CHAPTER 735a
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

      *Plaintiff medical society lacked standing to sue managed care organization under Connecticut unfair trade practices act (CUTPA) for payment practices with respect to member physicians because society's injuries were too remote. 272 C. 469; Id., 482.

      Plaintiff's CUTPA claim based on defendant's filing of an adversary proceeding in Bankruptcy Court is preempted by federal bankruptcy law. 86 CA 596.

Table of Contents

Sec. 42-110a. Definitions.
Sec. 42-110b. Unfair trade practices prohibited. Legislative intent.

      Sec. 42-110a. Definitions.

      Trial court properly concluded that the degree to which speeding fee, because it was a penalty, violated public policy was sufficient to find a CUTPA violation without addressing remaining criteria of the cigarette rule. 273 C. 296. Trial court properly granted airport defendant's motion to strike CUTPA claim. 275 C. 105.

      Defendants did not violate Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA); trial court's assessment of dispute as intracorporate and outside purview of CUTPA was not clearly erroneous. 91 CA 619.

(Return to
Chapter Table of Contents)
(Return to
List of Chapters)
(Return to
List of Titles)

      Sec. 42-110b. Unfair trade practices prohibited. Legislative intent.

      Subsec. (a):

      Defendant did not engage in deceptive practice prohibited by CUTPA by intentionally failing to disclose until after fall catalogs were printed and mailed that it did not intend to provide financing for deferred billing program; since courts have held that a failure to disclose can be deceptive only if, in light of all the circumstances, there is a duty to disclose, the letter of intent, under facts of the case, did not give rise to any statutory, regulatory or contractual duty on defendant's part to repudiate timely its commitment to provide financing for deferred billing program. 274 C. 33.

(Return to
Chapter Table of Contents)
(Return to
List of Chapters)
(Return to
List of Titles)