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

2,340 chars

See, e.g., Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn. 530. This
         is consistent with our de novo review of a trial court’s
         ultimate legal conclusion and resulting determination
         of a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., MacDermid, Inc. v.
         Leonetti, supra, 626.
           We address in turn each of the plaintiff’s arguments
         as to each dismissed count.
                                      II
            The plaintiff’s claim for breach of the implied cove-
         nant of good faith and fair dealing appears in count
         three of her complaint. The plaintiff alleged that the
         defendant falsely responded to the complaint, including
         by asserting a special defense the defendant knew had
         no basis in fact, as well as falsely responding to interrog-
         atories and discovery requests. As a result, the defendant
         ‘‘used intentional misstatements, intentional misrepre-
         sentations, intentionally deceptive answers, and vio-
         lated 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 in order to further frus-
         trate [the plaintiff’s] ability to receive benefits due [to
         her] under her contract.’’ According to the plaintiff,
         through this conduct, the defendant (1) engaged in
         unfair, deceptive, and self-serving conduct, (2) deceit-
         fully and maliciously attributed responsibility for the
         car crash to the plaintiff, (3) compelled the plaintiff to
         resort to litigation to obtain her benefits, and (4) filed
         false and misleading answers in pleadings and discovery
         responses it knew had no basis in fact to prolong litiga-
         tion and to attempt to reduce the plaintiff’s insurance
         benefits.
           No appellate authority from this state addresses
         whether absolute immunity protects against this kind
         of claim. As a result, we must examine our case law,
         and the policies underpinning it, to determine whether
         the plaintiff’s good faith and fair dealing claim is more
Page 60                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text