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

2,624 chars

between insurer and insured, characterized by elements
         of public interest, adhesion, and fiduciary responsibil-
         ity’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. (citing cases).
         This ‘‘special relationship’’ arises because ‘‘[a]n insur-
         ance policy is not obtained for commercial advantage;
         it is obtained as protection against calamity. [Moreover]
         [i]n securing the reasonable expectations of the insured
         under the insurance policy there is usually an unequal
         bargaining position between the insured and the insur-
         ance company. . . . [Finally] the insured is [often] in
         an especially vulnerable economic position when such
         a casualty loss occurs.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
         ted.) Id.; see Reynolds v. American Hardware Mutual
         Ins. Co., 115 Idaho 362, 365, 766 P.2d 1243 (1988) (citing
         cases from other jurisdictions); Arnold v. National
         County Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 725 S.W.2d 165, 167 (Tex.
         1987) (‘‘[i]n the insurance context a special relationship
         arises out of the parties’ unequal bargaining power and
         the nature of insurance contracts which would allow
         unscrupulous insurers to take advantage of their insureds’
         misfortunes in bargaining for settlement or resolution
         of claims’’); see also footnote 3 of this opinion.
           Although this court has yet to speak on the precise
         nature of the duty in the context of first-party (insured
         versus insurer) claims,7 there can be no doubt that insur-
         ance contracts impose a duty of good faith and fair
         dealing on the insurer that will support an independent
         cause of action. See Buckman v. People Express, Inc.,
         205 Conn. 166, 170, 530 A.2d 596 (1987) (‘‘[a]n implied
         covenant of good faith and fair dealing has been applied
         by this court in a variety of contractual relationships,
         including . . . insurance contracts’’ (internal quota-
            7
              We have observed in dictum that ‘‘an insurer generally has a fiduciary
         relationship with its insured.’’ State v. Acordia, Inc., 310 Conn. 1, 37, 73
         A.3d 711 (2013). But see Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp.,
         261 Conn. 620, 641, 804 A.2d 180 (2002) (‘‘[j]urisdictions are split on the
         issue of whether an insurer owes a fiduciary duty to its insured; our case
         law is silent on this issue’’).
Page 92                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL               March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text