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

2,434 chars

tion marks omitted)). Buckman explained: ‘‘[T]his court
          recognizes an independent cause of action in tort arising
          from an insurer’s [common-law] duty of good faith.
          This cause of action is separate and distinct from the
          plaintiff’s statutory claims. See Magnan v. Anaconda
          Industries, Inc., 193 Conn. 558, 566, 479 A.2d 781 (1984);
          Burgess v. Vanguard Ins. Co., 192 Conn. 124, 127, 470
          A.2d 244 (1984); Bibeault v. Hanover Ins. Co., 417 A.2d
          313 (R.I. 1980). An ‘implied covenant of good faith and
          fair dealing has been applied by this court in a variety
          of contractual relationships, including . . . insurance
          contracts; Hoyt v. Factory Mutual Liberty Ins. Co., 120
          Conn. 156, 159, 179 A. 842 (1935); Bartlett v. Travelers
          Ins. Co., 117 Conn. 147, 155, 167 A. 180 (1933); cf. Grand
          Sheet Metal Products Co. v. Protection Mutual Ins. Co.,
          34 Conn. [Supp.] 46, 375 A.2d 428 (1977) . . . .’ Magnan
          v. Anaconda Industries, Inc., supra [566]; see also 2
          Restatement (Second), Contracts § 205 [p. 99 (1981)];
          43 Am. Jur. 2d [224–28], Insurance §§ 141, 142 [1982];
          3 [M. Rhodes, Couch on Insurance (2d Ed. 1984)] § 25.32
          [pp. 327–31].’’ Buckman v. People Express, Inc., supra,
          170–71.
             More recently, we have summarized the elements of
          such a claim, again in the insurance context: ‘‘[I]t is
          axiomatic that . . . every contract carries an implied
          duty requiring that neither party do anything that will
          injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of
          the agreement. . . . The covenant of good faith and
          fair dealing presupposes that the terms and purpose of
          the contract are agreed [on] by the parties and that
          what is in dispute is a party’s discretionary application
          or interpretation of a contract term. . . .
            ‘‘To constitute a breach of [the implied covenant of
          good faith and fair dealing], the acts by which a defen-
          dant allegedly impedes the plaintiff’s right to receive
          benefits that he or she reasonably expected to receive
          under the contract must have been taken in bad faith.
March 29, 2022           CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 93

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text