Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g

Section 42-110g(a) gives a person standing to sue for an actual or threatened ascertainable loss of money or property.

Murphy v. McNamara · filed 1979-12-05(a)

In order to fulfill its remedial purposes, the statute must be construed to give the individual standing to bring suit for an actual or threatened loss.

Section 42-110g(a) allows competitors and other business people to bring a CUTPA action without showing consumer injury.

McLaughlin Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 1984-04-03(a)

We agree with the plaintiff that a competitor or other business person can maintain a CUTPA cause of action without showing consumer injury.

Under the 1975 version of § 42-110g(a), a private action based on a defendant’s status as a lessor requires a basis to conclude that the defendant acted as a lessor.

Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co. · filed 1984-05-22(a)

This claim, which is not more than a bare assertion, is without merit. There is no indication in the record that the trial court was ever presented with a claim of this nature, it made no finding in this regard, and the record before us does not provide a basis for us to conclude that Lindell acted as a lessor as that term is used in CUTPA’s private remedy provision.

Section 42-110g allows an individual to bring a CUTPA claim for conduct affecting only that individual, without proving a general course of conduct.

Gibbs v. Southeastern Investment Corp. · filed 1987-02-04(a)

As Mead does not require, generally, proof of a general course of conduct to sustain a CUTPA claim, and the statutes involved herein are not analogous to CUI-PA such as to warrant the limited application of Mead, the controlling language is in § 42-110g. As amended by Public Act 484, § 2, that statute’s language, construed in the context in which it was adopted and liberally interpreted to effectuate its remedial purpose (Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-110b(d)), reflects an intent that an individual may maintain a private cause of action for a CUTPA violation on the basis of conduct which singularly impacts on the individual, without the necessity of the claim being based on a general course of conduct.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a private CUTPA claim to allege a course of business practice; a single act or practice is insufficient.

Middlesex Mutual Assurance v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 60094 (May 6, 1993) · filed 1993-05-06(a)

General Statutes Sec. 42-110b (a) makes reference to the plural "unfair methods of competitIon and unfair or deceptive acts of Practices," and Sec. 42-110g (a), makes reference to the singular "method, act or practice." ... The court holds that an allegation of a single act or practice is insufficient to bring a claim under CUTPA, and grants the defendant's motion to strike the seventh count and the prayer for relief as it relates to this count of the plaintiffs' fourth revised and amended complaint on the ground that the factual allegations in the count are legally insufficient to state a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes Secs. 42-110a , et seq.

Section 42-110g(a) does not support a private CUTPA claim based on a single instance of alleged misconduct.

Spakowski v. Charter Oak Walk-In Medical Ctr., No. 52 81 37 (Jun. 2, 1994) · filed 1994-06-02(a)

General Statutes § 42-110b (a) makes reference to the plural "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices," and General Statutes § 42-110g (a) makes reference to the singular "method, act or practice." ... This court is persuaded by the those cases holding that a single instance of alleged misconduct is insufficient to bring a claim under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g permits a business to bring a private CUTPA claim without alleging consumer injury or a direct consumer relationship with the defendant.

Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Berman, No. 0057971 (Jun. 10, 1993) · filed 1993-06-10

Consequently, no direct consumer relationship need exist between the plaintiff and defendant as a prerequisite to a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110g requires a claimant to have at least some type of consumer relationship with the defendant.

Edelwich v. 33 Sumner Associates, No. Cv93 0527767 (May 19, 1994) · filed 1994-05-19

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's analysis in Jackson v. R.G. Whipple, Inc. , the injured plaintiff in the present case does not, under the facts alleged by the plaintiff, possess at least some type of consumer relationship with the defendant owner of the property upon which the plaintiff was injured.

Section 42-110g(a) allows a person who suffers an ascertainable loss from a prohibited practice to sue without a consumer relationship.

Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen · filed 1995-04-04(a)

CUTPA provides a private cause of action to “[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice . . . .” General Statutes §42-110g(a). ... If the legislature had intended to restrict private actions under CUTPA only to consumers or to those parties engaged in a consumer relationship, it could have done so by limiting the scope of CUTPA causes of action or the definition of “person,” such as by limiting the latter term to “any party to a consumer relationship.”

A private CUTPA claimant must have a consumer relationship with the defendant; an alleged assault does not establish that relationship when the claimant received no consumer product from the defendant.

Olszewski v. Garcia, No. Cv93 30 26 55 S (Apr. 11, 1995) · filed 1995-04-11(a)

Therefore, Olszewski must demonstrate that he has a consumer relationship with Fair Auto. ... The complaint lacks an allegation that Olszewski received (by purchase or transfer) any consumer product from Fair Auto. Accordingly, the motion to strike count nine is granted on this ground.

A claimant under § 42-110g must have some type of consumer relationship with the defendant; being creditors of the same debtor is insufficient.

Ginsburg v. Krass Jacobson, No. Cv94-0537724 S (Apr. 27, 1995) · filed 1995-04-27

In the present case, the only possible characterization of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is that they are both creditors of the same debtor. Therefore, the plaintiff lacks any type of consumer relationship to the defendant and, therefore, the plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts, which if proven, would support a cause of action in CUTPA.

Private actions under § 42-110g are not actions on a penal statute and can survive a defendant's death.

Engram v. Zapert, No. Cv 96 0556873 (Nov. 6, 1996) · filed 1996-11-06

This court determines that private actions under General Statutes 42-110g of CUTPA are not in fact civil actions on a penal statute such as to exclude such actions from the Survival of cause of action statute, General Statute 52-577 .

Section 42-110g(a) expressly provides a private cause of action under CUTPA.

Burnside v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. Cv97 034 30 68 S (Sep. 18, 1997) · filed 1997-09-18(a)

General Statutes § 42-110g (a) expressly provides for a private cause of action under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) allows a private CUTPA action for an ascertainable loss to a person's business caused by a prohibited practice, even when the defendant is also that person's employer.

L'Altrella v. Weight Watchers Internat'l, No. Cv 95 0334348 (Mar. 16, 1998) · filed 1998-03-16(a)

It states that any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by CUTPA may bring an action. General Statutes § 42-110g (a). The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants' conduct, allegedly an unfair and deceptive trade practice, injured the plaintiff's business, and thus, injured the plaintiff.

Section 42-110g(a) permits a shareholder who alleges an individual injury from unfair trade practices to bring a direct CUTPA claim, even when the conduct also supports derivative claims.

Giordano v. Bittner, No. Cv 057 75 52 (Jul. 2, 1998) · filed 1998-07-02(a)

"CUTPA provides a private cause of action to `[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice. . . .' General Statutes § 42-110g (a). ... Because these allegations state a claim for an injury to the plaintiff individually, count two states a direct cause of action against the defendants, in addition to derivative claims.

A private action under § 42-110g requires the plaintiff’s loss to arise from a commercial relationship with the defendant.

Marr v. Wmx Technologies, Inc., No. Cv96-0071542s (Nov. 6, 1998) · filed 1998-11-06(a)

Therefore, unless the plaintiffs allege that they suffered their alleged losses in the course and as a result of some commercial relationship with the defendants, their CUTPA claim must be stricken for failure to state a legally sufficient cause of action.

Section 42-110g(a) permits a person who suffers an ascertainable loss from a prohibited practice to sue without showing a consumer relationship.

Holeva v. M Z Associates, No. Cv N.H. 9709-8403 (Nov. 9, 1998) · filed 1998-11-09(a)

The plaintiff in this case, however, is also a member of a class the statute was intended to protect. "CUTPA provides a private cause of action to ` [a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice. . . .' General Statutes § 42-110g (a)." ... It is not the defendant's relationship to the plaintiff as a "consumer" that is dispositive, but rather the defendant's conduct.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a private CUTPA claimant to allege a consumer, competitor, or other businessperson relationship with the defendant.

