Case Details


Attorney General Control Of Litigation

Filing State



Connecticut Appellate Court




State v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 286 Conn. 454, 944 A.2d 315, (Conn. 2008).


State may obtain damages for harm to the “general economy” under Connecticut antitrust law

Case Description

Connecticut sued Marsh McLennan and other insurers, alleging various antitrust claims under state law and alleging damage to the state’s economy as a result of Marsh’s anticompetitive actions. The trial court dismissed the case on standing grounds, stating that the state did not have the authority to seek damages to its economy because no such recovery was possible under the Clayton Act. The Court of Appeals reversed. The appellate court noted that Connecticut law explicitly permits recovery for damages to the general economy. Although Connecticut law also requires that the court’s be guided by federal case law in interpreting state antitrust law, the appellate court held that case law construing relevant federal statutes is persuasive authority. Because Connecticut law differs substantively from federal law, and because prohibiting damages to the economy would render that provision of the law superfluous, the appellate court ruled that the state had standing to pursue the claims. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that it would be too difficult to prove the damages to the economy of the state, as distinct from damages to parties within the state. The court held that those issues went to proof, and did not affect standing.