Albert v. Farm Bureau Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the words \ascertainable loss” in the CUTPA statute do not require proof of actual damages or a specific amount of loss and defining \ascertainable loss” as a \measurable loss” of money or property when a consumer receives \something other than what he bargained for”
• requiring plaintiff to plead CUTPA claim by asserting that he purchased item as result of unfair or deceptive practice or act
• rejecting the plaintiffs’ CUTPA claim “because nothing in the record … suggests that the defendants either affirmatively misrepresented or had a duty”
• allowing a plaintiffs statutory fraud action to proceed — absent any defect — because “[w]henever a consumer lias received something other than what he bargained for, he has suffered a loss of money or property”
• distinguishing between common law and statutory remedies in area of innocent misrepresentation
• affirming summary judgment on the CUTPA claim after plaintiff failed to demonstrate ascertainable loss

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).