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

3,194 chars

information. The plaintiffs argued that their claim was
premised on deceptive and unfair conduct, not false
communications. See id. The Appellate Court disagreed,
concluding that the alleged conduct constituted ‘‘com-
munications made within the context of a judicial pro-
ceeding,’’ even though the false communications were
the result of an alleged conspiracy to withhold informa-
tion. Id., 99.
The present case is similar to Stone.10 The plaintiff’s
claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing is premised on the defendant’s false
communication of information to its attorneys, leading
to misrepresentations and deceptive answers filed in
pleadings and documents during the course of litigation.
That the defendant knew these communications were
false and did not take steps to notify its attorneys of
the truth does not preclude application of the litigation
10
By contrast, the plaintiff argues that her claim is more analogous to the
claim raised in Fiondella v. Meriden, 186 Conn. App. 552, 555, 200 A.3d 196
(2018), cert. denied, 330 Conn. 961, 199 A.3d 20 (2019), because both alleged
intentional concealment and deceitful conduct. We disagree. In Fiondella,
the defendants successfully brought an action seeking a declaratory judg-
ment that they were the legal owners of a portion of land by operation of
the doctrine of adverse possession. Id. The plaintiffs in Fiondella, who were
not parties in the underlying declaratory judgment action, subsequently
brought claims of fraud, slander of title, and civil conspiracy against the
defendants, alleging that the defendants intentionally concealed the declara-
tory judgment action from them, contrary to their property rights and inter-
ests. Id., 559–60. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
of absolute privilege, which the trial court granted. Id., 556. The Appellate
Court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that absolute immunity
did not apply to bar the plaintiffs’ claims. In so holding, the Appellate Court
relied on the following facts: (1) the plaintiffs were not parties to or involved
in the underlying declaratory judgment action; (2) the claims were solely
premised on conduct, not communications; and (3) the alleged fraud did
not occur during the pendency of a judicial proceeding between these parties.
See id., 561–62. The Appellate Court emphasized that ‘‘ ‘[the privilege]
extends to bar claims of fraud against a party opponent.’ ’’ Id., 562. The
present case clearly involves alleged dishonesty of a party opponent. Addi-
tionally, as discussed, the plaintiff’s claim is not premised solely on conduct
but on false communications.
March 29, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 69

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text