Hartford Acc. Ind. v. A. Petrucci Con., No. Cv94 31 61 84 S (May 22, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hartford Acc. Ind. v. A. Petrucci Con., No. Cv94 31 61 84 S (May 22, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4332-WWW

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided May 22, 1996·No. No. CV94 31 61 84 S·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE In reverse order, the second count of the defendants counterclaim is stricken. The court's review of Connecticut General Statutes § 38a-816 does not find the claims made by the defendant to be included in the numerous definitions of unfair practices.

The first count is also stricken. The CUTPA claim must fail because a CUIPA claim has not first been established. Lees v.Middlesex Insurance Co., 229 Conn. 842 (1994); Mead v. Burns,199 Conn. 615 (1986).

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE In reverse order, the second count of the defendants counterclaim is stricken. The court's review of Connecticut General Statutes § 38a-816 does not find the claims made by the defendant to be included in the numerous definitions of unfair practices.

The first count is also stricken. The CUTPA claim must fail because a CUIPA claim has not first been established. Lees v.Middlesex Insurance Co., 229 Conn. 842 (1994); Mead v. Burns,199 Conn. 615 (1986).

LAWRENCE L. HAUSER, JUDGE.

Hartford Acc. Ind. v. A. Petrucci Con., No. Cv94 31 61 84 S (May 22, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4332-WWW (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 4332-WWW (Hartford Acc. Ind. v. A. Petrucci Con., No. Cv94 31 61 84 S (May 22, 1996)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related