed in the UFOC. ... The information would be relevant to the decision to purchase a franchise and the failure to disclose such information was an unfair and deceptive act under CUTPA.

Small print in a rental contract does not, by itself, violate § 42-110b; a CUTPA claim based on unconscionability requires proof that the contract was unconscionable.

Edart Truck Rental Corp. v. B. Swirsky & Co. · filed 1990-09-04

In this case, the trial court determined that, under the facts found, the plaintiff’s use of a small print contract did not amount to an unfair trade practice. The defendant also failed to establish that the contract was unconscionable, so that it cannot predicate a CUTPA claim on that theory. ... We, therefore, hold that the trial court could have reasonably concluded that there was no CUTPA violation involved in this transaction.

Section 42-110b(a) does not make a breach of an equipment lease an unfair trade practice without substantial aggravating circumstances or other unfair conduct.

Emlee Equipment Leasing Corp. v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc. · filed 1991-01-23(a)

Neither substantial aggravating circumstances nor anything else that would bring the alleged breach within the ambit of CUTPA is alleged here. For that reason, the counterclaim must be stricken.

Section 42-110b(a) can cover a seller’s unilateral restriction of promised access when it pressures buyers to pay again for rights they already purchased.

Lester v. Resort Camplands International, Inc. · filed 1992-03-17(a)

From all the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the reason for the implementation of the fourteen day rule was to force members such as the plaintiffs to pay additional sums of money to receive what they had already purchased: the right to use Stateline as often as they wanted on a first come, first served basis. The actions of the defendants in the present case is a prime example of the type of conduct which CUTPA seeks to remedy. The jury could reasonably have determined that the defendants’ actions violated any one or all of the cigarette rule criteria.

Section 42-110b can cover wrongful detention of money under an open account when the alleged conduct goes beyond a breach of contract.

Connecticut Die Cutting v. Craftsmen Litho, No. 0101320 (May 22, 1991) · filed 1991-05-22

A reading of paragraph 19 demonstrates that it states a cause of action for the wrongful detention of money under an open account that is separate and distinct from the plaintiff's claim of a breach of contract concerning the dials manufactured for OMEGA. In accord with Lembo v. Schlesinger, supra and Piscatelli v. Hird, supra, the court concludes that the language sufficiently sets forth facts that are cognizable under CUTPA.

Section 42-110b does not prohibit filing a mechanic's lien for landscaping near a horse barn when the Home Improvement Act's application is debatable, or stating a monthly interest charge that is not unethical or unscrupulous.

Woronecki v. Trappe, No. Cv 90 46337 S (Jan. 5, 1993) · filed 1993-01-05

As to Count 4 of the Counterclaim which claims that the filing of the mechanic's lien by the plaintiff was, in itself, a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Connecticut General Statutes Sections 42-110b et seq., the Court disagrees. It is noted that the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied because a factual issue existed as to whether the Home Improvement Statute would apply to landscaping around the horse barn. Since there are Superior Court decisions holding that a horse barn is not a home improvement, the filing of a lien for landscaping near a horse barn is not so egregious as to constitute an unfair trade practice. Nor is the notice that "1 1/2 percent interest per month will be charged on unpaid balance" at the bottom of the plaintiff's statement to the defendant, such an unethical or unscrupulous act to constitute a violation.

A simple breach of contract, without more, is insufficient to state a claim under § 42-110b(a).

William T. Beazley Co. v. Business Park Assoc., No. 523977 (May 26, 1993) · filed 1993-05-26(a)

Even construing the factual allegations and evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, 3 said allegations, when reduced to their essence, amount to no more than a claim of breach of contract. Numerous state trial courts have held that a simple allegation of breach of contract, without more, is insufficient to state a cause of action under CUTPA.

A breach of contract alone does not establish a CUTPA violation; the claimant must show substantial aggravating circumstances.

Snetco v. Guardian Systems, Inc., No. Cv94-0358589 (Jan. 23, 1995) · filed 1995-01-23

The plaintiff asserts that a claim under CUTPA requires more than a mere breach of contract. The plaintiff is correct.

Section 42-110b does not let a real estate broker use a CUTPA claim to recover a commission when the listing agreement fails to satisfy § 20-325a (b).

New England Investment Properties, Inc. v. Spire Realty & Development Corp. · filed 1993-06-22

The plaintiff also attempted to invoke equitable estop-pel in support of its contention that the failure of the defendants to abide by the invalid listing agreement constituted a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110b. This claim is controlled by McCutcheon & Burr, Inc. v. Berman, 218 Conn. 512, 590 A.2d 438 (1991), in which our Supreme Court enunciated that “[t]he plaintiff’s invocation of equitable principles in support of its CUTPA claim is an attempt to effect an end run around the requirements of § 20-325a (b). . . . The plaintiff’s attempt to circumvent the requirements of § 20-325a (b) by filing a CUTPA claim must ... be denied.” Id., 530; see also Real Estate Auctions, Inc. v. Senie, supra, 573-74.

A CUTPA claim based on a payment bond fails when the claimant cannot recover under the bond.

