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

1,291 chars

ECKER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
          The majority concludes that the common-law litigation
          privilege bars the claims of the plaintiff, Tamara Dorf-
          man, against the defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insur-
          which ‘‘are effectively in the business of litigation.’’ First, it is worth noting
          that this court consistently has applied the litigation privilege to attorneys,
          who, without a doubt, are in the business of litigation. See Simms v. Seaman,
          supra, 308 Conn. 540–45; see also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424–29,
          96 S. Ct. 984, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128 (1976). Moreover, by enacting CUIPA, the
          legislature has taken explicit action to regulate insurance companies, includ-
          ing by authorizing the Commissioner of Insurance to take administrative
          action in response to the conduct alleged while not explicitly creating a
          private right of action. Thus, we are hard-pressed to conclude that the
          unique status of insurance companies requires, as a matter of public policy,
          exempting them from the litigation privilege under these circumstances.
March 29, 2022                CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 85

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text