Mather v. Birken Manufacturing Co., No. Cv 96 0564862 (Dec. 8, 1998) · filed 1998-12-08(a)

"Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b , may bring an action." General Statutes § 42-110g (a). ... The plaintiffs' CUTPA claim does not sufficiently allege either a consumer, competitor, or other businessperson relationship, and therefore, is legally insufficient.

Section 42-110g(a) allows a business person to bring a CUTPA claim without a consumer relationship with the defendant.

Holeva v. M Z Associates, No. Cv N.H. 9709-8403 (Nov. 18, 1998) · filed 1998-11-18(a)

The plaintiff in this case, however, is also a member of a class the statute was intended to protect. "CUTPA provides a private cause of action to ` [a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice. . .' General Statutes § 42-110g (a)." ... Accordingly, the defendant's amended motion to strike the fourth count on this ground is denied.

Section 42-110g requires a violation of § 42-110b before a claimant can recover damages.

Ranieri v. Dilustro, No. Cv 99-0427050s (Feb. 28, 2000) · filed 2000-02-28(a)

The relevant damages statute, General Statutes § 42-110g , provides that a violation of General Statutes § 42-110b is a prerequisite to recovery under § 42-110g .

Section 42-110g(a) allows a private action for an ascertainable loss caused by an unfair trade practice; conduct that places a partner in direct competition with the partnership’s interests can support that action.

Spector v. Konover · filed 2000-03-28(a)

CUTPA provides a private cause of action to “[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice . . . .” General Statutes § 42-110g (a). Although CUTPA does not apply to purely intracorporate conflicts, ... our Supreme Court has stated that CUTPA does apply where one’s actions go “well beyond governance of the [partnership], and [place] him in direct competition with the interests of the [partnership].” Fink v. Golenbock, 238 Conn. 183, 213, 680 A.2d 1243 (1996). Here, the defendants diverted partnership funds to benefit other Konover owned properties.

A property owner cannot bring a private CUTPA claim based solely on the defendants’ former lease and use of the property from previous owners; that relationship is insufficient to establish a consumer, competitor or business relationship.

Putnam v. County Environmental, No. Cv 98 0166445 S (Jul. 21, 2000) · filed 2000-07-21(a)

Similarly, the plaintiff has not alleged a sufficient consumer, competitor or business relationship with the defendants in the present case. The plaintiff has alleged that it is the current owner of property that the defendants formerly leased, used and occupied when previously owned by others. Yet, the plaintiff cites no authority, nor has the court found any that recognizes a CUTPA claim premised on such a relationship. The relationship alleged by the plaintiff does not constitute a consumer, competitor or business relationship within the meaning of CUTPA. Accordingly, counts thirty-six, thirty-seven, forty and forty-one of the plaintiff's revised complaint are stricken.

A private action under § 42-110g does not require a consumer relationship or consumer transaction.

Lenge v. Beizer, No. Cv 00-0802145 (Aug. 30, 2001) · filed 2001-08-30(a)

This court rejects the defendants' argument that count four must be stricken because the plaintiff does not allege a consumer relationship or consumer transaction with the defendants.

Section 42-110g allows a person who suffers an ascertainable loss from a prohibited practice to bring a CUTPA claim without a contract with the defendant.

Connecticut St. Med. v. Connecticare, No. X01 Cv 01 0165649s (Apr. 1, 2002) · filed 2002-04-01

Connecticare overlooks the fact that standing to assert a CUTPA claim is not limited to contracting parties but extends to those who suffer an ascertainable loss "as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b ." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g .

Eliminating § 42-110g(a)’s privity requirement does not give an indirect purchaser standing when the claimed injury is too remote from the defendant’s conduct.

Vacco v. Microsoft Corp. · filed 2002-04-16(a)

We, therefore, reject the plaintiffs claim that the elimination of CUTPA’s privity requirement from § 42-110g (a) a fortiori compels us to conclude that the plaintiff, as an indirect purchaser, has standing to pursue his CUTPA claims arising out of the defendant’s allegedly anticompetitive conduct.

Section 42-110g allows a private CUTPA claim for an ascertainable loss caused by an unfair trade practice, but remote or derivative injury does not support a claim.

Ct State Medical v. Oxford Health, No. X01 Cv 01 0165664s (Oct. 25, 2002) · filed 2002-10-25

CUTPA provides a cause of action to a party who suffers an "ascertainable loss" as a result of an unfair trade practice. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g . ... In the face of two clear rulings by the Connecticut Supreme Court construing CUTPA in a manner that does not provide a cause of action to a party that suffers remote or derivative effects from a violation, this court finds that it is bound to conclude that the plaintiff in the instant case has failed to state a cause of action under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) allows a private CUTPA action against an insurer based on a CUIPA violation.

Sheltry v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America · filed 2003-02-19(a)

A plaintiff may assert a cause of action against an insurer under CUTPA based upon a violation of CUIPA.

Section 42-110g permits a CUTPA claim based on conduct governed by another statute even when that statute provides no private right of action.

Eder Bros. v. Wine Merchants of Connecticut, Inc. · filed 2005-09-06(a)

A CUTPA claim may be brought in the Superior Court by “[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b . . . .” General Statutes § 42-110g (a). ... Thus, the fact that the Liquor Control Act does not convey a private right of action to the plaintiffs is irrelevant to whether they have standing to bring a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110g permits a person who paid a title insurance premium and allegedly lost money to bring a CUTPA claim even if the mortgagee is the insured party.

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

This is not a case where the plaintiff is a third-party with no direct dealings with the insurer. Rather, the plaintiff personally contracted for the insurance and paid the premium as part of a refinance transaction. While the mortgagee is the insured party, it is the plaintiff who suffered the alleged injury. Therefore, the plaintiff has standing to bring this claim.

Section 42-110g(a) does not give creditors standing to seek personal relief for injuries sustained by the corporation.

Metcoff v. Lebovics · filed 2007-08-16(a)

The court rejects this reasoning. The plaintiffs have no standing to assert direct causes of action to benefit themselves for claims or injuries owned or sustained by the corporation.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a private CUTPA plaintiff to show an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Bentley v. Greensky Trade Credit, LLC · filed 2015-12-30(a)

To survive summary judgment on her CUTPA claim, Ms. Bentley must produce evidence showing a genuine question of material fact exists with respect to the following elements: that she (1) 'suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property, (2) that was caused by, (3) an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Section 42-110g(a) provides a private action for damages caused by a prohibited trade practice, but does not make a CUTPA violation a special defense to foreclosure.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Aubut · filed 2016-08-02(a)

Against this backdrop, we readily conclude that a CUTPA violation may not be asserted as a special defense. In reaching this conclu- sion, we are mindful that, by its express terms, CUTPA provides a cause of action for its violation, but it does not expressly provide a defense by invalidating, or oth- erwise rendering unenforceable, agreements that are the product of unfair trade practices.

Section 42-110g(a) allows a person with an ascertainable financial loss caused by an unfair trade practice to sue without a business relationship with the defendant.

Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC · filed 2019-03-19(a)

Nothing in the text of the statute indicates that the right afforded by § 42-110g (a) is enjoyed only by persons who have done business of some sort with a defendant.

A private CUTPA claim requires an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce.

Lemberg Law, LLC v. Egeneration Marketing, Inc · filed 2020-05-29(a)

"To state a claim under CUTPA, [a plaintiff] must plead that he (1) suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property, (2) that was caused by, (3) an unfair method of competition or an unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of any trade or commerce."

Section 42-110g(a) provides a private right of action under CUTPA.

