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

2,712 chars

trial court has the inherent power to provide for the
imposition of reasonable sanctions, to compel the
observance of its rules’’). Further, as we noted in
Simms, a party may file a motion to open a judgment
on the ground that the judgment was obtained by fraud
or intentional, material misrepresentation. See Simms
v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn. 552. In addition, as we
noted in DeLaurentis, ‘‘[p]arties and their counsel who
abuse the process by bringing unfounded actions for
personal motives are subject to civil liability for vexa-
tious suit or abuse of process.’’ DeLaurentis v. New
Haven, supra, 264. Importantly, in the present case,
upon a prior action terminating in her favor, the plaintiff
could have brought a lawsuit for vexatious litigation.
In fact, that is what she did. These other remedies belie
the plaintiff’s argument that, if immunity is granted, this
court will open the floodgates to insurance companies
using the litigation privilege as a loophole to engage in
misconduct and deprive insureds of their contractual
benefits.
In sum, because the plaintiff’s claim for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is
premised on false communications, does not challenge
the purpose underlying a judicial proceeding, is more
akin to a claim for defamation or fraud, and may be
addressed by other remedies, we conclude that the trial
court properly applied the litigation privilege.
III
For the same reasons, we conclude that the trial court
properly applied the litigation privilege to the plaintiff’s
claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Con-
necticut appellate courts consistently have held that
claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress14
14
The elements of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress
are: ‘‘(1) the defendant’s conduct created an unreasonable risk of causing
the plaintiff emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s distress was foreseeable;
(3) the emotional distress was severe enough that it might result in illness or
bodily harm; and (4) the defendant’s conduct was the cause of the plaintiff’s
distress.’’ Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., 262 Conn. 433, 444, 815 A.2d 119 (2003).
March 29, 2022 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 77

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text