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

2,408 chars

We since have recognized that absolute immunity
extends to an array of retaliatory civil actions beyond
claims of defamation, including intentional interference
with contractual or beneficial relations arising from
statements made during a civil action, intentional inflic-
tion of emotional distress arising from statements made
during judicial proceedings, and fraud against attorneys
or party opponents for their actions during litigation.
See id., 628; Tyler v. Tatoian, 164 Conn. App. 82, 92,
137 A.3d 801, cert. denied, 321 Conn. 908, 135 A.3d 710
(2016). This expansion is premised on the rationale that,
‘‘because the privilege protects the communication, the
nature of the theory [on which the challenge is based]
is irrelevant.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation
marks omitted.) MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, supra,
310 Conn. 628.
This court in Simms, however, explained that there
are limits to the application of the litigation privilege.
See Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn. 540–41. Specifi-
cally, the litigation privilege does not bar claims for
abuse of process, vexatious litigation, and malicious
prosecution. Id., 540–42. This is because ‘‘whether and
what form of immunity applies in any given case is a
matter of policy that requires a balancing of interests
. . . .’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks
omitted.) Id., 541–42.
Specifically, Simms identified the following factors
as relevant to any determination of whether policy con-
siderations support applying absolute immunity to any
particular cause of action:3 (1) whether the alleged con-
duct subverts the underlying purpose of a judicial pro-
ceeding in a similar way to how conduct constituting
abuse of process and vexatious litigation subverts that
3
These factors, to the extent relevant, apply regardless of whether the
action is against an attorney, party opponent, or witness. See MacDermid,
Inc. v. Leonetti, supra, 310 Conn. 630–31.
March 29, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 57

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text