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

It further provides for a private right of action. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a).

Section 42-110g provides a private cause of action for unfair trade practices.

Turfco Manufacturing, Inc. v. MTE Equipment Solutions, Inc. · filed 2025-10-01

That threat is not empty: MTE indeed has a private cause of action to sue Turfco under these various state laws.

Section 42-110g gives a person injured by an unfair or deceptive trade practice a private right of action, including for conduct prohibited by CUIPA.

Richardson v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company · filed 2026-03-24

CUTPA prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce,” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a), and provides a private right of action for persons who are injured by such unlawful behavior. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g; New Eng. Sys., Inc. v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., No. 3:20-CV-01743 (JAM), 2021 WL 1978691, at *2 (D. Conn. May 17, 2021).

Section 42-110g(a) does not give a litigant a private action against the opposing party’s lawyer for representing that party in litigation.

Jackson v. R. G. Whipple, Inc. · filed 1993-06-08(a)

Rather, in this case we conclude that in a situation where a party to a lawsuit sues the adversary’s lawyer, CUTPA does not provide a private cause of action.

Section 42-110g does not provide a CUTPA cause of action against opposing counsel for preparing and filing a lawsuit.

Field v. Kearns, No. Cv 93 0301282s (Apr. 3, 1995) · filed 1995-04-03

Nor will a cause of action lie for violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g , the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Jackson v. Whipple, supra. The defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth and Seventh Count.

A private 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(a)

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

Section 42-110g no longer requires a private CUTPA action to demonstrate a public interest, but that change does not apply retroactively.

Fortini v. New England Log Homes, Inc. · filed 1985-05-21

We note that the public interest requirement of a private action under CUTPA has been eliminated. Public Acts 1984, No. 84-468, §§ 2, 4 (effective June 8, 1984); General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) §§ 42-110g, 42-110m. This change, which is not retroactive, does not affect this case.

A CUTPA private action commenced before June 8, 1984, required a nexus with the public interest because the amendment eliminating that requirement was not retroactive.

Rotophone, Inc. v. Danbury Hospital · filed 1988-01-12

Therefore, the trial court did not err in holding that in order to succeed on a CUTPA action commenced prior to June 8, 1984, as this case was, a plaintiff must demonstrate a nexus with the public interest.

For conduct before the 1984 amendment, § 42-110g required a private plaintiff to show a nexus with the public interest to recover; the amendment removing that requirement did not apply retroactively.

Lembo v. Schlesinger · filed 1988-07-12(a)

The defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts occurred in 1983. At that time, it was necessary for a plaintiff to demonstrate a nexus with the public interest as a prerequisite to recovery under CUTPA. ... The trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff recovery under CUTPA where she failed to “demonstrate some nexus with the public interest.”

Section 42-110g does not require a CUTPA claimant to allege a public interest.

Oat v. Whittle, No. 09 34 17 (Jan. 22, 1991) · filed 1991-01-22(a)

However, the public interest requirement was subsequently eliminated by the Connecticut state legislature. Connecticut Public Acts No. 84-468 , Sections 2, 4 (effective June 8, 1984); codified at Connecticut General Statutes Section 42-110g , Section 42-110n ; Rotophone, Inc. v. Danbury Hospital, 13 Conn. App. 230 , 233 (1988). Consequently, an allegation of public interest is not necessary in order to state a claim under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) no longer requires a CUTPA claim to have a nexus with the public interest.

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

The CUTPA aspects of the award were disallowed only because of an absence of a nexus with a public interest as required by Ivey, Barnum O'Mara v. Indian Harbor Properties, Inc., 190 Conn. 528 , 536-37 (1983) but now no longer necessary due to the 1984 amendment to General Statutes Section 42-110g (a).

Section 42-110g(a) does not require proof of public interest or public injury in a CUTPA action.

Rose Hill Assoc. v. St. Vincent Depaul Soc., No. 097612 (Jan. 24, 1992) · filed 1992-01-24(a)

General Statutes Section 42-110g (a) states that "[p]roof of public interest or public injury shall not be required in any action brought under this section." (emphasis added). Thus, this argument by the defendant is without merit.

Section 42-110g does not require a plaintiff to allege a nexus with the public interest.

Anatra v. Waldo, No. Cv 96-0390668 (Sep. 11, 1997) · filed 1997-09-11(a)

Pursuant to General Statutes § 42-110g the plaintiff need not allege a nexus with the public interest.

Section 42-110g(a) allows a consumer to establish ascertainable loss by showing that the item received differed from what was bargained for, without proving the loss’s precise amount.

Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp. · filed 1981-07-21(a)

Whenever a consumer has received something other than what he bargained for, he has suffered a loss of money or property. That loss is ascertainable if it is measurable even though the precise amount of the loss is not known.

Section 42-110g requires proof of an ascertainable loss to obtain a CUTPA remedy.

Connecticut Bank & Trust Co. v. Katske · filed 1986-02-28(a)

The defendants must prove an “ascertainable loss.”

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff seeking actual damages to prove an ascertainable loss caused by the prohibited practice.

Gargano v. Heyman · filed 1987-05-26(a)

We cannot conclude that the referee was incorrect in finding, in light of this evidence, that the plaintiff had failed to prove an ascertainable loss of money.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss caused by the challenged practice to maintain a CUTPA action.

Halloran v. Spillane's Servicenter, Inc. · filed 1990-06-13(a)

There was no evidence that such advertising caused any ascertainable loss to any member of the plaintiff class. They may not, therefore, maintain an action on that basis. General Statutes § 42-110g (a).

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss caused by an unfair practice; the plaintiff must show that an item purchased because of the practice differed from what was bargained for.

Sipperly v. Burger King Corporation, No. 09 47 46 (Mar. 17, 1992) · filed 1992-03-17(a)

Additionally, the plaintiff has not demonstrated how the acts of the defendant caused any items, purchased by the plaintiff, to be different CT Page 2465 from that which the plaintiff had bargained for. The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to show that injuries were the result of an unfair trade practice on the part of the defendant. Also, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an ascertainable loss under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by conduct prohibited by § 42-110b.

Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, Inc. · filed 1992-06-26(a)

Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-110g(a). Here, again, plaintiff fails to causally link the allegations of ’ defendants’ illegal activities, of which he allegedly knew nothing, with his alleged injuries.

Section 42-110g requires a claimant to allege an ascertainable loss resulting from the challenged practice.

Glastonbury Bank Trust Co. v. Corbett Const., No. 521355 (Oct. 15, 1992) · filed 1992-10-15

The defendants have failed to allege any loss or injury suffered as a result of, plaintiff's alleged violation of CUTPA. ... The motion to strike is granted as to the defendants' second counterclaim.

Section 42-110g (a) requires a plaintiff bringing a private CUTPA action to show an ascertainable loss caused by the alleged unfair trade practice.

Haesche v. Kissner · filed 1994-03-18(a)

We conclude therefore that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff could not establish a CUTPA violation for failure to warn because, as we determined in part I, he failed to show that he suffered harm “as a result of” the alleged violation.

Section 42-110g(a)'s ascertainable loss requirement can be met when an unfair practice leaves a person with something different from what they paid for, even without proof of actual damages.

Shay v. Gallagher, No. Cv 93-0302341 (Jan. 23, 1995) · filed 1995-01-23(a)

Here, the defendants contracted for one thing, paid money, albeit not the entire contract price, and as the result of the plaintiff's unfair practice, were left with something other than that for which they had contracted. Under Hinchliffe and Conaway the defendants have satisfied the ascertainable loss requirement. However, as discussed supra, the defendants did not prove that they sustained actual damages.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a private CUTPA claimant to show an ascertainable loss caused by the alleged unfair practice.

