1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 1741 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1990
Defendants then filed a third party complaint seeking damages against the third party defendant Soiltesting, Inc. which had been hired by the plaintiff, the gravamen of which was that Soiltesting improperly performed the tests and kept insufficient contact with the appropriate governmental agencies and either knew, or should have known of the contractual terms between Ferraras and Rogers, thereby tortiously interfering with the contract of sale between the Ferraras and Rogers. CT Page 1742
Pursuant to Practice Book 152 the third party defendant, Soiltesting, Inc., moves to strike the first, second and third counts of the defendants' cross claim because they fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted for the following reasons:
1. With respect to the first count:
a. because it fails to allege privity of contract between a third party defendant and defendants; and
b. because it alleges interference by an agent with respect to a contract between his principal and a third party.
2. With respect to the second count alleging violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act because it lacks specific allegations of statutory violation;
3. With respect to the third count because it fails to allege the requisite elements of a cause of action for contractual or common law indemnification.
At the same time of argument, the third party plaintiff conceded that the motion as to the third count should be granted.
Connecticut recognizes two causes of action for tortious interference with a contract. These actions are negligent interference with a contract and intentional interference with a contract. Blake v. Levy,
As to the Second Count alleging CUTPA violations, the motion is granted because it lacks specific allegations of a statutory violation. The third party defendant is entitled to know what facts and which of the three categories of violation the third party plaintiffs Rogers claim exist by virtue of the existence of those facts. See Web Press Services Corporation v. New London Motors, Inc.,
FLYNN, J.