Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g
(P.A. 73-615, S. 7, 16; P.A. 74-183, S. 174, 291; P.A. 75-618, S. 5, 11; P.A. 76-303, S. 3, 4; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127; 78-346, S. 2; P.A. 79-210, S. 1; P.A. 84-468, S. 2, 10; P.A. 95-123, S. 1, 3; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146 (c), (d); P.A. 04-169, S. 17; 04-189, S. 1.)
Cited. 186 Conn. 507; 190 C. 528. Plaintiffs have burden of proving actual damages. 191 Conn. 484. Cited. 192 Conn. 558; 200 Conn. 172; 203 Conn. 342; Id., 475; Id., 616; 204 C. 17; 209 C. 579; 219 Conn. 644; 221 C. 674; 223 Conn. 80; 224 Conn. 231; 225 Conn. 705; 228 C. 574; 229 C. 842; 230 Conn. 148; Id., 486; 232 Conn. 480; Id., 527; 235 C. 1; 238 Conn. 216; Id., 293; 241 Conn. 278; Id., 630. Section permits recovery of actual damages, attorney's fees and punitive damages for violations of CUTPA. 245 C. 1. Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book, unresolved issue of attorney's fees does not prevent a judgment on the merits from being final and immediately appealable. Id., 495. Professional malpractice does not give rise to a cause of action under CUTPA. 247 C. 48. Section can be reasonably reconciled with provisions of Sec. 52-212a. 249 C. 94. Plaintiff who purchased computer with preinstalled software from a retailer cannot recover from software manufacturer because plaintiff's claimed injuries are too indirect and remote from the manufacturer's allegedly anticompetitive conduct. 260 Conn. 59. The predominance requirement was satisfied and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting motion for class certification. 287 C. 208. Mobile home owners' association not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial relief. 310 C. 797. Cited. 4 CA 137; 13 CA 230; 15 CA 150; 23 Conn.App. 227; Id., 585; 24 CA 124; judgment reversed, see 221 Conn. 674; 31 CA 634. Trial court lacked power to award prejudgment interest on punitive damages. 32 CA 133. Cited. 39 CA 32; 41 CA 437; 42 Conn.App. 124; Id., 599; Id., 712. A party must establish that the conduct constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice and must present evidence providing court with basis for a reasonable estimate of the damages suffered; once a violation of CUTPA has been established, evidence that defendant has acted with reckless indifference to plaintiff's rights or has committed an intentional and wanton violation of those rights is a necessary prerequisite to award of punitive damages; such an award is discretionary and the exercise of such discretion will not ordinarily be interfered with on appeal unless the abuse is manifest or injustice appears to have been done; with respect to CUTPA, clear and convincing evidence is not the appropriate standard of proof whenever claims of tortious conduct require proof of willful, wrongful or unlawful acts; the ordinary preponderance of the evidence standard is appropriate. 99 Conn.App. 719. Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees under CUTPA, including fees for work done on post-trial motions. 121 CA 105. By not objecting to plaintiff's submission of a statement of attorney's fees or the content of that statement, defendant acquiesced in that request and will not be heard to complain about that request on appeal. 130 CA 286. Trial court abused its discretion where it drastically reduced from any conceivable lodestar amount, calculated by multiplying number of hours reasonably expended on litigation times a reasonable hourly rate, award of attorney's fees by 95 per cent, absent any evidence that attorney's fees were unreasonable. 141 CA 299. Cited. 35 Conn.Supp. 1; 36 Conn.Supp. 183; 39 CS 107; 40 CS 560; 41 Conn.Supp. 130; Id., 484; 42 Conn.Supp. 198; Id., 514; 44 Conn.Supp. 569. In exercising its discretion under CUTPA, a court may include as part of attorney fee award those expenses that are associated with non-CUTPA or unsuccessful claims when all of those claims are related, meaning that they are premised on essentially the same transactions or their facts are inextricably connected or intertwined. 52 CS 363; judgment affirmed, see 137 CA 578. Subsec. (a): Subsec. does not require plaintiff to provide a specific amount of actual damages in order to make out a prima facie case of a CUTPA violation; to satisfy "ascertainable loss" requirement, plaintiff need prove only that he has purchased an item partially as a result of an unfair or deceptive practice or act and that the item is different from that for which he bargained. 