669 Atlantic St. v. Atlantic-Rockland, No. Cv90 0110249 S (Apr. 11, 1995) · filed 1995-04-11(a)

Therefore, ARSA has presented no evidence that it suffered any ascertainable loss as a result of the acts it complains of in count three of the counterclaim. Since ascertainable loss is an element of a private CUTPA claim, ARSA has failed to make out a prima facie case.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property to bring a private action for a CUTPA violation.

Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, No. 26 30 26 (Jun. 2, 1995) · filed 1995-06-02(a)

Regarding recovery under CUTPA, General Statutes § 42-110g (a) provides that "[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b , may bring an action . . . to recover actual damages ." (Emphasis added.) ... Also, the plaintiff's claim of loss alleged in the complaint is not an ascertainable loss.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss caused by the challenged unfair practice to bring a private action.

Tucci v. Days Inn, Inc., No. Cv90 027 17 70 S (Jun. 21, 1994) · filed 1994-06-21(a)

"Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by § 42-110b may bring an action to recover actual damages." General Statutes § 42-110g (a). ... Also, the plaintiffs have not claimed that their injuries resulted from the movants' trade or business.

Section 42-110g requires a causal connection between the alleged unfair practice and the plaintiff’s loss, and a factual dispute about that connection can prevent summary judgment.

Brunette v. Bristol Savings Bank, No. Cv 92-0453957s (Aug. 22, 1994) · filed 1994-08-22

The defendant's argument that the plaintiff cannot prove a CUTPA violation is, in essence, identical to its argument that it did not "substantially assist" in the alleged fraud of Fletcher and D'Addabbo. This being the only ground raised in support of its motion for summary judgment as to Count Twelve of the plaintiffs' complaint, the motion is denied for the reasons articulated earlier in this decision.

Section 42-110g(a)'s ascertainable-loss requirement is satisfied at the pleading stage by allegations of injury from collection or attempted collection of early termination charges.

Pierce v. General Electric Credit Auto Lease, No. 529101 (Aug. 31, 1995) · filed 1995-08-31(a)

The above allegations, taken as true, sufficiently allege an ascertainable loss under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff seeking CUTPA damages to allege an ascertainable loss of money or property.

Stewart v. Dion, No. Cv 93 0704615 S (Feb. 9, 1996) · filed 1996-02-09(a)

Second, the plaintiff must allege "any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal." General Statutes § 42-110g (a). ... Motion to Strike Third Count granted.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property; damages from a claim grounded solely in negligence do not satisfy that requirement.

Anzellotti v. National Amusements, No. Cv 95 0546129s (Feb. 20, 1996) · filed 1996-02-20(a)

Based on the foregoing, damages due to a claim grounded solely in negligence do not satisfy the "ascertainable loss" requirement.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss caused by an unfair trade practice to recover damages; receiving the painting services bargained for did not establish that loss.

Tds Painting Rest. v. Copper Beach Fm., No. Cv 92 0124488 (Apr. 12, 1996) · filed 1996-04-12(a)

Prishwalko v. Bob Thomas Ford, Inc., 33 Conn. App. 575 , 586 , 636 A.2d 1383 (1994), discusses General Statutes § 42-110g (a), which provides that a person who "suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property . . . as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b , may bring an action . . . to recover actual damages." ... In this case, it is clear that Copper Beach and Rudey bargained for and received painting of a certain structure, which was exactly what they were seeking. ... Accordingly, the motions (#197 and #136, respectively) by the defendants Copper Beach and Rudey to modify the decision and judgment for the plaintiff TDS are denied in so far as they seek CUTPA damages, including attorney's fees, but are granted in the sense that judgment is modified to enter judgment in their favor as required by Woronecki v. Trappe, supra, 228 Conn. 579 .

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss caused by an unfair trade practice; a claimant who received what was bargained for cannot recover actual or nominal damages.

Wright Brothers Builders, Inc. v. Dowling, No. Cv 940136604 (Jun. 26, 1996) · filed 1996-06-26(a)

Prishwalko v. Bob Thomas Ford, Inc., 33 Conn. App. 575 , 586 , 636 A.2d 1383 (1994), discusses General Statutes § 42-110g (a), which provides that a person who "suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property . . . as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b , may bring an action . . . to recover actual damages." ... In this case, as noted previously, the defendants were not deprived of the construction work to their home, but rather received precisely what they bargained for and hence are not entitled to nominal damages. Thus, judgment is rendered in favor of the defendants on their counterclaim but no damages, nominal or actual, are awarded.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff to prove a loss caused by the unfair trade practice to recover damages.

Paolillo v. Richards, No. Cv 93-0345655 (Jul. 31, 1996) · filed 1996-07-31(a)

Further, the plaintiff failed to establish any losses as a result of the delays. The court cannot speculate as to the value of the inconvenience caused to the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding that failure to provide a starting and completion date under CUTPA is a per se violation of § 20-427 (a)(7), the court finds in this case that the plaintiffs have failed to establish any damages caused by such omission in the contract.

Section 42-110g(a) allows a claim for losses allegedly caused by an unfair trade practice even if the plaintiff may recover for related injuries in another action.

Neylan v. Pinsky, No. Cv95-0375368 (Oct. 18, 1996) · filed 1996-10-18(a)

Although the plaintiffs may still recover for their injuries in the underlying personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiffs may bring a lawsuit against Attorney Pinsky alleging that his actions constituted unfair or deceptive trade practices and that the plaintiffs incurred other damages separate from the alleged injuries received from Attorney Pinsky's alleged malpractice. These other damages stem, not from the malpractice, but from Attorney Pinsky's alleged violation of CUTPA. Even if the plaintiff recovers for her injuries in the underlying personal injury action, she may still have an action under CUTPA to recover for any losses stemming from the alleged violation.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss to recover on a CUTPA claim.

Torres v. Allen, No. Cvnh 96037424 (Feb. 18, 1997) · filed 1997-02-18(a)

However, the short answer to the defendant's CUTPA claim is that she failed to prove any "ascertainable loss" as a result of the plaintiff's alleged threats. Ascertainable loss is a statutory prerequisite to recovery under CUTPA. General Statutes § 42-110g (a) 3 ; see Gargano v. Heyman, supra, 203 Conn. 619 -620.

Section 42-110g requires a plaintiff to prove an ascertainable loss of money or property.

Rafalowski v. Old County Road, Inc. · filed 1997-03-26

More over, the plaintiffs have failed to prove an ascertainable loss of money or property, as required by General Statutes § 42-110g .

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff seeking damages to show that an unfair practice caused a loss of money or property.

Phelps v. Friedman, No. Cv 96 558154s (Feb. 5, 1997) · filed 1997-02-05(a)

As aforesaid General Statutes § 42-110g (a) requires that the plaintiff establish that he sustained loss of money or property as a result of an unfair practice. ... If the loss would have so occurred without the defendant's conduct, here the alleged failure of the corporation to file a trade name, the defendant's conduct would not be a proximate cause of the plaintiff's loss.

A private CUTPA claim requires the prohibited practice to be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s loss; but-for causation alone is insufficient.

Abrahams v. Young & Rubicam, Inc. · filed 1997-04-08(a)

The language “as a result of’ requires a showing that the prohibited act was the proximate cause of a harm to the plaintiff.

Section 42-110g(a)’s ascertainable loss requirement can be satisfied when an unfair trade practice causes a business to lose prospective customers, even if the business cannot prove the precise amount of its loss.

Service Road Corp. v. Quinn · filed 1997-07-15(a)

A loss of prospective customers constitutes a “deprivation, detriment [or] injury” that is “capable of being discovered, observed or established.”

