Advertisement

April 20, 2014

Connecticut Auto Body Shops Awarded Millions in Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Class Action Against The Hartford

In a closely-watched Connecticut state court action that has dragged on for almost ten years, on June 5, Waterbury Superior Court Judge Alfred Jennings ordered The Hartford to pay $20 million in punitive damages to a class of auto body shops, finding that the insurer had “knowingly and purposefully” violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The punitive damages award is in addition to an award of $14.7 million in compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiffs during a jury trial in the matter conducted in 2009, and is reportedly the largest award ever under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The case, Artie’s Auto Body v. The Hartford, centered upon a claim that The Hartford had influenced insurance appraisers, who are required by statute to provide unbiased estimates of repair costs, to utilize below-market hourly labor rates in their calculations. The appraisers’ conduct resulted in a reduction in the compensation paid to the plaintiffs when making repairs for the insurer’s insureds. Plaintiffs alleged that the Hartford’s conduct violated public policy and thus was unlawful under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The court’s punitive damages ruling comes approximately four years after a jury found that The Hartford’s efforts to induce the appraisers to violate the “code of ethics” that Connecticut law imposes upon them constituted “unfair” conduct under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Notably, pretrial, the court had rejected The Hartford’s argument that because the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act is based upon Section 5 of the FTC Act, and the FTC has issued enforcement guidelines indicating that a Section 5 violation should require a showing of “substantial injury to consumers,” this requirement should be implied into the Connecticut statute as well. (The FTC’s modification to its Section 5 enforcement guidelines occurred almost twenty years after the Connecticut statute was enacted; no corresponding change to the Connecticut statute was subsequently made.)

The Hartford filed a series of post-trial motions and motions for reconsideration seeking to have the 2009 jury verdict vacated, ultimately without success. In May of this year, Judge Jennings issued his final ruling on the motions, setting the stage for the court’s consideration of plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. Finding that The Hartford had exhibited  a “heavy dose of control” over the erstwhile independent appraisers and that The Hartford’s acts reflected a “knowing and purposeful disregard” of the Connecticut statute prohibiting efforts to influence them, in a June 5 opinion Judge Jennings awarded plaintiffs $20 million in punitive damages. In deciding upon this amount, Judge Jennings explained that he was taking into account “the large net worth of The Hartford” and that the award needed to be large enough to have meaningful “deterrent motivation” going forward.

In response to the court’s ruling, The Hartford immediately filed an appeal with the Connecticut appellate court. In its appeal, The Hartford is likely to renew the argument that, because the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act is patterned on Section 5, it should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with current Section 5 jurisprudence (a view that has been embraced by the courts in several other states in similar circumstances). Given the significance of the case, and the issue generally, it can be expected that the matter will ultimately be required to be heard by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Stay tuned.

© Copyright 2014 Dickinson Wright PLLC

About the Author

Member

Jim Burns is Co-Leader of the firm's Antitrust Practice Group.

Mr. Burns has focused his practice on antitrust law for over 25 years. During that time, he has litigated antitrust and related claims in trial and appellate courts all across the country, advised clients on antitrust compliance issues, and represented clients before the DOJ Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission on a wide variety of antitrust matters, including mergers and governmental investigations. While his antitrust practice is broad-based, he has had a particular focus on the representation of...

202-659-6945

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisem