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

2,464 chars

untrue statement. See Simms v. Seaman, supra, 548.
Additionally, the fact that the plaintiff’s claim involves
dishonesty does not make it akin to a claim of vexatious
litigation. As we explained, the nature of the communi-
cations, even if dishonest, false, or malicious, does not
affect the applicability of the privilege.
Additionally, the elements of the plaintiff’s claim do
not include safeguards such as those found in a vexa-
tious litigation claim: for example, that the prior action
was brought without probable cause or that it termi-
nated in the plaintiff’s favor. The plaintiff does not dis-
pute this. Rather, she argues that she alleged sufficient
facts to satisfy the stringent vexatious litigation ele-
ments, and, thus, as alleged, her claim is equivalent
to a claim for vexatious litigation, including all of its
safeguards. Specifically, she argues that her allegation
that the defendant knew it had no factual basis to allege
the special defense of contributory negligence was the
equivalent of alleging a lack of probable cause under
a vexatious litigation claim. She also argues that the
fact that the underlying claim for breach of contract
resulted in a verdict in her favor is the equivalent of
an underlying proceeding terminating in her favor.
The question, however, is not whether her factual
allegations are similar to the allegations necessary to
raise a claim for vexatious litigation but whether the
elements of the claim she has alleged provide similar
safeguards to balance the competing interests at stake.
See Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn. 545. The fact
that the plaintiff alleged facts that may have been suffi-
cient to support a claim for vexatious litigation does
not prevent the litigation privilege from applying to the
claim alleged. See Perugini v. Giuliano, supra, 148
Conn. App. 874–75 (holding that absolute immunity
barred claim alleging that defendant attorney engaged
in misconduct for purpose of personal financial gain
but noting that plaintiff may have been able to, but did
Page 72 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text