Section 42-110g(a) requires a CUTPA plaintiff to show an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by the prohibited conduct.

Tragianese v. Blackmon · filed 1997-09-30(a)

To prevail on a claim under CUTPA; a plaintiff must demonstrate that she suffered “ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal” as a result of the conduct prohibited by the Act. Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-110g(a).

Section 42-110g(a)'s ascertainable-loss requirement can be satisfied by proof that a business withheld a promised return on an investment.

Hillman v. Berwick, No. Cv 97 63346 S (Feb. 4, 1998) · filed 1998-02-04(a)

It would further appear obvious that such contention, if proven would be supported by proof of an "ascertainable loss of money or property". General Statutes § 42-110g (a) The fourth count sets forth a cause of action under CUTPA. The motion to strike the fourth count is denied.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a person bringing a private CUTPA action to show an ascertainable loss.

Lanese v. Mecca, No. Cv 93 116816 (Aug. 4, 1998) · filed 1998-08-04(a)

Mr. Lanese must also have shown an "ascertainable loss" to maintain an action under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss caused by the alleged unfair trade practice.

Webster v. Kofkoff Egg Farm, No. 548187 (May 4, 1999) · filed 1999-05-04(a)

The issue becomes whether the loss of employees resulted from the CUTPA violation complained of, i.e., the boycott. The plaintiff has failed to set out a sufficient nexus between these two events.

Section 42-110g's ascertainable loss requirement can be satisfied by allegations of continued monthly dues, extended payment obligations, finance charges, or added costs from a longer contract.

Hennessey v. Connecticut Valley Fit. Cr., No. Cv 98-0576735s (Jan. 19, 2000) · filed 2000-01-19(a)

The defendant additionally moves to strike the CUTPA violations alleged in counts three, four and five on the ground that the plaintiff fails to allege sufficiently any "ascertainable loss" as required by General Statutes § 42-110g . ... The court finds that the complaint construed in the light most favorably to the pleader contains sufficient allegations of ascertainable loss to withstand a motion to strike.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff to allege an ascertainable loss resulting from the challenged practice.

Duncan v. Junior Achievement, Inc., No. Cv96 033 58 78 S (Jan. 27, 2000) · filed 2000-01-27(a)

Here, the plaintiff fails to allege that he suffered an ascertainable loss such as a deprivation, detriment or injury, which resulted from Western's failure to file a trade name certificate.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss for a private CUTPA action; the loss of an opportunity to develop and market a patent can satisfy that requirement.

Carlyle Johnson Machine Co., LLC v. April, No. Cv97-0481243s (Feb. 10, 2000) · filed 2000-02-10(a)

At least since January 1997, when its principals requested assignment of the patent to New Carlyle and were rebuffed, the plaintiff has suffered the loss of the opportunity to develop and market the transmission. I consider that sufficient to meet the requirement of an "ascertainable loss" under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a claimant to allege an ascertainable loss, but that allegation alone does not establish substantial injury under the unfairness test.

Krolikowski v. Ge Life Annuity Assce., No. Cv99 0174898 S (Jun. 12, 2000) · filed 2000-06-12(a)

The Plaintiff has claimed that he "suffered an ascertainable loss." Although the Plaintiff is required to claim ascertainable loss in order to meet a threshold barrier for CUTPA; Service Road Corp. v. Quinn, 241 Conn. 630 , 638 , 698 A.2d 258 (1997); satisfying this requirement does not automatically satisfy the third prong of the cigarette rule.

A CUTPA private action must plead actual damages with specificity to survive a motion to strike.

Johnson v. Skowron, No. Cv98 035 47 80 S (Jul. 28, 2000) · filed 2000-07-28(a)

The court concludes that in count two the plaintiff has failed to plead that he suffered actual damages in the CUTPA count. As stated above, CUTPA claims must be pleaded with specificity.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable monetary loss caused by a CUTPA violation; an award giving the claimant the benefit of the bargain on a contract claim did not establish that loss.

Larobina v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., No. Cv 99 0170846 (Feb. 26, 2001) · filed 2001-02-26(a)

In this present case, there is insufficient evidence that the plaintiff suffered an "ascertainable loss of money" as a result of a CUTPA violation. The plaintiff is being awarded compensatory damages as a result of the breach of contract based on the difference between the two quotes, so he is, in effect, reaping the benefit of his bargain.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff seeking damages to show that an unfair trade practice proximately caused the injury.

Lemoult v. Benedetto, No. Cv99 0173711 S (Jun. 6, 2000) Ct Page 7020 · filed 2000-06-06(a)

Because it does not require causation, General Statutes § 42-110o (b) is fundamentally different from General Statutes § 42-110g (a), which allows suit for damages arising "as a result of" an unfair trade practice. ... The plaintiff's complaint fails, however, to plead that there was a proximate connection between the defendant's failure to register his business' assumed name and the plaintiffs' apparent losses.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property; emotional distress or injury alone does not satisfy that requirement.

Burney v. Downer Funeral Home, No. Cv99 0175648 (Aug. 13, 2001) · filed 2001-08-13(a)

The few Superior Court cases on this issue have determined that emotional distress or injury is not an "ascertainable loss" capable of compensation. ... Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted as to the tenth count on the ground that it is legally insufficient.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property for recovery under CUTPA.

MacMillan v. Higgins, No. Cv 930134679 (Aug. 28, 2001) · filed 2001-08-28(a)

Based on these facts, the referee drew the following conclusions: ... (3) the defendants did not suffer any "ascertainable loss of money or property;" General Statutes § 42-110g (a); which would justify any type of recovery under CUTPA. ... Based upon a review of the report regarding the counterclaim by the defendants, the court finds that the attorney trial referee's conclusions and recommendations are supported by the subordinate facts that he found.

Section 42-110g requires an ascertainable loss of money or property; towing costs caused by unfair conduct can satisfy that requirement.

Earls v. Condor Capital Corp., No. Cv98-0491748s (Aug. 30, 2001) · filed 2001-08-30

As a threshold issue, there must be some ascertainable loss of money or property. The plaintiff's testimony establishes that he paid tow fees as a result of the defendant's conduct. ... Accordingly, the plaintiff has sufficiently proved that he has suffered an ascertainable loss.

A private CUTPA claimant must prove an ascertainable loss to recover damages under § 42-110g(a).

Frillici v. Westport Shellfish C., No. X05 Cv 00-0176696 S (Oct. 12, 2001) · filed 2001-10-12(a)

In order for the plaintiffs to recover damages under CUTPA, they must prove they sustained an ascertainable loss. General Statutes § 42-110g (a): Spector v. Konover, 57 Conn. App. 121 , 133 (2000). ... The plaintiffs, both individual and corporate, have failed to allege and prove that they suffered an "ascertainable loss." The plaintiffs are not entitled to the remedies of CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property; temporary deprivation of personal property can satisfy that requirement.

Josey v. Filene's, Inc. · filed 2002-02-06(a)

To state a claim under CUT-PA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffered “an ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal” as a result of the conduct prohibited by the Act. Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110g(a). ... The court cannot conclude as a matter of law that deprivation of personal property for 45 minutes is not enough to sustain a measurable proof of loss. Therefore, the court denies the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110g(a) allows recovery for ascertainable financial loss, including provable medical expenses and lost earnings, but not for emotional distress or loss of life's enjoyment.

Rees v. Flaherty, No. Cv01 0077316 (Jun. 7, 2002) · filed 2002-06-07(a)

Paragraphs 13 and 14 do allege an ascertainable loss and actual damages which may be provable under CUTPA. As to Paragraph 12 which alleges emotional distress and loss of life's enjoyment, these types of damages do not appear to come within the meaning of ascertainable loss or actual damages as contemplated by the CUTPA statute.

