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

2,577 chars

premised on communications made during and relevant
to an underlying judicial proceeding are afforded abso-
lute immunity. See, e.g., Bruno v. Travelers Cos., supra,
172 Conn. App. 719, 727; Perugini v. Giuliano, supra,
148 Conn. App. 873–74; Stone v. Pattis, supra, 144 Conn.
App. 99–100; see also Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308
Conn. 569–70 (applying litigation privilege to claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress premised on
communication made during and relevant to underlying
judicial proceeding).
In the present case, the plaintiff’s allegations in sup-
port of this claim incorporate the same allegations she
made in her claim for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing. In light of our holding in
Simms that that claim is premised on communications
made during and relevant to an underlying judicial pro-
ceeding, the same analysis and holding apply here. See
Simms v. Seaman, supra, 308 Conn. 570. Accordingly,
the trial court properly applied the litigation privilege
to the plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emo-
tional distress.
IV
The plaintiff’s final count, asserting a violation of
CUTPA based on a violation of CUIPA, presents a more
difficult issue. To address this issue, it is important first
to specify the allegations advanced in support of this
count. The plaintiff incorporated by reference the alle-
gations she made in support of her claim for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Additionally, she alleged that the defendant’s designee
‘‘testified under oath that [the defendant] did not single
out [the plaintiff] for special or unique treatment when
it responded falsely to [her] discovery requests.’’15
15
At the time of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the complaint also
alleged that the defendant’s representative ‘‘testified under oath that [the
defendant] did not single out [the plaintiff] for special or unique treatment
when it conditioned [her] receipt of [underinsured motorist] benefits [on]
the provision of an affidavit of no excess insurance . . . .’’ The trial court
Page 78 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text