DocketNumber: No. CV91 0114227S
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 1770
Judges: RUSH, J. CT Page 1771
Filed Date: 2/5/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The plaintiffs also claim that the representations made by the defendant regarding the safety of the tour vessel were recklessly made, were known to be untrue or made in ignorance of the truth, or without reasonable grounds therefore, the plaintiffs further allege that the representations were made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiffs to undertake the tour and that the plaintiffs relied upon those statements.
The plaintiffs then claim that the foregoing allegations constitutes an unfair trade practice and violation of General Statutes Section 24-110b.
General Statutes Section
"No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct CT Page 1772 of any trade commerce."
In the determination of whether a particular conduct comes within the general description of the statute, our courts employ the following criteria: "(1) whether 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 statutory, or other established concept of unfairness; (2) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (3) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers. . .". Sanghavi v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.,
Many of the allegations made by the plaintiff concern claims that the defendant was negligent in that the defendant knew or should have known of certain factors and failed to warn the plaintiffs of those factors. Such claims may well not be encompassed within the description of CUPTA. See King v. AMS Interiors Inc., 4 Conn. L. Rptr. No. 13, 423 (August 12, 1991) (Karazin, J,). The Tenth and Fourteenth counts of the complaint to which the motion to strike has been addressed also include allegations of fact that the defendant Maritime made representations regarding the safety of the tour vessel, which were known to be untrue, for the purpose of inducing the plaintiffs to enter into a contract with the defendant Maritime for a tour of the Galapagos Islands. Such claims could result in a determination of a CUPTA violation. Where the allegations of the complaint, construed most favorably to the pleader, would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied. Ferryman v. Groton,
Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.
RUSH, J.