Section 42-110g(a) permits a claim for ascertainable loss when a consumer receives goods different from those bargained for, even if the consumer has not paid for them.

Church v. Rent-A-Center, No. 559970 (Jul. 12, 2002) · filed 2002-07-12(a)

Ascertainable loss, however, is not contingent on payment of the delivered goods.

Section 42-110g(a)'s ascertainable-loss requirement can be pleaded by alleging the loss of prospective customers.

Classic Limousine v. Alliance Limousine, No. Cv 99 0174911 S (Aug. 13, 2002) · filed 2002-08-13(a)

The defendants allege that the plaintiffs' conduct was an attempt to destroy the plaintiffs as potential competitors and, furthermore, such conduct caused the loss of prospective customers. These allegations are adequate to allege ascertainable loss.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property; emotional injury from a reimbursement demand does not qualify.

Toms v. Physicians Health Services, No. (X02) Cv 01-0167077s (Oct. 24, 2002) · filed 2002-10-24(a)

Any emotional injury stemming from the defendant's request for reimbursement does not constitute the type of "ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal" required under CUTPA. General Statutes § 42-110g (a).

A plaintiff adequately pleads the ascertainable-loss requirement by alleging that money is due and owing and that it suffered a substantial and ascertainable loss.

United States Ex Rel. Polied Environmental Services, Inc. v. Incor Group, Inc. · filed 2002-12-31(a)

We also reject defendants’ second argument that plaintiff has not alleged an ascertainable loss. Plaintiff has alleged that money was due and owing and that it suffered a substantial and ascertainable loss. Those allegations are sufficient under the notice pleading requirements of the Federal Rules.

Section 42-110g(a) allows an ascertainable loss claim when misrepresentations delay collection and cause the loss of an opportunity to recover against corporate assets.

Production Resour. v. Dist. Media, No. X06-Cv-01-0170391 S (Feb. 25, 2003) · filed 2003-02-25(a)

When it is alleged that such misrepresentations resulted in the loss of an opportunity to recover against corporate assets, such alleged conduct is sufficient to state a claim under CUTPA. The alleged delay occasioned by such alleged misrepresentations by Parrella also is sufficient to articulate a substantial ascertainable injury.

Section 42-110g requires proof of an ascertainable loss to recover under CUTPA.

MacMillan v. Higgins · filed 2003-04-15(a)

There is, therefore, no ascertainable loss shown by the defendants. Consequently, they are precluded from recovery under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a CUTPA plaintiff to prove an ascertainable loss, but does not require proof of reliance.

ROBICHAUD v. HEWLETT PACKARD CO. · filed 2003-05-29(a)

To establish a violation of CUTPA, a plaintiff must also prove that he or she suffered an ascertainable loss. General Statutes § 42-110g (a). ... Reliance is not, however, an element of a CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110g(a) does not require a separate ascertainable loss for each violation underlying a CUTPA claim; a loss caused by the defendant’s overall conduct suffices.

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

We have found no authority that requires a plaintiff to allege a specific ascertainable. loss with respect to each public policy, common-law, and/or statutory violation on which his or her CUTPA claim is based. Given the broad definition of “ascertainable loss” and the remedial nature of CUTPA, we decline to impose such a requirement.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss for a private CUTPA claim, but the plaintiff need not prove the amount of actual damages to establish a prima facie case.

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

A plaintiff bringing suit under CUTPA must demonstrate an “ascertainable loss” she suffered as a consequence of the unfair practice in question. Conn. Gen.Stat. § 42-110g(a). In order to make out a prima facia case, the plaintiff need not prove the amount of “actual damages,” only that the item received is different from that for which she bargained.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an actual, measurable loss; a threatened injury alone does not satisfy its ascertainable loss requirement.

Goins v. JBC & Associates, P.C. · filed 2005-01-14(a)

As construed by the Connecticut Supreme Court and as the plain meaning of the phrase implies, “ascertainable loss” refers to some injury that has occurred, and is therefore “measurable.”

Section 42-110g requires a person seeking relief in a CUTPA class action to show an ascertainable loss caused by the challenged practice.

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

Thus, CUTPA’s “ascertainable loss” threshold applies with equal force to class actions.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss to bring a CUTPA claim; false debt-collection communications alone, without further damage, do not satisfy that requirement.

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

CUTPA’s ascertainable loss requirement applies to violations of the FDCPA, and in this regard courts in this district have consistently held that false communications from a debt collector alone, without further damage to a plaintiff, are insufficient to constitute ascertainable loss.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff to show that a prohibited practice proximately caused an ascertainable loss.

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative · filed 2005-02-16(a)

The Connecticut Supreme Court construes the phrase, “as a result of,” as requiring that the plaintiff show that the prohibited act proximately caused the harm to the plaintiff.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff to show that a prohibited practice caused the plaintiff’s loss, even when the practice is a per se CUTPA violation.

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

We do not read our law to dispense with the second requirement once a violation of the Home Improvement Act is established. ... Although the court concluded that the Home Improvement Act violations were per se CUTPA violations, it is unclear whether it then determined if the Home Improvement Act violations, in conjunction with the other CUTPA violations, were the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ loss.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff to show that the prohibited practice proximately caused an ascertainable loss.

Stevenson Lumber Company-Suffield, Inc. v. Chase Associates, Inc. · filed 2007-10-16(a)

Because the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence from which the trial court reasonably could have inferred that the plaintiffs loss had been caused by Doran’s forgery of mechanic’s lien waivers, we are compelled to conclude that the trial court improperly found that Doran had violated CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a claimant to suffer an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by the unfair practice; an unrealized interest in a project that was never built did not establish such a loss.

Froom Development Corp. v. Developers Realty, Inc. · filed 2009-06-02(a)

The plaintiffs next argue that the court abused its discretion in finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the defendants’ CUTPA violations caused the plaintiffs no ascertainable harm. We disagree. ... Here, again, we conclude that the jury reasonably could have concluded that Froom was not entitled to receive benefits from the project until it was built and generating income and that because the project was never built, he did not suffer any losses.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff seeking CUTPA relief to prove an ascertainable loss caused by a CUTPA violation.

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

Thus, to be entitled to any relief under CUTPA, a plaintiff must first prove that he has suffered an ascertainable loss due to a CUTPA violation.

A private CUTPA plaintiff must show that the alleged unfair practice caused an ascertainable loss, although the extent of the loss need not always be proven with specificity.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Mortensen · filed 2010-05-11(a)

While Nationwide suggests that nominal damages may be available under CUTPA, the statute also requires proof of an “ascertainable loss” resulting from the allegedly unfair business practice. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a). To be sure, the extent of loss need not always be proven with specificity in CUTPA cases, see Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz and Schatz, Ribicoff and Kotkin, 717 A.2d 724, 740 (Conn. 1998), but a plaintiff must still show causation – i.e., that the allegedly unfair business practice produced a loss of some dimension or magnitude.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a claimant to suffer its own ascertainable loss; harm to nonparties does not give the claimant standing.

Cadle Co. v. D'ADDARIO · filed 2011-09-06(a)

CUTPA provides a cause of action to a party who suffers an “ascertainable loss” as a result of an unfair trade practice. General Statutes § 42-110g (a). ... Any harm or loss suffered by nonparties does not establish standing for the estate to claim a CUTPA violation.

A private CUTPA claimant must show an ascertainable loss caused by the prohibited conduct.

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

However since Parola alleges that she choose not to reapply for IBR when her deferment or forbearance period ended and failed to initiate an early termination of that period, she cannot demonstrate that this loss was proximately caused by Citibank’s conduct as opposed to her own conduct in failing to reapply as instructed.

