under the circumstances; and (3) the misleading effects must be ‘material,’ that is, likely to affect the consumer’s conduct or decision with regard to a product.” 153 Vt. at 57, 569 A.2d at 462 (citing Poulin v. Ford Motor Co., 147 Vt. 120, 124-25, 513 A.2d 1168, 1171-72 (1986)). We fail to see how plaintiff meets the first requirement of the test. His argument is that by denying coverage defendant deceived plaintiff into believing his only recourse was against Stevens Gas Service. Under that logic, any denial of coverage becomes consumer fraud. As we held in Winey v. William E. Dailey, Inc., 161 Vt. 129, 136, 636 A.2d 744, 749 (1993), a mere breach of contract cannot be sufficient to show consumer fraud. ¶ 16. We are left here with a coverage dispute. d 676, 683 (N.C. 2000) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); Myint v.
holding that benefiting fiduciary must show he acted in good faith and that transactions were fair and equitable holding that a sale must be both fair and reasonable in price and made in good faith holding that not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear constitutes unfair conduct and is thus a violation of consumer protection law holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith holding that an insurers violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing was actionable under the consumer protection act