FRANK CHARLES WHITE v. FCW LAW OFFICES et al., SC 21076

Judicial District of Middlesex

Damages; Whether Appellate Court Correctly Concluded That Plaintiff May Not Recover Both Punitive Damages Under CUTPA and Treble Damages for Identity Theft under General Statutes § 52-571h Because Such Recovery Would Violate Rule Precluding Double Recovery. The plaintiff, a Connecticut attorney, brought this action against the defendants, FCW Law Offices and two John Does, asserting, inter alia, that the defendants had committed identity theft within the meaning of General Statutes § 53a-129a and that he was entitled to recover damages pursuant to General Statutes § 52-571h, which authorizes an action for damages resulting from identity theft. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants intentionally made use of his name and juris number without his authorization and used that information to obtain or attempt to obtain money, credit, goods, services or property without his consent. The plaintiff also alleged a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., based on the same underlying conduct alleged in the identity theft claim. The defendants were defaulted for failure to appear. Following a hearing in damages, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on both the identity theft claim and the CUTPA claim. The trial court awarded the plaintiff (1) $150,000 in compensatory damages on the identity theft claim pursuant to § 52-571h and (2) $300,000 in punitive damages on the CUTPA claim. The plaintiff appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly failed to award him treble damages for his identity theft claim in light of the mandatory language in § 52-571h (b). The Appellate Court (228 Conn. App. 1) agreed, concluding that the trial court violated the mandatory directive of § 52-571h (b) by failing to award the plaintiff treble damages on his identity theft claim. Thus, the court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover $450,000 in treble damages on his identity theft claim. The Appellate Court sua sponte determined, however, that the trial court's award of $300,000 in damages for the plaintiff's CUTPA claim could not stand under the rule precluding double recovery because the CUTPA claim was "based upon the same transaction, occurrence or event on which the plaintiff based his action for damages resulting from identity theft under § 52-571h." Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment in part and remanded the case to the trial court with direction to vacate both the compensatory damages award under § 52-571h and the punitive damages award under CUTPA and to instead award the plaintiff $450,000 in damages under § 52-571h. The plaintiff was granted certification to appeal pursuant to General Statute § 51-197f, and the Supreme Court will decide whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the plaintiff may not recover both punitive damages under CUTPA and treble damages under § 52-571 because such recovery would violate the principle that a plaintiff is entitled to recover only once for losses sustained in connection with the same transaction, occurrence or event.