Section 42-110g(a) permits a private CUTPA claim when an unfair or deceptive practice proximately causes an ascertainable loss.

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

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 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property; emotional distress alone does not qualify.

Larobina v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-02-03(a)

The Appellate Court of Connecticut recently held that a “claim of emotional distress does not constitute an ascertainable loss of money or property for purposes of CUTPA.” Di Teresi v. Stamford Health Sys., Inc., 149 Conn. App. 502, 512, 88 A.3d 1280, 1285 (2014). This authoritative interpretation of the statute accords with the most natural reading of the statutory text and confirms the same overwhelming construction of Superior Courts of Connecticut since 2003.

An alleged lost day’s wages can satisfy § 42-110g’s ascertainable-loss requirement at the pleadings stage.

Garcia v. Fry · filed 2016-05-12

“Any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b” may bring a civil action based on CUTPA. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g. ... However, accepting the plaintiffs factual allegations as true, as the court must do at this stage of the case, the court cannot conclude that Garcia has not suffered any ascertainable loss.

Section 42-110g permits a private CUTPA action for an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by a practice prohibited by § 42-110b.

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

Moreover, “[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by section 42-110b” may bring a civil action based on CUTPA. ... As to damages, Speedboat’s conduct not only allegedly “put lives at risk,” resulting in a catastrophic capsize; such conduct also caused Rambler to sustain the ascertainable loss of “millions of dollars in operating expenses, repair, and maintenance costs, racing fees, crew and employee salaries and benefits, and other ancillary costs in connection with the Yacht.”

Loss of use of a deposit is an ascertainable loss under § 42-110g(a), even if the dealer offers a store credit.

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

Clearly, having lost the use of her $2500, the plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss.

Section 42-110g(a) allows a CUTPA claim based on lost customers without proof of the loss’s dollar amount.

Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Hess Corp. · filed 2017-09-19(a)

Because a loss of customers, even in the absence of an accompanying monetary value of that loss, constitutes an ascertainable loss for pur- poses of CUTPA; see Service Road Corp. v. Quinn, 241 Conn. 630, 643–44, 698 A.2d 258 (1997); the court’s finding that the CUTPA claim failed because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of the amount of an ascertainable loss was clearly erroneous.

Section 42-110g(a) allows a private CUTPA action for an ascertainable loss caused by a prohibited practice.

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

CUTPA creates a private right of action for "any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a [prohibited] method, act or practice ..." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a). ... Without a link between CSAA's threat and any damage to the plaintiffs, the claim under CUTPA and CUIPA lacks proximate cause.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff to allege that the prohibited practice proximately caused an injury.

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

In other words, the Kings fail to allege that they were proximately harmed by the improper investigative practices.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff to show that the prohibited act proximately caused the harm.

Levinson v. Westport National Bank · filed 2012-09-28(a)

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a) “‘requires a showing that the prohibited act was the proximate cause of a harm to the plaintiff.... [Pjroximate cause is [a]n actual cause that is a substantial factor in the resulting harm ... The question to be asked in ascertaining whether proximate cause exists is whether the harm which occurred was of the same general nature as the foreseeable risk created by the defendant’s act.’ ”

A private CUTPA claim requires the alleged prohibited practice to proximately cause the claimant’s harm.

Navin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2016-08-08(a)

Even if such personal injuries are covered under CUPTA, and even if Defendants’ “deceptive acts or practices” were prohibited by CUTPA, O’Reilly has not plausibly alleged that Defendants’ conduct proximately caused his injuries.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss caused by the unfair trade practice; a business may establish that loss by a reasonable inference that it lost potential customers.

National Waste Associates, LLC v. Scharf · filed 2018-07-31(a)

As our Supreme Court has explained, ‘‘in the business context, a plaintiff asserting a CUTPA claim may satisfy the ascertainable loss requirement of § 42-110g by establishing, through a reasonable inference, or other- wise, that the defendant’s unfair trade practice has caused the plaintiff to lose potential customers.’’ ... We therefore conclude that the court’s finding that the plaintiff could not prevail on its CUTPA claims was supported by the evidence and, thus, was not clearly erroneous.

Punitive damages and attorney’s fees cannot establish the ascertainable loss required to bring a private CUTPA action.

Parnoff v. Aquarian Water Co. of Connecticut (AC40383) · filed 2019-03-05(a)

Thus, punitive damages and attorney’s fees, which are potential remedies available to a plaintiff once he meets this threshold barrier and prevails on his CUTPA claim, cannot be the basis of demonstrating ascertainable loss.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a CUTPA plaintiff to allege an ascertainable loss proximately caused by the prohibited act.

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

As explained above, a plaintiff alleging CUTPA violations must allege ascertainable loss proximately caused by the prohibited act. Here, Plaintiffs allege a series of ascertainable losses caused by Defendant.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a private CUTPA plaintiff to plead facts showing an ascertainable loss; a generic allegation of damages is insufficient.

Sorenson v. MBI, Inc · filed 2019-07-18(a)

Here, although Sorenson has alleged generically that he suffered “damages” as a result of the Defendants’ conduct, his factual allegations do not establish that he suffered any kind of ascertainable, or measurable, loss as a result of the Defendants allegedly unfair billings practices.

Section 42-110g(a) permits a CUTPA claim based on a plausibly alleged ascertainable loss without requiring contractual privity.

Dubois v. Maritimo Offshore PTY LTD · filed 2019-09-26(a)

A CUTPA action does not require a plaintiff to prove contractual privity or a similar direct commercial relationship with the defendant. See Soto, 331 Conn. at 88-90. Accordingly Flors has adequately alleged facts for pleading purposes to suggest that he sustained an ascertainable loss in the form of a detriment to his ownership interest in the boat and the loss of his time, he has also adequately alleged facts to support standing to maintain his CUTPA claim.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss, but the plaintiff need not know its precise amount when bringing a CUTPA claim.

Geiger v. C&G of Groton, Inc. · filed 2019-12-26(a)

While Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ CUTPA claim fails because Plaintiffs describe the loss suffered broadly as “damages”, CUTPA only requires that the loss be ascertainable, which means “capable of being discovered.”

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss caused by a prohibited act; unpaid and lost commissions can satisfy the loss requirement.

Trade Links, LLC v. de CV · filed 2020-03-23(a)

The ascertainable loss, of course, must have been caused by a prohibited act. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a).

An ascertainable loss under § 42-110g(a) need only be capable of being discovered; its precise amount need not be known when the claim is pleaded.

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

CUTPA only requires that the loss be “ascertainable,” which means “capable of being discovered.” ... The extent or amount of damage at this time may be unknown, but the determination of the amount of loss is a fact-based inquiry.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a private CUTPA plaintiff to show an ascertainable loss caused by an unfair or deceptive practice before obtaining relief.

Dane v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co. · filed 2020-09-10(a)

CUTPA provides a private cause of action for "[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment" of an unfair or deceptive act. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a) (emphasis added). ... Accordingly, because Dane failed to plausibly allege any ascertainable loss or injury resulting from the purchase of insurance, there can be no CUTPA claim premised on an unlawful insurance practice under Connecticut law.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff to allege an ascertainable loss of money or property; attorney fees and unspecified other losses do not suffice.

Waterbury Generation LLC v. Waterbury Land Partners LLC · filed 2021-09-16(a)

To bring a claim under CUTPA, a person must “suffer[] an ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a). ... While Plaintiff’s complaint states that its ascertainable loss is not limited to attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff does not allege what such loss is in conjunction with its CUTPA claim or its claim for a declaratory judgment.

A tenant suffers an ascertainable loss under § 42-110g(a) when a landlord withholds security deposit money owed to the tenant because of pretextual charges.

