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

2,401 chars

there was nothing [the plaintiff] could have done to
          avoid the accident . . . .’’ The defendant’s designee
          also admitted that the defendant was aware that Guman
          had witnessed the accident and made a recorded state-
          ment but failed to disclose this information in its inter-
          rogatory responses. On the basis of this conduct, the
          plaintiff alleges that the defendant ‘‘used intentional
          misstatements, intentional misrepresentations, inten-
          tionally deceptive answers, and violated established
          rules of conduct in litigation,’’ and ‘‘knowingly and
          intentionally engaged in dishonest and sinister litigation
          practices by taking legal positions that were without
          factual support’’ to try to prevent the plaintiff from
          receiving the benefits owed to her under the contract.
            The defendant’s designee also testified under oath
          that, in addition to this misconduct, ‘‘[the defendant] did
          not single out [the plaintiff] for special or unique treat-
          ment when it conditioned [her] receipt of [underinsured
          motorist] benefits [on] the provision of an affidavit of
          no excess insurance but was instead pursuing conduct
          that Liberty Mutual Corporation routinely takes in its
          handling of claims from other policyholders as well.’’
          Similarly, the defendant’s designee ‘‘testified under oath
          that [the defendant] did not single out [the plaintiff] for
          special or unique treatment when it responded falsely
          to [her] discovery requests.’’
             Following this deposition, the trial court granted the
          plaintiff permission to amend her complaint to include
          claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
          and fair dealing, negligent infliction of emotional dis-
          tress, and violation of CUTPA based on a violation of
          CUIPA. The defendant moved to bifurcate the breach
          of contract claim from the extracontractual claims,
          which the trial court granted. Prior to trial on the breach
          of contract claim, the defendant withdrew its special
          defense of contributory negligence. At trial on the
March 29, 2022            CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 53

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text