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

3,432 chars
584                           MARCH, 2022                  342 Conn. 582
                                        Dorfman v. Smith
              privilege, the fact that the plaintiff’s claim involved dishonesty did not
              make it akin to a claim of vexatious litigation, and the fact that the
              plaintiff alleged facts that may have been sufficient to support a vexa-
              tious litigation claim did not prevent the litigation privilege from applying
              to the claim she actually alleged; in addition, to the extent that the
              plaintiff claimed that the common-law immunity afforded to knowingly
              false communications made during judicial proceedings was abrogated
              by statute (§ 52-99) or that public policy disfavored immunity under
              these circumstances, those claims were unavailing, and there existed
              safeguards other than civil liability to deter or preclude misconduct or
              to provide relief from the defendant’s alleged misconduct.
          2. The trial court properly applied the litigation privilege to the plaintiff’s
              claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and, accordingly, that
              claim was properly dismissed; the plaintiff’s allegations in support of
              that claim incorporated the same allegations she made in support of
              her claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
              and also were premised on communications that the defendant made
              during and relevant to the underlying judicial proceeding.
          3. The plaintiff’s claim that the defendant violated CUTPA based on a viola-
              tion of CUIPA was barred by the litigation privilege: the litigation privi-
              lege bars CUTPA claims, like the claim at issue, premised solely on
              general allegations of intentionally false discovery responses made by
              an insurer during and relevant to a judicial proceeding because those
              claims merely challenge the making of false statements; moreover, there
              were no allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint that the defendant’s
              misconduct occurred with such frequency as to constitute a statutorily
              (§ 38a-816 (6)) prohibited general business practice, as her allegations
              regarding that conduct were limited to the defendant’s conduct in the
              present case; furthermore, although the business practice of misrepre-
              senting facts relating to insurance coverage issues is prohibited by § 38a-
              816 (6), CUIPA did not abrogate absolute immunity for conduct allegedly
              in violation of that statute, as CUIPA does not impose liability for such
              conduct by imposing a private right of action but, instead, limits the
              remedy under that act to administrative action by the Commissioner of
              Insurance, that remedy was available to the plaintiff, and the legislature
              could have explicitly abrogated the immunity afforded by the litigation
              privilege for violations of that statute but did not.
                   (One justice concurring in part and dissenting in part)
                   Argued April 28, 2021—officially released March 29, 2022 Procedural History
Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text
