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

3,478 chars
claim more closely resembles an abuse of process claim
         than claims to which we have applied the litigation privi-
         lege, such as defamation and fraud, and is sufficient to
         survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, I dissent from
         part II of the majority opinion.5
            With respect to the plaintiff’s CUTPA claim, I agree
         that her particular allegations fail to plead a general
         business practice triggering a CUIPA violation. I there-
         fore concur in part IV of the majority opinion. I write
         separately to emphasize my view that this limited hold-
         ing, based on insufficient pleading, in no way requires a
         similar conclusion were a plaintiff to make more robust
         allegations of litigation misconduct occurring as part of
         an insurance company’s unfair claim settlement practices
         under § 38a-816 (6).6 The majority accurately describes
           5
              Because the plaintiff’s claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress
         is premised on the conduct that forms the basis of her bad faith claim, I also
         would conclude that the negligent infliction claim is sufficient to withstand
         a motion to dismiss. I therefore dissent from part III of the majority opinion,
         as well.
            6
              General Statutes § 38a-816 (6) defines ‘‘unfair claim settlement practices’’
         as follows: ‘‘Committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a
         general business practice any of the following: (A) Misrepresenting pertinent
         facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue; (B) failing
         to acknowledge and act with reasonable promptness upon communications
         with respect to claims arising under insurance policies; (C) failing to adopt
         and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims
         arising under insurance policies; (D) refusing to pay claims without conduct-
         ing a reasonable investigation based upon all available information; (E)
         failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time after
         proof of loss statements have been completed; (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; (H) attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount
         to which a reasonable man would have believed he was entitled by reference
         to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an
         application; (I) attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application
         which was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of the insured;
         (J) making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied
         by statements setting forth the coverage under which the payments are
         being made; (K) making known to insureds or claimants a policy of appealing
         from arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose
Page 90                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                            March 29, 2022
Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text
