Connecticut v. Haggett
Plaintiff state filed suit alleging industry-wide illegal bid rigging by companies and individuals in the heating, ventilation and airconditioning (HVAC) business over the course of several years. Some defendants have settled for $160,000 in civil penalties
Connecticut v. B-G Mechanical Services
State settled allegations of bid-rigging in the market for HVAC services for municipal and private business customers.
Connecticut, Illinois & New York v. St. Paul Travelers
Plaintiff states charged St. Paul Travelers with illegal business steering, customer allocation, and bid rigging in the market for small business. The states alleged, and St. Paul Travelers did not deny, that millions of dollars in “contingent commissions” were paid to a number of brokers who “steered” business to St. Paul Travelers. Under the customer allocation scheme, Travelers was one of the insurers (with The Hartford and CNA) who secretly agreed with a broker to divide up the brokers small business customers in exchange for paying greater undisclosed contingent commissions to the broker.
New York ex rel. Spitzer v. Hartford Financial Services Group
Agreement between CT, NY and Hartford in which Hartford agreed to pay $20 million in restitution and fines, and implement reforms designed to bring fair play and transparency to the marketing of retirement products. Agreement resolved charges that insurance companies were making secret payments to insurance brokers to recommend group annuities to pension plans.
Connecticut v. Liberty Mutual (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford Div. 2006)
State alleged that from 2001 through 2004, Liberty Mutual conspired with Marsh, AIG, ACE, Zurich and other insurers to leverage Marsh’s significant market share in the excess casualty insurance market in particular to rig bids and raise premium prices on insurance contracts. Liberty Mutual settled in 2010 for $2 million.
Connecticut v. Carabetta Enterprises, Inc.No. CV-83-0284039 (Conn. Super. Ct. Hartford 1983)
Owner of residential apartment complexes was enjoined from conditioning the rental of an apartment unit of the lessee?s agreement to purchase moving services or remodeling services from the lessor.
Connecticut v. New Canaan Chevron, Inc. et al., No. CV-83-0064654 (Conn. Super Ct. Norwalk Dist. 1983)
Retail gasoline dealers in Fairfield County, Connecticut were enjoined from agreeing on a uniform level of profit margin, and were further enjoined from refusing to deal with competitors that failed or refused to adhere to such pricing plan.
Connecticut v. Girard Motor Sales, Inc. et. al., No. CV-82-282822 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Dist. 1983)
Automobile dealership charged with various unfair trade practices and an antitrust violation was enjoined from, among other things, conditioning the purchase of a motor vehicle on the buyer?s agreement to purchase automotive towing services.
Connecticut v. Assoc. Buy Liquor Rite Merchants of Conn., Inc., No. CV-82-278210 (Conn. Super Ct. 1983)
Association of retail liquor dealers were enjoined from jointly advertising various featured items at a uniform price.
Connecticut v. Koppers Co., Inc., et al, No. N-79-284 (D.Conn. 1978)
Liquid bituminous material (road tar) sealing companies resolved Attorney General?s claims of price fixing and unlawful market allocation via entry of consent decree enjoining such conduct and payment of a monetary forfeiture.
