Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)

Citation
Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Parent Document
Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2022-03-29

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text

1,827 chars
‘‘CUTPA is, on its face, a remedial statute that broadly
          prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or
          deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade
          or commerce. . . . To give effect to its provisions,
          [General Statutes] § 42-110g (a) of [CUTPA] establishes
          a private cause of action, available 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 method, act or practice prohibited by [General
          Statutes §] 42-110b . . . . CUIPA, which specifically
          prohibits unfair business practices in the insurance
          industry and defines what constitutes such practices in
          that industry; see General Statutes § 38a-816; does not
          authorize a private right of action but, instead, empow-
          ers the [insurance] commissioner to enforce its provi-
          sions through administrative action. See General
          Statutes §§ 38a-817 and 38a-818. . . . [T]his court
          [however, has] determined that individuals may bring
          an action under CUTPA for violations of CUIPA. In
          order to sustain a CUIPA cause of action under CUTPA,
          a plaintiff must allege conduct that is proscribed by
          CUIPA.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks
          omitted.) Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins.
          Co., 317 Conn. 602, 623–24, 119 A.3d 1139 (2015).
          held that absolute immunity did not bar this portion of the plaintiff’s CUTPA
          claim. Because the plaintiff has since withdrawn this portion of the claim,
          we do not consider it in our analysis.
March 29, 2022           CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 79