DocketNumber: No. CV92-0327441
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 2822
Judges: MARTIN, J.
Filed Date: 3/15/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Plaintiffs' substituted complaint, dated October 29, 1993, contains eleven counts. Counts nine and ten allege violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ["CUTPA"]. The defendants filed a motion to strike, dated November 18, 1993, claiming that said counts fail to sufficiently allege a claim under CUTPA. Specifically, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs have failed to allege that they suffered a consumer injury.
"A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading. Practice Book 152." Mingachos v. CBS, Inc.,
The court must construe the pleading "in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency." Bouchard v. People's Bank,
General Statutes
(1) [W]hether the practice, without necessarily having been previously considered unlawful, offends public policy as it has been established by statutes, the common law or otherwise — whether, in other words, it is within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; [and] (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers. . . .
(citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.,
With respect to the third criterion, the supreme court has stated:
"[`]The independent nature of the consumer injury criterion does not mean that every consumer injury is legally "unfair," however. To justify a finding of unfairness the injury must satisfy three tests. It must be substantial; it must not be outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition that the practice produces; and it must be an injury that consumers themselves could not reasonably have avoided.'"
(Citations omitted.) Id., 113. In the ninth and tenth counts, the CT Page 2825 plaintiffs allege that they are members of the consuming public to whom the defendants represented "that the electricity sold to consumers and transmitted in their powerlines and substations did not create a hazard to human health through an increased risk of cancer or other disease." (Plaintiff Substituted Complaint, Count 9, 11-14; Count 10, 11-14.
In order for a representation robe unlawfully deceptive, "the CUTPA plaintiff need not prove reliance or that the representation became part of the basis of the bargain, but he is required to prove that he sustained `an ascertainable loss.'" Zoological and Ecological Research Foundation, Inc. v. Crabtree-Haas Imports, Inc.,
The plaintiffs allege that they "lived in close proximity to the powerlines and substation on Meadow Street which resulted in substantial personal and financial injury to him." (Plaintiffs' Substitute Complaint, Count 9, 14; Count 10, 14). Such allegations, however, do not show that the plaintiffs suffered a loss from the distribution or sale of electricity to them. See Walston v. Northeast Utilities, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. 32 74 41, p. 3 (October 21, 1993, Gordon, J.).
The plaintiffs have failed to allege a consumer injury for which they can seek redress under CUTPA. Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike counts nine and ten is granted.
Martin, J.