Consumer Protection

Decision

Marinos v. Poirot

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, June 10, 2013

Proof of actual damages in the form of a specific dollar amount is not required to sustain a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §42-110a; but, a plaintiff still must marshal some evidence of ascertainable loss in support of CUTPA allegations.

Decision

Environmental Services Inc. v. Hull Forest Products Inc.

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, April 8, 2013

Allegations that a seller falsely represents that an item advertised on Craigslist is "perfect" may not create a warranty or provide the buyer a cause of action for misrepresentation.

Decision

Sunset Associates v. Strang

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, February 25, 2013

A failure to furnish a builder with timely notice about alleged defects can violate a warranty.

Decision

Makuch v. Stephen Pontiac-Cadillac Inc.

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, January 14, 2013

When ruling on the $50,000 jurisdictional threshold in a Magnuson Moss Warranty Act action, a court may include punitive damages, if punitives are available under applicable state law.

Decision

Connecticut Law Tribune

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, January 14, 2013

No private cause of action exists for an alleged violation of 15 United States Code §1681s-2(a) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Decision

Spatta v. American Classic Cars LLC

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, January 14, 2013

A court can award damages in the form of rescission and restitution to a consumer who alleges that the defendants violated the Connecticut Lemon Law.

Decision

E and M Custom Homes, LLC v. Negron

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, January 7, 2013

The determination of whether a party has suffered an ascertainable loss due to a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §42-110a, is not based on whether the party can recover damages for a loss, but rather on establishing whether a loss has occurred; the term loss has a broader meaning than the term damages.

News

Potential Class Action Targets Dental Practice

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Friday, November 2, 2012  |  by JAY STAPLETON

A Greenwich lawyer who started his own practice almost two years ago has filed a possible class action lawsuit against a company that operates 350 dental offices across the country.

Decision

Bailey v. Lanou

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, October 22, 2012

Once a violation of the Home Improvement Act, C.G.S. §20-418 has been established, to recover damages under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, C.G.S. §42-110a, the Supreme Court in its 2009 decision in Hees v. Burke Construction, Inc., explained that " the homeowners still must prove that they have suffered an injury or actual loss."

Decision

Baker v. Brodeur

  •      
    • Subscription Required
Monday, September 10, 2012

Only claims that arise out of the entrepreneurial aspects of accounting can violate the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.