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

4,063 chars
342 Conn. 582                MARCH, 2022                                  583
                                       Dorfman v. Smith
             of underinsured motorist benefits on the provision of an affidavit of no
             excess insurance and when it provided false responses to her discovery
             requests. The defendant admitted liability with respect to the plaintiff’s
             breach of contract claim, and the plaintiff was awarded damages in
             connection therewith. In dismissing the plaintiff’s claims of breach of the
             implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and negligent inflection
             of emotional distress, however, the trial court concluded that those
             claims were barred by the litigation privilege because they were predi-
             cated on communications and statements made in the course of and
             related to a judicial proceeding. The court also concluded that the
             litigation privilege applied to the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the
             defendant’s purported business practice of responding falsely to discov-
             ery requests and dismissed that portion of the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim.
             The court nevertheless determined that the litigation privilege did not
             bar the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim to the extent that the plaintiff alleged
             that the defendant maintained an improper business practice of condi-
             tioning the receipt of underinsured motorist benefits on the provision
             of an affidavit of no excess insurance, which purportedly was in violation
             of statute (§ 38a-336c (c)). The Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff’s
             initial appeal for lack of a final judgment. The plaintiff then amended her
             complaint to remove all allegations regarding the defendant’s purported
             violation of § 38a-336c (c), and the trial court rendered judgment for
             the plaintiff on her breach of contract claim and for the defendant on
             the plaintiff’s extracontractual claims, from which the plaintiff
             appealed. Held:
         1. The trial court correctly determined that the litigation privilege barred
             the plaintiff’s claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
             fair dealing: the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant systemically abused
             the judicial process challenged the defendant’s conduct in defending
             against her underinsured motorist claim, rather than the purpose of
             the underlying judicial proceedings, and her claim was similar to a
             defamation claim, to which the litigation privilege generally applies,
             insofar as it was premised on the communication of false statements
             in pleadings and other documents related to litigation; moreover, the
             fact that the defendant made the allegedly false communications to its
             attorneys rather than in court or directly to the court or to an opposing
             party did not limit the application of the litigation privilege, as the
             defendant’s communications to its attorneys led to misrepresentations
             and deceptive answers in pleadings and documents that had been filed
             during the course of litigation; furthermore, although the plaintiff
             asserted that the bad faith element of a claim of breach of the implied
             covenant of good faith and fair dealing was equivalent to the malicious
             intent element of a vexatious litigation claim, to which the litigation
             privilege generally does not apply, a complete definition of bad faith
             demonstrated that the plaintiff’s good faith and fair dealing claim was
             more akin to a claim of fraud, to which courts have applied the litigation
Page 48                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                              March 29, 2022
Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text