Santos Foundation v. Ins. Co., N. Am., No. Cv93 0343701 (Nov. 21, 1994) · filed 1994-11-21

Accordingly, General Statutes § 49-42 (a) bars the plaintiffs' recovery under the payment bond. Since the plaintiffs cannot recover under the payment bond, that the plaintiffs' CUTPA claim must also fail.

Forging a subcontractor's signature on a mechanics lien waiver can violate § 42-110b.

McHugh Const. v. Hammermill Business Corp., No. Cv 86 0080843 (Mar. 8, 1995) · filed 1995-03-08

The attorney trial referee reached the following conclusions as a result of his findings of fact: ... (5) that Hammermill did not prove it suffered any ascertainable loss from the forgery of Gaita's name to the mechanics lien waiver, and should recover only nominal damages of $100 against McHugh, pursuant to CUTPA; ... Accordingly, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff in the first of the above actions to recover from the defendant Hammermill the sum of $73,661, less $100 for the CUTPA violation; that in the second action, judgment enters in favor of the plaintiff; and that in the third action, judgment is entered in favor of Gaita against the plaintiff in the amount of $9,000, and the mechanics lien is to be released.

Section 42-110b does not make a broker’s communication of a higher bid to the seller, before the seller accepts another offer, an unfair trade practice.

Certilman v. Crocco, No. Cv 91 0114084 (Sep. 6, 1995) · filed 1995-09-06

The only issue is whether this conduct warrants a recovery of money damages under the theories advanced by the plaintiff, tortious interference with contract, infliction of emotional distress, or CUTPA. ... In any event, after hearing the evidence, the attorney trial referee found that Crocco had "communicated a higher bid to a CT Page 10430 seller, before the acceptance (by the seller) of another offer," and that there was nothing improper or illegal about such communication. Based on the standard of review in Dills v. Enfield, supra, 210 Conn. 714 , the court finds that this conclusion and resulting recommendation that judgment be rendered for the defendants is not illegal or illogical.

Section 42-110b(a) prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce.

Beekley Corporation v. Doyle, No. Cv 95-0466681 S (Jan. 17, 1996) · filed 1996-01-17(a)

The same facts that establish a breach of contract claim may be sufficient to establish a CUTPA violation. ... A majority of cases support the claim that "[a] simple breach of contract, even if intentional, does not amount to a violation of the Act; a [claimant] must show substantial aggravating circumstances to recover under the Act." ... Applying the foregoing to the present motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate aggravating circumstances or fraudulent conduct by the defendants. ... There are insufficient facts to support the CUTPA cause of action in this case. Accordingly, the court grants the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to count five.

Section 42-110b permits allegations of negligence and breach of agreement to support a CUTPA claim when the conduct is unscrupulous and unethical.

Greenwich Roofing Sheet M. v. O'neill, No. Cv 960152859s (Sep. 26, 1996) · filed 1996-09-26(a)

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant held itself out as a specialist, was a long-term insurance broker of the plaintiff, undertook to advise, counsel and obtain for the plaintiff the insurance needed by the plaintiff to adequately protect its property, and the defendant breached its agreement and its duty by failing to obtain insurance as basic as fire insurance. These facts amount to unscrupulous and unethical conduct. In this instance the facts alleging negligence and a breach of an agreement are sufficient to also support a CUTPA allegation, and accordingly, the motion CT Page 5621 to strike is denied.

Section 42-110b requires substantial aggravating circumstances beyond a simple breach of warranty to support a CUTPA claim.

Seiling v. D'Esopo Co., No. Cv 960561422 (Nov. 22, 1996) · filed 1996-11-22

In the present case, Seiling does not allege any additional aggravating circumstances by which to show that Elk's conduct was "immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, or offensive to public policy." and accordingly, the breach of warranty theory is insufficient to sustain a CUTPA claim. ... Even under the reasoning of Ortiz these allegations of falling shingles do not paint a sufficiently hazardous situation to invoke CUTPA.

Section 42-110b requires aggravating circumstances beyond a simple breach of contract to support an unfair trade practice claim.

Bic Sport USA, Inc. v. Kerbel · filed 1997-03-31

BIC has failed to allege, much less prove, any aggravating circumstances surrounding the breach of contract. Accordingly, plaintiffs CUTPA claim is DENIED.

A breach of contract supports a claim under § 42-110b only when substantial aggravating circumstances attend the breach.

Denison v. Arrow Paving, Inc., No. Cv95-0374370-S (Dec. 8, 1997) · filed 1997-12-08

Generally, a simple breach of contract does not suffice to establish a violation of CUTPA, Emlee Equipment Leasing Corporation v. Waterbury Transmission, Inc. , 41 Conn. Sup. 575 , 580 ; A. Secondino Sons, Inc. v. L.D. Land Company , 13 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 7 , 233 (February 13, 1995). A plaintiff must show substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breach to recover under the Act, Bartolomeo v. S.B. Thomas, Inc. , 889 F.2d 530 , 535 (4th Cir. 1989). The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the acts of the defendant were "immoral, oppressive and unscrupulous" as alleged. The plaintiff's Second Count, accordingly, is dismissed.