With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was possible that customers might be liable for some repair costs and thus, State Farm did not improperly interfere with Glass Service’s prospective contractual relations by informing insureds of that potential liability. See id. Glass Service argues that State Farm’s justification defense is defeated because its actions of informing customers of potential liability for price differences constituted coercion and/or inducement in violation of the UCPA. See Minn.Stat. § 72A.201, subd. 6(16) (1992) (prohibiting coercion or inducement of insured to use particular vendor). We agree with the trial court, however, that the UCPA is inapplicable because it creates no substantive legal rights or private cause of action. See Morris v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 386 N.W.2d 233, 238 (Minn.1986) (<HOLDING>). Although Glass Service maintains that it is

A: recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations
B: holding that no private causes of action exist for violations of the ucpa
C: holding that there is no private right of action against a state governmental entity for violations of the texas constitution
D: holding that no private right of action exists
B.