Herron v. Daniels · filed 2021-10-05(a)

This evidence also demonstrates that the plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of the withholding of the portion of the security deposit that was legitimately owed to him.

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property; annoyance from unwanted calls or texts alone does not qualify.

Pavelka v. Charter Communications, Inc. · filed 2021-11-29(a)

Even if Connecticut law applied, Pavelka has not sufficiently alleged the “ascertainable loss of money or property” required by CUTPA. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a). ... While the annoyance of receiving unwanted robocalls and text messages can provide Article III standing, it cannot satisfy the “ascertainable loss” requirement of CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a)'s ascertainable-loss requirement can be met at the pleading stage by alleged loss of home value and foreclosure-defense fees.

Sticht v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-01-28(a)

The loss of value of a home and fees associated with foreclosure defense are “measurable and capable of being discovered,” and, therefore, suffice to establish ascertainable loss at this stage of the litigation.

Section 42-110g (a) requires evidence of an ascertainable loss resulting from a CUTPA violation before a claimant may recover.

Freidburg v. Kurtz · filed 2022-02-01(a)

In light of this, as well as the conflicting information regarding the amount of the security deposit at issue, we conclude that the defendants’ failure to meet the standard set forth in § 42-110g (a) would bar them from recovery even if the court had found that the plaintiff violated CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) treats the measurable difference between money paid and value received as an ascertainable loss.

Pointe Residential Builders BH, LLC v. TMP Construction Group, LLC · filed 2022-06-28(a)

There can be little question that the difference between the money paid and the value received consti- tuted an ascertainable loss for purposes of CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a)’s ascertainable loss requirement can be met at the pleading stage by alleged lost business relationships and commissions.

Demetres v. Zillow, Inc. · filed 2022-09-21(a)

... business relationships and commissions are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

A private CUTPA claimant must plead facts showing an ascertainable loss caused by the challenged conduct; a bare assertion of loss is insufficient.

Speer v. US National Bank · filed 2023-03-20(a)

Against that backdrop, I conclude that Ms. Speer has failed to state a CUTPA claim. Aside from the conclusory allegation that she “suffered an ascertainable loss,” there are simply no facts to indicate the source of the alleged loss, or how the Defendants’ alleged conduct led to that loss.

Section 42-110g(a) requires a private CUTPA claimant to allege an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by the challenged practice; specific financial losses can satisfy that pleading requirement.

Speer v. US National Bank · filed 2024-03-26(a)

To state a CUTPA claim, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant(s) engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce; and (2) she has suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the defendant’s acts or practices. ... However, in her amended complaint Ms. Speer cures that defect, alleging more specifically that, because of the Defendants’ actions, she has suffered “an accumulation of interest, default fees, significant arrearages, attorneys’ fees, and a much higher mortgage payment, lost borrower incentive payments under HAMP, and emotional distress.”

Section 42-110g(a) requires an ascertainable loss of money or property caused by an unfair trade practice and permits recovery of actual damages.

Brown v. Rawlings Financial Services, LLC · filed 2017-08-22(a)

These statutes allow “[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property” as a result of an unfair trade practice to “bring an action . . . to recover actual damages.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a) (emphasis added). These critical ... elements are not required in a claim under Section 502(c)(1).

Section 42-110g allows a plaintiff to seek actual and punitive damages for a CUTPA claim, but does not provide treble damages.

Gicc Capital v. Technology Finance Group, No. Cv 970159419 (Aug. 28, 1998) · filed 1785-07-05(a)

The plaintiff is entitled to seek actual and punitive damages on its CUTPA claim in the fourth count. Treble damages, however, are not available because the fifth count is being stricken and such damages are not available under CUTPA. See General Statutes § 42-110g .

Section 42-110g(a) requires a plaintiff seeking actual damages to prove them; establishing an ascertainable loss does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a refund or shift the burden of proving rental value to the defendant.

Conaway v. Prestia · filed 1983-09-13(a)

The validity of the plaintiffs’ claim under CUTPA does not, ipso facto, require the court to return the rent money. Nor does the existence of the claim shift the burden of proof as to the reasonable use and occupancy value of the units to the defendants. Since the plaintiffs have chosen to seek damages under § 42-1 lOg, they are bound by the statutory requirement of proof of actual damages.

Section 42-110g(a) requires proof of actual damages and permits measures other than restitution; where restitution is inappropriate, damages may reflect the difference between what the plaintiff received and what was represented.

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

Although these cases do not preclude application of a restitution formula to the determination of damages under CUT-PA, they affirm the statutory requirement that a CUTPA plaintiff must prove “actual damages” and endorse alternative measures of damages under CUTPA.

Section 42-110g(a) permits recovery of special damages as ascertainable losses and allows the court to award monetary damages and equitable relief together.

Catucci v. Ouellette · filed 1991-06-18(a)

CUTPA provides for actual and punitive damages and equitable relief. General Statutes § 42-1 lOg (a) uses the phrase “any ascertainable loss” to describe actual damages, and “loss” has a broader meaning than the term “damage.” Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corporation, 184 Conn. 607, 613, 440 A.2d 810 (1981). Thus, special damages are within the purview of the ascertainable losses contemplated under CUTPA. See generally id., 613-20. The award of monetary and punitive damages, as well as equitable relief, was supported by the facts and was within the trial court’s sound discretion to grant.

Section 42-110g(a) leaves punitive damages to the court’s discretion; a denial is disturbed on appeal only for manifest abuse or injustice.

Sir Speedy, Inc. v. L & P Graphics, Inc., Neil H. Blatte and Business Service Centers, Inc. · filed 1992-02-24(a)

The award of such damages rests in the discretion of the court, ... Conn.Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a), and the denial of such an award is not to be disturbed on appeal “unless the abuse is manifest or injustice appears to have been done,” ... 203 Conn. at 622, 525 A.2d at 1347.

Section 42-110g(a) gives the court discretion to award punitive damages for a CUTPA claim.

Automatic Business Prod. Co. v. Hankinson, No. 47066 (May 20, 1992) · filed 1992-05-20(a)

Accordingly, since General Statutes Section 42-110g (a) provides the court with discretion to award punitive damages, Gargano v. Heyman, 203 Conn. 616 , 620 n. 4, 525 A.2d 1343 (1987), and since General Statutes Section 42-100g(d) provides for attorneys fees and costs, Hernandez v. Monterey Village Associates Limited Partnership, 17 Conn. App. 421 , 425 , 553 A.2d 617 (1989), defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's claims for relief numbers two, four and five, which respectively seek punitive damages, attorneys fees and costs, are denied.

Section 42-110g(d) permits recovery of costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and injunctive or other equitable relief for a CUTPA violation.

Cheshire Mortgage Service, Inc. v. Montes · filed 1992-06-30(d)

Subsection (d) further provides for recovery of costs, reasonable attorney’s fees and injunctive or other equitable relief. ... These elements of relief will have to be determined on the remand.

Section 42-110g(a) leaves punitive damages for a CUTPA violation to the court’s discretion; the court may decline them when it has already doubled the plaintiff’s damages.

Forget v. Aleszczyk, No. Cv-9205-4289 (Nov. 16, 1992) · filed 1992-11-16(a)

An aware of punitive damages for a CUTPA violation is discretionary with the Court. General Statutes Sec. 42-110g (a). ... Punitive damages are not awarded in this case as plaintiff's damages were doubled in count one.

Section 42-110g(a) permits punitive damages in a CUTPA action, so a party may introduce evidence relevant to that award.

S & S Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc. · filed 1992-12-03(a)

Thus, with respect to plaintiffs CUTPA claim, plaintiff may introduce evidence on the issue of punitive damages.