Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)

Citation: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Parent Document: Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2022-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10278647/dorfman-v-smith/ ↗

Full Text

2,502 chars

The plaintiff appealed from that part of the trial court’s judgment dismissing
   her claims against the defendant insurance company for breach of the
   implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction
   of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
   Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) based on a violation of the
   Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA) (§ 38a-815 et seq.).
   The plaintiff had been involved in a motor vehicle collision with J, one
   of the defendant’s insureds. The plaintiff thereafter filed a claim with
   the defendant under the underinsured motorist provision of her policy.
   The defendant investigated the claim, concluded that J was 100 percent
   at fault and made notations of its findings in the claim file. The defendant
   then notified the plaintiff that her right to pursue her claim was condi-
   tioned on her provision of an affidavit of no excess insurance. The
   plaintiff subsequently brought the present action. The defendant hired
   attorneys to represent it in connection with the plaintiff’s action but
   deliberately withheld from them its file notes, which included the
   recorded statement and identity of a witness to the collision, even though
   the defendant knew that information was necessary for its attorneys to
   prepare accurate responses to the plaintiff’s complaint and discovery
   requests. The defendant pleaded in its answer to the plaintiff’s complaint
   that it denied or did not have sufficient information to admit the plaintiff’s
   allegations regarding the cause of the collision and her injuries, and
   asserted a special defense of contributory negligence, even though it
   knew that it was without a basis in fact. The defendant also provided
   false responses to the plaintiff’s discovery requests, including that it did
   not know of the existence of the witness to the collision or whether any
   recorded statements of witnesses existed. In the plaintiff’s deposition
   of the defendant, the defendant’s designee admitted that the defendant
   had been aware of the witness to the collision and his recorded statement
   but failed to disclose that information in its interrogatory responses.
   The designee also indicated that the defendant did not single out the
   plaintiff for special or unique treatment when it conditioned her receipt
March 29, 2022                 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 47

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text