DocketNumber: No. CV010084922
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 12610
Judges: CREMINS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/6/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On April 26, 2001, the plaintiff filed a seven-count complaint against defendants, Jean Kimmerle ("Kimmerle"). The Fairways at Torrington ("Torrington") and Imagineers, LLC ("Imagineers"). On October 6, 2000, the plaintiff allegedly became ill with carbon monoxide poisoning at a condominium he resided at and had purchased a year earlier from Kimmerle. The plaintiff alleges that Kimmerle previously owned the unit and that Kimmerle failed to inform the plaintiff of the potential risk from carbon monoxide existing in the condominium that Kimmerle was aware of. The plaintiff further alleges that Torrington was engaged in the business of operating the condominium unit and that Imagineers was the property manager of the condominium development.
On June 8, 2001, the individual defendant, Kimmerle, moved to strike count three of the plaintiffs complaint which count is based on a CT Page 12611 violation of General Statutes §
STANDARD — MOTION TO STRIKE
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. . . . The court must construe the facts in the complaint most favorably to the plaintiff." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc.,
DISCUSSION
There is a split among the judges of the Superior Court as to whether a single incident, and in particular, a single sale of a residential dwelling may become the subject of a CUTPA claim. See Jokl v. Watt, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at New Haven, Docket No. 372000 (February 28, 1996, Gray, J.). In this court's view, the better approach to this problem is reflected in the statement that CUTPA was designed to protect unwary consumers dealing with professional businesses or business people in a transaction which is part of that business."Mayer-Wittmann Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Gunther International, Ltd., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 134790 (October 21, 1994, Lewis, J.) This court concludes that the one-time sale of the residence in question, by its owner, who was not alleged to be in the business of selling real estate, cannot be made the subject of the CUTPA count as asserted against Kimmerle in the third count of the complaint. CT Page 12612
The defendant also claims that a requisite element of a CUTPA claim is that the defendant be in a business related to the activities claimed to have caused injury. The defendant argues that the CUTPA count must be stricken because the plaintiff has failed to allege that the transaction was in the course of a trade or business.
"CUPTA, by its own terms, applies to a broad spectrum of commercial activity. The operative provision of the act, §
If the facts that the plaintiff alleges are insufficient to frame the stated cause of action, the plaintiff cannot prevail. Ivey, Barnum O'Mara v. Indian Harbor Properties, Inc.,
There is no allegation in count three of the plaintiffs complaint that acts ascribed to Kimmerle were performed in a "trade or business".
Based on the foregoing, the motion to strike count three of the plaintiffs complaint is granted.
Cremins, J.