184 Conn. 607. Cited. 192 C. 591; Id., 747; 193 Conn. 208; 228 C. 42; 229 Conn. 213; Id., 479; 232 C. 666; 238 Conn. 183; 240 Conn. 300; 243 C. 1; Id., 17. Defendant's attempted takeover of plaintiff, defendant's employer, was not unethical or in violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act and did not constitute a violation of CUTPA entitling plaintiff to punitive damages. 282 C. 209. Itemization of loss not required but some evidence of ascertainable loss, via affidavits or other documentary evidence, is necessary to survive summary judgment. 308 C. 706. Subsec. imposes no specific limit on ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages; nontaxable costs may be awarded as punitive damages under Subsec. 310 Conn. 375. Cited. 25 CA 56; 33 CA 575. Award of punitive damages in an amount equal to actual damages is not an abuse of discretion. 35 Conn.App. 455. Cited. 43 CA 113; Id., 756. Two threshold requirements for a party seeking to recover damages under CUTPA. 51 CA 292. Single act of misconduct is sufficient to support CUTPA claim; proof of an ascertainable loss does not require quantification of the loss that claimant has suffered. 72 Conn.App. 342. Subsec. allows recovery only when the party seeking to recover damages establishes that conduct at issue constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice and presents evidence providing court with basis for reasonable estimate of the damages suffered. 99 CA 645. The statements of a party during litigation and a disagreement over the terms of a note do not cause the type of ascertainable loss required by CUTPA. 131 CA 223. CUTPA does not require plaintiff to prove that the ascertainable loss was incurred in this state when plaintiff alleges injury caused by unfair trade practices committed by defendants in this state. Id., 443. Trial court properly concluded that plaintiff suffered ascertainable loss of money because defendant's offer to apply plaintiff's deposit as store credit did not make plaintiff's money freely available to plaintiff. 174 Conn.App. 649. Cited. 40 Conn.Supp. 336; 43 Conn.Supp. 431. Subsec. (d): Cited. 202 C. 106; 208 C. 515; 216 Conn. 200; 219 Conn. 644; 222 C. 211; 240 C. 654. Legislature did not intend to limit punitive damages under Subsec. to expenses of bringing action, including attorney's fees, less taxable costs. 310 Conn. 375. Court rather than jury determines an award of attorneys' fees. 10 CA 22. Cited. Id., 527. Attorneys representing plaintiff class on whose behalf "relief is granted" may, in court's discretion, recover attorneys' fees and costs. 17 Conn.App. 421. Cited. 24 CA 514; 41 CA 754. Trial court's award of attorney's fees under CUTPA was improper where award was made without affording parties the opportunity to present evidence and to be heard on issue of reasonable attorney's fees. 49 CA 751. Awarding of attorney's fees under Subsec. discussed. 57 CA 189. Award of attorney's fees pursuant to Subsec. encompasses claims related to prosecution of a CUTPA claim, not only one claim explicitly labeled as a CUTPA claim. 93 CA 727. The award of attorney's fees under CUTPA to defendant was proper because, although section only permits awards to plaintiff, defendant prevailed on his counterclaim and was therefore a counterclaim plaintiff for purposes of section. 112 CA 837. Cited. 43 CS 91. Subsec. (f): Cited. 202 Conn. 234. Section has no alternative provision for suit within certain time following discovery of violation. 207 Conn. 204. Calculation of statute of limitations period. 245 Conn. 1. Statute of limitations set forth in Sec. 52-577d does not apply to plaintiff's CUTPA claim because this section and Sec. 52-577d apply to separate and distinct claims. 323 C. 303. Cited. 27 Conn.App. 59; 33 CA 702. 3-year limitation is jurisdictional. 50 CA 688. Applies to all claims brought under CUTPA without regard to nature of the underlying unfair trade practice that has been alleged. 94 CA 593. In action to recover damages caused by fire, plaintiffs' claims asserting violation of CUTPA were not time barred by applicable statute of limitations in light of defendant's continuous failure to do what was necessary to install a sprinkler system, obtain a permanent certificate of occupancy and correct construction deficiencies so as to comply with applicable codes, all of which tolled the time limitations of Subsec. 50 CS 28.