*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.
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.