Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 20 — · Chapter 400 — Home Improvement Contractors

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-418

Short title: Home Improvement Act

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Home Improvement Act”.

(P.A. 79-606, S. 1, 14.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Naples v. Keystone Building & Development Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Naples v. Keystone Building & Development Corp. (2010) conn · cites it 8× “2d 827 (trial court properly found CUTPA violations, both per se under Home Improvement Act; General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; and independently on basis of contractor's false representation of qualifications with respect to installation of siding, and also his "pressur[ing of]…”
Hees v. Burke Construction Inc. (2009) conn · cites it 8× “, and specifically, General Statutes § 20-429(a), [1] precludes a home improvement contractor from reducing the damages that it owes for breach of contract to a nonbreaching homeowner by an amount equal to the unpaid balance remaining on the contract.”
Meadows v. Higgins (1999) conn · cites it 4× “The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition for certification, which we granted limited to the following question: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the [act], General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., applied to the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants?”…”
Liljedahl Bros. v. Grigsby (1990) conn · cites it 2× “The principal issue in this case is whether a contractor who has failed to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Act; General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; can nonetheless recover in *346 quasi contract by demonstrating unjust enrichment 1 on the part of the…”
Gagne v. Vaccaro (2001) conn · cites it 2× “Similarly, in deciding whether a contractor could recover from a homeowner for work performed, despite the contractor’s noncompliance with the Home Improvement Act; General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; this court focused on an explicit statement in that act that a violation of the…”
Burns v. Adler (2017) conn · cites it 4× “The primary issue that we must resolve in this certified appeal is whether the bad faith exception to the bar on the enforcement of home improvement contracts that do not comply with the Home Improvement Act (act), General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., entitled the plaintiff…”
Capp Industries, Inc. v. Schoenberg (2007) connappct · cites it 4× “2 In addition to the four special defenses, the property owners asserted a five count counterclaim against Capp for slander of title, abuse of process and fraud, as well as for violation of the Home Improvement Act, General Statutes § 20-418 et seq., and CUTPA.”
Habetz v. Condon (1992) conn · cites it 2× “The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a home improvement contractor can recover damages from a homeowner who acted in bad faith for work performed under a contract that did not comply with General Statutes § 20-429 (a), 1 which is part of chapter 400, General Statutes…”
Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. Hirschfeld (1992) conn · cites it 2× “The principal issue in this case is whether the plaintiff contractor produced sufficient evidence of the defendant homeowners’ alleged bad faith so as to survive their motion for summary judgment under the Home Improvement Act (act), General Statutes § 20-418 et seq. The…”
Taylor v. King (2010) connappct · cites it 4× “On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court rendered its decision more than 120 days after the completion date of trial in violation of § 51-183b, (2) the court improperly allowed the testimony of an expert witness, (3) the court improperly found that he was subject to…”
Barrett Builders v. Miller (1990) conn · cites it 2× “The sole issue in this appeal is whether a contractor who has failed to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Act; General Statutes § 20-418 et seq.; can nonetheless recover in quasi contract by demonstrating unjust enrichment 1 on the part of the homeowner for…”
Scrivani v. Vallombroso (2007) connappct · cites it 4× “, that were unrelated to damages; and (2) did the court improperly conclude that the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently unfair and deceptive to warrant a violation of CUTPA. We are not persuaded by the defendant’s second claim.”
Show all 100 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.