CT Gen Stat § 42-110a (2020)
2020 Connecticut General Statutes|Title 42 - Business, Selling, Trading and Collection Practices|Chapter 735a - Unfair Trade Practices|Section 42-110a - Definitions.

 As used in this chapter:(1) “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of Consumer Protection;(2) “Documentary material” means the original or a copy of a book, record, report, memorandum, paper, communication, tabulation, map, chart, photograph, mechanical transcription, or other tangible document or recording, wherever situate;(3) “Person” means a natural person, corporation, limited liability company, trust, partnership, incorporated or unincorporated association, and any other legal entity;(4) “Trade” and “commerce” means the advertising, the sale or rent or lease, the offering for sale or rent or lease, or the distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity, or thing of value in this state.(P.A. 73-615, S. 1, 16; P.A. 78-346, S. 1; P.A. 95-79, S. 154, 189; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, S. 146(c); P.A. 04-189, S. 1.)History: P.A. 78-346 redefined “trade” and “commerce” to include rent and lease of services or property; P.A. 95-79 redefined “person” to include a limited liability company, effective May 31, 1995; June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6 replaced Commissioner of Consumer Protection with Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective July 1, 2004; P.A. 04-189 repealed Sec. 146 of June 30 Sp. Sess. P.A. 03-6, thereby reversing the merger of the Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Protection, effective June 1, 2004.Cited. 186 C. 507; 190 C. 510. Determination of “unfair practice” discussed. 192 C. 558. Cited. 200 C. 172; 203 C. 342; 211 C. 613; 216 C. 65; 225 C. 70; 230 C. 148; Id., 486; 231 C. 707; 232 C. 480; 238 C. 183; 243 C. 17. Condominium mismanagement not within purview of CUTPA. 245 C. 504. Most significant question in considering CUTPA claim against an attorney is whether the allegedly improper conduct is part of attorney's professional representation of a client or is part of the entrepreneurial aspect of practicing law. 260 C. 766. Trial court properly concluded that the degree to which speeding fee, because it was a penalty, violated public policy was sufficient to find a CUTPA violation without addressing remaining criteria of the cigarette rule. 273 C. 296. Trial court properly granted airport defendant's motion to strike CUTPA claim. 275 C. 105. Assignment of plaintiff's CUTPA action to an estate would transform the action into a wrongful death action that is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. 289 C. 1. A common-law breach of fiduciary duty arising in the insurance context that does not violate the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act or some other statute regulating the insurance industry cannot provide the basis for a valid CUTPA claim. 310 C. 1. All of mobile home owners' association members were not required to testify re firsthand knowledge of violations and how they were individually harmed for purposes of establishing ascertainable loss and obtaining injunctive and other equitable relief. Id., 797.Cited. 21 CA 275; 28 CA 660. Medical malpractice claims recast as CUTPA claims cannot form basis for a CUTPA violation. 52 CA 487. Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duty to plaintiff entitled plaintiff to damages, including reimbursement of any improper fees and charges, interest for loss of use of profits and a constructive trust over profits defendants received through improper use of partnership funds, and constituted a violation of CUTPA because defendants' actions clearly placed them in direct competition with the interests of the partnership. 57 CA 121. Where use and occupancy of apartment incidental to employment and not a tenancy, plaintiff could not prevail under CUTPA claim. 59 CA 704. Plaintiff, who established that defendant refused to sell and install carpeting at price originally quoted to plaintiff, suffered the loss of his contract and, therefore, sustained an “ascertainable loss” as result of an unfair trade practice; accordingly, plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages under CUTPA. 76 CA 586. Defendants did not violate CUTPA; trial court's assessment of dispute as intracorporate and outside purview of CUTPA was not clearly erroneous. 91 CA 619. Where both parties honored the contract, there was no unfair, unethical or unscrupulous act so as to constitute an unfair trade practice. 117 CA 550. Hospital has no duty, and public policy concerns do not support imposition of a duty, to report incident of alleged sexual crime against patient to patient's daughter before hospital has reasonable time to investigate allegations, and hospital's failure to report the incident before such time cannot form the basis of a CUTPA violation. 142 CA 72. Contract for purchase of software licenses, hardware, services and concomitant support, where installation and use was exclusively out-of-state, did not concern trade or commerce practices “in this state” for purposes of Subdiv. (4). 146 CA 169; judgment reversed, see 322 C. 541. Award of attorney's fees improper because allegations in CUTPA count, even if taken as true, were insufficient on their face to state a cause of action under CUTPA because plaintiffs failed to present evidence at hearing in damages to support a claim beyond a mere breach of contract. 149 CA 267. Plaintiffs' claim of emotional distress, i.e. the loss of a reasonable expectation that the patient would be safe from harm and that the hospital would properly care for her, does not constitute an ascertainable loss of money or property as required for a CUTPA claim. Id., 502.Cited. 36 CS 183; 43 CS 431. Condominium mismanagement not within purview of CUTPA. 45 CS 341. Motion to strike complaint alleging unfair trade practices denied in case involving delivery system of a mail order pharmaceutical service; such delivery operation was entrepreneurial. 49 CS 388.