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

2,528 chars

Relevant to the present claim, CUIPA prohibits unfair
claim settlement practices, which the legislature has
defined as ‘‘[c]ommitting or performing with such fre-
quency as to indicate a general business practice any
of the following: (A) [m]isrepresenting pertinent facts
or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at
issue . . . (C) failing to adopt and implement reason-
able standards for the prompt investigation of claims
arising under insurance policies; (D) refusing to pay
claims without conducting a reasonable investigation
based [on] all available information . . . (F) not
attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and
equitable settlements of claims in which liability has
become reasonably clear; (G) compelling insureds to
institute litigation to recover amounts due under an
insurance policy by offering substantially less than the
amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by
such insureds . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Stat-
utes § 38a-816 (6). To establish that the improper con-
duct occurred with ‘‘such frequency as to indicate a
general business practice’’; (emphasis added) General
Statutes § 38a-816 (6); the plaintiff must allege and
establish more than a single act of insurance miscon-
duct. See, e.g., State v. Acordia, Inc., 310 Conn. 1, 28,
73 A.3d 711 (2013) (‘‘CUIPA requires ‘a showing of more
than a single act of insurance misconduct’ ’’).
At oral argument before this court, the plaintiff’s
appellate counsel, in response to a question, repre-
sented that the plaintiff’s complaint contained an allega-
tion that the defendant has a business practice of
withholding information from its attorneys to ensure
false pleadings, as well as a business practice of alleging
contributory negligence as a special defense in response
to every claim, even if it knows the allegation is false.
The plaintiff argued that this alleged conduct was not
premised on false communications during and related
to judicial proceedings but constituted unfair conduct
that CUIPA and CUTPA were specifically designed to
protect against.
Page 80 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text