Source: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/-susan-behan-v-sonitrol-corporation-et-al-
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:50:40+00:00

Document:
Susan Behan v. Sonitrol Corporation et al.
Decision text below is the first available text from the court; it has not been editorially reviewed by LexisNexis. Publisher\'s editorial review, including Headnotes, Case Summary, Shepard\'s analysis or any amendments will be added in accordance with LexisNexis editorial guidelines.
[*1] Short Name:Behan v. Sonitrol Corp.
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh):Scholl, Jane S., J.
plaintiff claims that the defendant Sonitrol Communications Corporation, a.k.a.
CUTPA (Tenth Count), against Sonitrol.
heard by the court on November 25, 2013.
material fact . . . but rather to determine whether any such issues exist . . .
matter of law, that a genuine issue of material fact exists . . . The presence .
Church v. Gauss, 302 Conn. 408, 421-2 (2011).
telephone service provider to Comcast.
count paragraph 9); and \"was caused by the defendant Sonitrol of Hartford . . .\"
unfair and deceptive trade practices or acts (Tenth count paragraphs 9, 15).
is, that the injury would not have occurred but for the actor\'s conduct . . .
conjecture [*7] and surmise.\" (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
would have summoned the police in time to capture or frighten away the burglar.
the loss would have been averted had the electrical alarm been in order.\' \"
(Citations omitted.) Id., pp. 20-22.
any way the plaintiff\'s damages is extremely speculative.
has not been sufficient facts shown for Chen\'s opinion.
simply as a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case.\"
(Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Buell Industries, Inc. v.
summary judgment. See, Barrett v. Danbury Hospital, 232 Conn. 242, 253 (1995).
quotation marks omitted.) Porter v. Thrane, 98 Conn.App. 336, 340 (2006).
question of fact as to the cause of the plaintiff\'s damages.
McCann Real Equities v. McDermott, 93 Conn.App. 486, 503-04 (2006).
as Sonitrol represented; etc. (Amended Complaint, Sixth Count, paragraph 9).
standard more exacting than that of a fair preponderance of the evidence . . .
omitted.) Kavarco v. T.J.E., Inc., 2 Conn.App. 294, 295-96 (1984).
provide signaling, monitoring and response for which it was intended.\"
or inducements not set forth in nay such documents.\" Id.
Zwrin, paragraph 9.m., August 9, 2012.
summary judgment is granted as to the Seventh and Ninth Counts.
others or of the consequences of the action . . . It is at least clear . . .
omitted.) Fricilli v. Westport, 264 Conn. 266, 277-78 (2003).
causation in fact.\" Boehm v. Kish, 201 Conn. 385, 390 (1986).
prevail on her claims of recklessness as well.
telephone lines, or that the plaintiff had switched telephone service providers.
granted as to the Eighth Count.
causation is also an element of proof of a CUTPA claim.
support a CUTPA claim in this case.
limitations set forth in §42-110g(f). See Fichera v. Mine Hill Corp., 207 Conn.
limitations bars the plaintiff\'s CUTPA action.
summary judgment is granted as to the Tenth Count.
claims limits any potential liability to \"one-half year\'s monitoring payments,\"
warranties beyond those on the face of this agreement.\" Id., paragraph 5.
responsibility . . .\" (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.) Hanks v.
ambiguous to deny a summary judgment motion.\"
The motion for summary judgment is granted as to all counts against Sonitrol on the grounds that the plaintiff cannot prove causation but not on the other grounds cited by Sonitrol.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §42
 v. 
 v.