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

2,451 chars

privilege deprived the court of subject matter jurisdic-
tion over these claims. The plaintiff argues that, because
these claims were the functional equivalent of claims
for vexatious litigation, the litigation privilege did not
apply. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judg-
ment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history, as alleged
in the complaint, construed in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff, and contained in the record, are relevant
to our review of these claims. In 2014, the plaintiff was
injured when her motor vehicle collided with a vehicle
operated by Joscelyn M. Smith, who failed to stop his
vehicle at a stop sign. At the time of the collision, the
defendant insured the plaintiff under a contract of motor
vehicle insurance, which contained a provision for unin-
sured-underinsured motorist coverage as required by
General Statutes § 38a-336. At the time of the collision,
Smith was underinsured, and the plaintiff filed a claim
with the defendant under the underinsured motorist
provision of her insurance contract.
As part of its general business practices, the defen-
dant investigated the collision to determine the cause
and legal responsibility. In investigating the plaintiff’s
claim, the defendant acquired the police report regard-
ing the collision, the plaintiff’s recorded statement, and
the recorded statement of Birbahadu Guman, a witness
to the collision who was not listed in the police report.
The report and the statements all noted Smith’s failure
to stop at the stop sign. Based on this information,
two claims specialists employed by the defendant both
concluded that Smith was 100 percent liable for the
collision and noted their findings in the claim file. The
defendant notified the plaintiff that her right to pursue
her claim was conditioned on her providing an affidavit
of no excess insurance.
To compel payment of the underinsured motorist
benefits, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant,
March 29, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 51

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text