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

2,458 chars

breach of contract claim, the defendant admitted liabil-
         ity, and a jury awarded the plaintiff $169,928.
            After the verdict, the defendant moved to dismiss the
         remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
         on the ground that the litigation privilege barred those
         claims. The trial court granted the motion in part and
         denied it in part. Specifically, as to the plaintiff’s claims
         for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing and negligent inflection of emotional dis-
         tress, the trial court held that, because the claims were
         predicated on communications and statements filed in
         the course of and related to a judicial proceeding, the
         litigation privilege applied. For the same reason, as to
         the plaintiff’s claim for violation of CUTPA based on a
         violation of CUIPA, the trial court determined that the
         allegations regarding a business practice of responding
         falsely to discovery requests also were privileged. The
         trial court determined, however, that, to the extent the
         plaintiff’s CUTPA claim alleged that the defendant main-
         tained an improper business practice of conditioning
         receipt of underinsured motorist benefits on the provi-
         sion of an affidavit of no excess insurance, in violation
         of General Statutes § 38a-336c (c), the litigation privi-
         lege did not bar such a claim because this practice did
         not occur during the judicial proceedings but occurred
         before the action commenced. Thus, the trial court
         granted the motion to dismiss except as to the plaintiff’s
         CUTPA claim to the extent it was premised on a viola-
         tion of § 38a-336c (c).
            The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s decision
         on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, but the Appellate
         Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment
         in light of the continued viability of the CUTPA claim.
         The plaintiff subsequently requested and received per-
         mission to amend her complaint to remove all allega-
         tions regarding the alleged violation of § 38a-336c (c).
         Because the alleged violation of § 38a-336c (c) was the
Page 54                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                             March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text