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

2,628 chars

alleging breach of contract.1 The defendant hired attor-
         neys to represent it in connection with the plaintiff’s
         claim but deliberately withheld from them its file notes
         regarding the claim, Guman’s name and existence, and
         Guman’s recorded statement, even though it knew this
         information was necessary for its attorneys to prepare
         accurate responses to the plaintiff’s complaint and dis-
         covery requests. In answering the complaint, the defen-
         dant pleaded that either it denied or did not have
         sufficient information to admit the allegations that
         Smith had failed to stop at a stop sign, causing the
         collision and the plaintiff’s resulting injuries. The defen-
         dant also asserted a special defense of contributory
         negligence, even though it knew this to be false. As a
         result, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s answer
         ‘‘falsely responded to . . . [the] allegation[s]’’ in the
         complaint, in violation of General Statutes § 52-99.
            The plaintiff’s attorney then noticed the defendant’s
         deposition to address, in part, the factual basis behind
         its answer and special defense. The defendant moved
         for a protective order. Additionally, the defendant pro-
         vided false responses to the plaintiff’s discovery requests,
         including that it did not know of the existence of any
         witnesses not listed in the police report and whether
         any recorded statements existed. In further response
         to the deposition notice, the defendant’s corporate des-
         ignee testified under oath, admitting that ‘‘[t]here was
         no basis in fact for [the defendant’s] accusation that
         [the plaintiff] was in any way responsible for causing
         the accident’’ and that the defendant ‘‘had known that
            1
              In the original complaint, the plaintiff also raised a claim of negligence
         against Smith but later withdrew it after she settled with Smith for his policy
         limits. Thus, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company was the only remaining
         defendant at the time it moved to dismiss the claims at issue—breach of
         the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction of
         emotional distress, and violation of CUTPA based on a violation of CUIPA.
         Therefore, we refer to Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company as the
         defendant.
Page 52                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text