30 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mead v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2003The defendant’s reliance on Quimby is misplaced because our holding in part H B of that opinion was based on our Supreme Court’s decision in Mead v. Burns, 199 Conn. 651 , 509 A.2d 11 (1986), and was limited to the specific situation in which a plaintiff has alleged violations of CUTPA and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Statutes § 38a-815 et seq., against an insurer on the basis of conduct that constitutes an unfair claim settlement practice as defined in General Statutes § 38a-816 (6). 2003The defendant’s reliance on Quimby is misplaced because our holding in part H B of that opinion was based on our Supreme Court’s decision in Mead v. Burns, 199 Conn. 651 , 509 A.2d 11 (1986), and was limited to the specific situation in which a plaintiff has alleged violations of CUTPA and the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA), General Statutes § 38a-815 et seq., against an insurer on the basis of conduct that constitutes an unfair claim settlement practice as defined in General Statutes § 38a-816 (6). | 3 | 14 |
Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2000Co. , 229 Conn. 842 , 850 , 643 A.2d 1282 (1994); see also Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania , 231 Conn. 756 , 798 n. 30, 653 A.2d 122 (1995) ("[I]t is clear that the plaintiff's failure to offer evidence showing a `general business practice' fatally flaws its claim under § 38a-816 (6), which requires proof of such a general business practice.") The plaintiff alleges that Peerless "engages in . . . unfair claim settlement practices with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. . . ." This is a conclusory allegation. 2000Co. , 229 Conn. 842 , 850 , 643 A.2d 1282 (1994); see also Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania , 231 Conn. 756 , 798 n. 30, 653 A.2d 122 (1995) ("[I]t is clear that the plaintiff's failure to offer evidence showing a `general business practice' fatally flaws its claim under § 38a-816 (6), which requires proof of such a general business practice.") The plaintiff alleges that Peerless "engages in . . . unfair claim settlement practices with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice. . . ." This is a conclusory allegation. | 1 | 1 |
Lippitt v. Ashleygreen2 sentences1985See Lippitt v. Ashley, 89 Conn. 451, 480 , 94 A. 995 (1915); Kilburn v. Keenan, 27 Conn. Sup. 394, 397 , 240 A.2d 213 (1967) (summary judgment denied where defend *305 ant sought the delay in order to interpose statute of limitations). 1985See Lippitt v. Ashley, 89 Conn. 451, 480 , 94 A. 995 (1915); Kilburn v. Keenan, 27 Conn. Sup. 394, 397 , 240 A.2d 213 (1967) (summary judgment denied where defend *305 ant sought the delay in order to interpose statute of limitations). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lees v. Middlesex Insurance
green
2 sentences2002Stat. § 38a-816 (1) (2). "[O]f the sixteen categories of unfair insurance practices proscribed by General Statutes § 38a-816 , only subsection (6) expressly requires proof that the unfair claim settlement practices enumerated therein were committed or performed "with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice."' Lees v. Middlesex Insurance Co., supra, 229 Conn. at 848 n. 5. 2002If the facts alleged are "insufficient to satisfy the requirement under CUIPA that the defendant's alleged unfair claim settlement practices constituted a `general business practice,' the plaintiff's CUTPA claim [cannot] survive the failure of [their] CUIPA claim." Id., 851 . | 22 | 1995–2003 |
Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corp.
green
2 sentences2001In Lees v. Middlesex Insurance Co ., 229 Conn. 842 , 850-851 (1994), the Supreme Court, citing Mead v. Burns , supra, 199 Conn. 666 , reiterated that "a CUTPA claim based on an unfair claim settlement practice prohibited by § 38a-816 (6) require[s] proof, as under CUIPA, that the unfair settlement practice had been committed or performed by the defendant `with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice.' In so holding, we observed that a CUTPA claim based on the public policy embodied in CUIPA must be consistent with the regulatory principles established therein, and that `the d 1998Mead, supra, 655 ; Quimby v. Kimberly Clark Corporation , 28 Conn. App. 660 , 672 (1992). | 2 | 1998–2001 |
Kilburn v. Keenan
green
2 sentences1985See Lippitt v. Ashley, 89 Conn. 451, 480 , 94 A. 995 (1915); Kilburn v. Keenan, 27 Conn. Sup. 394, 397 , 240 A.2d 213 (1967) (summary judgment denied where defend *305 ant sought the delay in order to interpose statute of limitations). 1985See Lippitt v. Ashley, 89 Conn. 451, 480 , 94 A. 995 (1915); Kilburn v. Keenan, 27 Conn. Sup. 394, 397 , 240 A.2d 213 (1967) (summary judgment denied where defend *305 ant sought the delay in order to interpose statute of limitations). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.