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

2,551 chars

These holdings are in line with case law from other
jurisdictions, the majority of which have applied the
litigation privilege to both common-law and statutory
causes of action, including claims for unfair trade prac-
tices brought pursuant to the jurisdiction’s analogue to
CUTPA. See, e.g., Graham v. U.S. Bank, National Assn.,
Docket No. 3:15-cv-0990-AC, 2015 WL 10322087, *16 (D.
Or. December 2, 2015) (‘‘Statutory torts are subject to
the litigation privilege. Where the Oregon legislature
explicitly or implicitly creates a cause of action for
violating state law, such a cause of action is a statutory
tort [including state law claims for trespass to chattels
and under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act].’’);
Trent v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1360 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (holding
that litigation privilege ‘‘precludes communications
attached to or made part of a foreclosure complaint
from forming the basis of [an unfair trade practices
claim]’’ but does not preclude such a claim premised
on presuit communications), aff’d, 288 Fed. Appx. 571
(11th Cir. 2008); PSN Illinois, Inc. v. Ivoclar Vivadent,
Inc., Docket No. 04 C 7232, 2005 WL 2347209, *6 (N.D.
Ill. September 21, 2005) (‘‘the litigation privilege also
precludes [the defendant’s] deceptive trade practices
claim based on statements made in the course of litiga-
tion’’). But see Barefield v. DPIC Cos., 215 W. Va. 544,
554, 600 S.E.2d 256 (2004) (‘‘insurance company’s prose-
cution of a meritless appeal could be used to support
a claim for unfair trade practices’’ (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Under this precedent, the litigation privilege bars
CUTPA claims, like the claim at issue, premised solely
on general allegations of intentionally false discovery
responses because these claims merely challenge the
making of false statements. Additionally, there are other
remedies available to deter the alleged conduct.18 See
18
The concurrence and dissent argues that these other remedies are insuf-
ficient, especially in light of the unique nature of insurance companies,
Page 84 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text