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

2,893 chars

the exceedingly weak nature of the plaintiff’s CUIPA
          based allegations in the present case, acknowledging
          that this could be a ‘‘closer case’’ if the plaintiff had alleged
          a different CUIPA claim. Part IV of the majority opinion.
          I believe that a well pleaded CUIPA/CUTPA claim alleg-
          ing unfair claim settlement practices encompassing liti-
          gation misconduct would present a very different case
          indeed. Whatever the ultimate outcome may be when such
          a case presents itself, I feel compelled to explain why we
          should exercise care to make sure that our narrow holding
          in the present case does not impinge on our ability to
          conduct the necessary analysis at that time.
                                               II
                                               A
             I first address part II of the majority opinion, in which
          the majority concluded that the litigation privilege bars
          the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the implied covenant
          of good faith and fair dealing. I begin with a review of
          the governing legal principles. Numerous courts have
          recognized that, generally speaking, an insurer has an
          obligation to its insureds that goes beyond an ordinary
          contractual obligation. See, e.g., Best Place, Inc. v. Penn
          America Ins. Co., 82 Haw. 120, 128, 920 P.2d 334 (1996)
          (‘‘some courts have emphasized the special relationship
          of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the
          amount awarded in arbitration; (L) delaying the investigation or payment
          of claims by requiring an insured, claimant, or the physician of either to
          submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring the subsequent submis-
          sion of formal proof of loss forms, both of which submissions contain
          substantially the same information; (M) failing to promptly settle claims,
          where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insur-
          ance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions
          of the insurance policy coverage; (N) failing to promptly provide a reasonable
          explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or
          applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settle-
          ment; (O) using as a basis for cash settlement with a first party automobile
          insurance claimant an amount which is less than the amount which the
          insurer would pay if repairs were made unless such amount is agreed to
          by the insured or provided for by the insurance policy.’’
March 29, 2022                CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 91

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text