cpla claim in Connecticut

1998"For the purpose of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded." RK Contractors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp. , 231 Conn. 381 , 383 , No. 2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994)." "[W]hether a CUTPA claim, may be pleaded in conjunction with a CPLA claim has not as yet been addressed by the Connecticut appeals courts.

1998"For the purpose of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded." RK Contractors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp. , 231 Conn. 381 , 383 , No. 2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994)." "[W]hether a CUTPA claim, may be pleaded in conjunction with a CPLA claim has not as yet been addressed by the Connecticut appeals courts.

2025Although we will not ‘‘engraft language . . . to enhance or supplement a statute containing clearly expressed language’’; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Obas, 320 Conn. 426 , 436, 130 A.3d 252 (2016); we are required to construe statutes with the understanding that ‘‘[t]he legislature is always presumed to have cre- ated a harmonious and consistent body of law . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stone-Krete Con- struction, Inc. v. Eder, 280 Conn. 672, 678 , 911 A.2d 300 (2006).

2025Although we will not ‘‘engraft language . . . to enhance or supplement a statute containing clearly expressed language’’; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Obas, 320 Conn. 426 , 436, 130 A.3d 252 (2016); we are required to construe statutes with the understanding that ‘‘[t]he legislature is always presumed to have cre- ated a harmonious and consistent body of law . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stone-Krete Con- struction, Inc. v. Eder, 280 Conn. 672, 678 , 911 A.2d 300 (2006).

2001Kristofak v. General Motors Corp ., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. 145041 (June 26, 2000, Doherty, J .) ( 27 Conn. L.

2001Kristofak v. General Motors Corp ., Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. 145041 (June 26, 2000, Doherty, J .) ( 27 Conn. L.

1997"The legislature clearly intended that the products liability statute ( 52-572 [n] be the exclusive remedy for claims falling within its scope." Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., 212 Conn. 452 , 463 , 562 A.2d 517 (1989). "[T]his issue of whether a CUTPA claim may be pleaded in conjunction with a CPLA claim has not as yet been addressed by the Connecticut appeals courts. [T]here is a split of authority among the Superior Courts that have addressed this issue, where three prevailing views have been expressed.

1997"The legislature clearly intended that the products liability statute ( 52-572 [n] be the exclusive remedy for claims falling within its scope." Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., 212 Conn. 452 , 463 , 562 A.2d 517 (1989). "[T]his issue of whether a CUTPA claim may be pleaded in conjunction with a CPLA claim has not as yet been addressed by the Connecticut appeals courts. [T]here is a split of authority among the Superior Courts that have addressed this issue, where three prevailing views have been expressed.

1997The role of the trial court is to examine the complaint, construed in favor of the plaintiffs, to determine whether the pleading party has stated a legally sufficient cause of action." Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 242 Conn. 375 , 378 , (1997). "[W]hether a CUTPA claim may be pleaded in conjunction with a CPLA claim has not as yet been addressed by the Connecticut appeals courts.

1997The role of the trial court is to examine the complaint, construed in favor of the plaintiffs, to determine whether the pleading party has stated a legally sufficient cause of action." Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 242 Conn. 375 , 378 , (1997). "[W]hether a CUTPA claim may be pleaded in conjunction with a CPLA claim has not as yet been addressed by the Connecticut appeals courts.

1994See Daily v. New Britain Machine Co. , supra, 200 Conn. 571 -72; Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc. , supra, 212 Conn. 471 .

1994See Daily v. New Britain Machine Co. , supra, 200 Conn. 571 -72; Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc. , supra, 212 Conn. 471 .

1994Conn.), developed a "functional test" to determine whether a CUTPA claim is coextensive with a product liability claim, and thereby barred by the exclusivity provisions of the CPLA. "[I]f the cause of action being pressed . . . is essentially identical — in wrongs asserted and in relief sought — with that being pursued under the [C]PLA, then it comes within the statute's scope and must be precluded." Id., p. 6; see also Howell v. Capitol Chemical Industries , Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 277541 (July 14, CT Page 8947 1992, Katz, J.); Khan v. Laurenta

1994Stella v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc. , 9 CSCR 59 (December 21, 1993, Berger, J.) (plaintiff's CUTPA count incorporating allegations of CPLA claim was functionally equivalent to CPLA claim; motion to strike granted); Londrini v. Brito Enterprise , 9 Conn. L.