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

2,996 chars

If the plaintiff’s complaint actually contained such alle-
          gations of a general business practice, perhaps this might
          have been a closer case. But we have scoured the plain-
          tiff’s complaint in search of these allegations about the
          defendant’s business practices to no avail. Although
          there are allegations that, in the plaintiff’s particular
          case, the defendant intentionally concealed information
          and evidence from its attorneys and alleged the special
          defense of contributory negligence despite knowing this
          allegation to be false, there are no allegations in the
          plaintiff’s complaint that this conduct occurred with
          such frequency as to constitute a general business prac-
          tice, despite the trial court’s having permitted the plain-
          tiff to amend her complaint to include a claimed
          violation of CUTPA after she learned of the defendant’s
          conduct through discovery. Rather, the plaintiff’s allega-
          tions regarding this conduct are limited to the defen-
          dant’s conduct in this case alone.
             The plaintiff alleged only that the defendant ‘‘did not
          single [her] out . . . for special or unique treatment
          when it responded falsely to [her] discovery requests.’’16
          The plaintiff then alleged that such conduct constituted
          a general business practice. Even if we assume that
          these allegations are sufficient to allege that this con-
          duct occurred with such frequency as to indicate a
          general business practice,17 the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim,
          as alleged, is barred by the doctrine of absolute immu-
          nity under the litigation privilege.
             16
                By contrast, in her second amended complaint, the plaintiff set forth
          more detailed allegations regarding how the defendant had a business prac-
          tice of conditioning receipt of underinsured motorist benefits on the provi-
          sion of an affidavit of no excess insurance. Specifically, in addition to alleging
          that the defendant ‘‘did not single out [her] for special or unique treatment,’’
          the plaintiff alleged that, in not doing so, the defendant was ‘‘pursuing
          conduct that [the defendant] routinely takes in its handling of claims from
          other policyholders as well.’’
             17
                The defendant never filed a motion to strike or argued in the alternative
          that the plaintiff alleged insufficient frequency to establish a business prac-
          tice in regard to her allegation that the defendant ‘‘did not single [her] out
          . . . for special or unique treatment when it responded falsely to [her]
          discovery requests.’’ Accordingly, we do not address this issue.
March 29, 2022           CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 81

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text