Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

ARTIE'S AUTO BODY, INC., ET AL. v. THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (SC 17797)
Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella and Sullivan, Js. Argued November 29, 2007--officially released June 3, 2008

Linda L. Morkan, with whom, on the brief, were Craig A. Raabe, Edward J. Heath and Andrea Donovan Napp, for the appellant (defendant). David A. Slossberg, with whom were Allison Near,

Alan Neigher, Robert J. Berg, pro hac vice, and Ronald J. Aranoff, pro hac vice, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Opinion

ZARELLA, J. The defendant, The Hartford Fire Insurance Company (The Hartford), appeals from the ruling of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiffs, three Connecticut auto body repair shops and a trade association of Connecticut auto body repair shops,1 for class certification. The plaintiffs, who seek money damages and injunctive relief, allege that The Hartford engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA),2 General Statutes

Download Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co..pdf

Connecticut Law