DocketNumber: No. CV00 0180282 S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 3740
Judges: MINTZ, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/19/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
"Whenever any party wishes to contest (1) the legal sufficiency of the allegations on any complaint . . . that party may do so by filing a motion to strike. . . ." Practice Book §
First, the defendant argues that count four of the plaintiffs' complaint must be stricken as a breach of contract claim is insufficient to support a CUTPA claim. The plaintiffs respond that they did not merely reiterate their breach of contract claim, but rather, have alleged sufficient facts to allege a CUTPA violation. "[Connecticut General CT Page 3742 Statutes §]
"[T]o recover under CUTPA for a simple breach of contract, the plaintiff must show substantial aggravating circumstances intending to breach. Under [CUTPA] intent to deceive is not relevant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo,
Next, the defendant argues that count five of the plaintiffs' complaint CT Page 3743 must be stricken as it does not allege facts which set forth a cause of action sounding in negligent misrepresentation, but also reiterate the breach of contract claim. The plaintiffs' respond that they have sufficiently alleged a claim for negligent misrepresentation. "In order to [state a] claim of negligent misrepresentation . . . [the plaintiff] must [allege] the following elements . . . 1) that the defendant made representations of fact to [the plaintiff] which it knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care to be false . . . 2) that it knew or should have known that [the plaintiff] would be guided by or would rely on those representations . . . 3) that [the plaintiff] justifiably relied on the information; and, 4) that [the plaintiff] suffered a detriment or damages as a result of such reliance." Craine v.Trinity College, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. 555013 (December 27, 1999, Peck, J.).
"The governing principles [of negligent misrepresentation] are set forth in similar terms in § 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977): One who, in the course of his business, profession or employment . . . supplies false information for the guidance of others in their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Williams Ford,Inc. v. Hartford Courant Co.,
In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the defendant "negligently misrepresented its intention to pay Connecticut sales and/or use taxes and incurred interest" for the plaintiffs' remodeling project when bidding, negotiating and signing the agreement between the parties. Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that they relied on the defendant's representations and as a result suffered damages. The court finds therefore, that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim of negligent misrepresentation. See Yacht Centers LLC v. Harbor PlazaAssn., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 143912 (March 28, 1996, Ryan, J.) (court denied motion to strike claim of negligent misrepresentation because plaintiff adequately alleged elements of cause of action). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to strike count five of the complaint is hereby denied.
Finally, the defendant makes a similar argument as it did regarding the plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation. Consequently, the defendant argues that count six alleging intentional misrepresentation CT Page 3744 should also be stricken as the count again reiterates the breach of contract claim and does not add any facts to support a claim for intentional misrepresentation. The plaintiff responds that they have set forth sufficient allegations to state a cause of action sounding in intentional misrepresentation. "An action for . . . intentional misrepresentation requires proof of four elements: (1) a false representation was made as a statement of fact; (2) it was untrue and was known to be untrue by the party making it; (3) it was made to induce the other party to act on it; and (4) the other party acted on the representation to his injury." Chestnut v. Kent, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 346653 (April 17, 1998,Skolnick, J.) (
In the present case, the plaintiffs essentially allege the same facts in count six as they allege in count five. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant "intentionally misrepresented its intention to pay Connecticut sales and/or use taxes and incurred interest" for the plaintiffs' remodeling project when bidding, negotiating and signing the agreement between the parties. Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that at all times the defendant represented that the defendant or its subcontractors would pay Connecticut sales and/or use taxes and incurred interest "when, in fact, defendant had no intention of paying the tax or interest and had no intention of requiring its subcontractors to pay the tax or interest." Moreover, the plaintiffs allege that the defendant intended to assert these misrepresentations as a way of inducing the plaintiffs to enter into the agreement with the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that they relied on the defendant's representations and as a result suffered damages.
The court finds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that: the defendant intentionally made false representations to the plaintiffs; the defendant made statements in order to induce the plaintiffs to act upon them; the plaintiffs relied and acted on these representations; and ultimately, suffered damages as a result. Consequently, the plaintiffs have sufficiently set forth an allegation of intentional misrepresentation. See Clemens v. Circuit City Stores, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. 577909 (February 2, 1999, Hennessey, J.) (
In conclusion, the plaintiffs have alleged legally sufficient claims in counts four, five and six of their complaint. Consequently, the defendant's motion to strike counts four, five and six is hereby denied and the plaintiff's objection to motion to strike is sustained.
MINTZ, J.