Firm News

Wiggin and Dana’s Robert M. Langer, a senior counsel in the firm’s Hartford office and co-chair of the firm’s Antitrust and Technology Disputes Practice Group, and New Haven Partner, Kim E. Rinehart, chair of the firm’s Class Action Defense Practice Group, have co-authored the 2024-2025 Edition of “Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices, Business Torts and Antitrust,” Vol. 12 of the Connecticut Practice Series, just released via Westlaw by publisher Thomson Reuters.

Over the years, the scope of the book has been expanded to include an extensive treatment of business torts and the Connecticut Antitrust Act. The authors have sought to provide some insight into the relationship between CUTPA, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the unfair trade practice acts of other states. They have also made available several practical aids, including a model complaint, model jury instructions, a list of state statutes referencing CUTPA and charts listing the analogous statutes in each state, as well as key components of each such statute, including how each state interprets unfairness and deception. Below are key developments highlighted in the portion of the treatise captioned “What’s New in this Edition.”

• A 2024 Connecticut Supreme Court decision (NEMS, PLLC v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of Connecticut, Inc.) has clarified the circumstances under which an insurer may be sued for violating CUTPA for alleged conduct not within the four-corners of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“CUIPA”). This issue had generated numerous federal and state courts opinions with varying interpretations since the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Acordia, Inc. in 2013 [See § 3.13]
• A 2024 Connecticut Supreme Court decision (Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik), holding, that under the facts of the case, and despite the defendants’ assertion that the litigation privilege precluded, inter alia, the CUTPA claim, that the litigation privilege was not an available defense. In so ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Court, concluding the Appellate Court had read the Supreme Court’s decision in Dorfman v. Smith too broadly. [See § 4.15]
• A 2023 Connecticut Supreme Court decision (Companions and Homemakers, Inc. v. A&B Homecare Solutions, LLC) reaffirming the holding in the 1984 Connecticut Supreme Court decision (Sportsmen’s Boating Corp. v. Hensley) that “it is difficult to conceive of a situation [in which] tortious interference would be found but a CUTPA violation would not.” [See § 2.4]
• A 2023 Second Circuit decision (State by Tong v. Exxon Mobil Corporation) remanding to the Superior Court a suit which the defendant had removed to federal court. The state’s CUTPA suit alleges both deceptive and unfair acts by the defendant with respect to the climatological effects of the fossil fuels that the defendant was marketing to consumers. [See § 7.11]
• A 2023 Superior Court decision (Seagull v. WinRed, Inc.), holding that a suit brought on behalf of the Commissioner of Consumer Protection to enforce a CUTPA civil investigative demand was not preempted by virtue of the Federal Election Campaign Act. [See § 5.2 & § 7.3]
• P.A. 24-101 amends Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110j of CUTPA to: (a) include investigative costs when the Commissioner of Consumer Protection accepts an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance; (2) provide that violations of Assurances of Voluntary Compliance may be enforced by the Attorney General pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110m; and (3) authorize the Attorney General to seek civil penalties for violations of Assurances of Voluntary Compliance. [See App. A & App. D]
• P.A. 24-142 amends Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110d(d) of CUTPA to authorize the Commissioner of Consumer Protection to impose, in an administrative proceeding, a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the amount set forth in subsection (b) of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110o  [which amount is $5,000], after a hearing conducted pursuant to Chapter 54 (UAPA). [See App. A & App. D]
• The passage of new Connecticut public acts regarding beverages infused with THC [P.A. 24-76, §§ 27(n) and 28(e)], unfair real estate listing agreements [P.A. 24-101, § 2(c)], and fictitious trade names [P.A. 24-111, § § 37(d) and 38(a)], each of which expressly provide that a violation of said laws constitutes a violation of CUTPA. [See App. E]
• Updating the two appendices that identify the deception and the unfairness methodologies utilized by every state, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. For the first time, we have added cites for Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico. [See App. L & App. M]

Mr. Langer co-authored the original treatise in 1994. Co-authors are the late David L. Belt, past member of Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff LLC, and Quinnipiac University School of Law Professor Emeritus, John T. Morgan.

Contributing authors are David A. Slossberg, named partner at Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff LLC, Daniel P. Belfield, Vice President and General Counsel, AmeriCU Credit Union, Damian K. Gunningsmith, a partner at Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP, and Timothy C. Cowan, an associate at Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff LLC.

Mr. Langer and Ms. Rinehart extend their gratitude to their Wiggin and Dana colleagues, Douglas Apicella, Lisa Weeden, and Nestor Rodriguez Smyt for their invaluable assistance.