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

2,444 chars

The plaintiff nevertheless argues that this bad faith
          element is equivalent to the malicious intent element of
          a vexatious litigation claim, requiring that the defendant
          acted ‘‘primarily for a purpose other than that of bring-
          ing an offender to justice’’; Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn.
          338, 347, 927 A.2d 304 (2007); because bad faith is defined
          as ‘‘more than mere negligence; it involves a dishonest
          purpose.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) This argu-
          ment misses the mark because the plaintiff does not fully
          define ‘‘bad faith’’ in the context of a breach of the
          implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim.
          This court has explained that, in relation to such a
          claim, ‘‘[b]ad faith in general implies . . . actual or con-
          structive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another,
          or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some
          contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mis-
          take as to one’s rights or duties, but by some interested
          or sinister motive. . . . Bad faith means more than mere
          negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose.’’ (Emphasis
          added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Geysen v.
          Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., supra, 322
          Conn. 399–400.
             This more complete definition of bad faith demon-
          strates that this claim is more akin to a claim of fraud,
          to which our appellate courts have applied the litigation
          privilege. See Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn.
          568–69; Tyler v. Tatoian, supra, 164 Conn. App. 91–92.
          If a claim of breach of the implied covenant of good
          faith and fair dealing may be premised on fraud in
          relation to a contract, and claims of fraud are afforded
          absolute immunity, it is logical that the immunity like-
          wise extends to claims of breach of the implied cove-
          nant of good faith and fair dealing. As to the other
          ways to establish the element of bad faith—misleading,
          deceiving, or acting with a sinister or interested
          motive—such conduct is similar to the requirement of
          a fraud claim that the defendant knowingly made an
March 29, 2022           CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 71

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text