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

2,469 chars

extreme, outrageous, or malicious. See id., 838–39; Pet-
          yan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243, 254–55, 510 A.2d 1337 (1986).
             To the extent the plaintiff’s claim is premised on
          false statements contained in pleadings and documents
          related to the litigation—such as the allegedly false
          statements contained in the defendant’s answer, special
          defense, and discovery responses—the privilege clearly
          applies. The plaintiff makes no argument that these
          statements were not related to or made in the course
          of the litigation of her underinsured motorist insurance
          claim. This is logical given that a defendant’s answer,
          special defense, and discovery responses clearly are
          relevant to and made during the underlying litigation.
             The plaintiff argues, however, that her claim is not
          premised on false communications but on misconduct—
          specifically, that the defendant intentionally withheld
          information from its attorneys and thus knew that the
          answer, special defense, and discovery responses were
          false and had no basis in fact. We are not persuaded.
          The crux of the plaintiff’s claim remains false communi-
          cations, regardless of how the defendant went about
          making those false communications. For example,
          immunity would apply if either (1) the defendant’s attor-
          neys had made these statements but knew them to be
          false, or (2) the defendant, in the underlying litigation,
          had made these same misrepresentations in the plead-
          ings and discovery responses. See DeLaurentis v. New
          Haven, supra, 220 Conn. 264 (‘‘a party . . . is not liable
          for the words used in the pleadings and documents used
          to prosecute the suit’’); Petyan v. Ellis, supra, 200 Conn.
          251–52 (‘‘it applies to statements made in pleadings or
          other documents prepared in connection with a court
          proceeding’’); Alexandru v. Strong, 81 Conn. App. 68,
          83, 837 A.2d 875 (‘‘The privilege applies . . . to state-
          ments made in pleadings or other documents prepared
          in connection with a court proceeding. . . . That abso-
          lute privilege applies regardless of whether the repre-
March 29, 2022           CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 67

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text