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

2,518 chars

ion, CUIPA expressly identifies such conduct as an
unfair claim settlement practice if it is part of a general
business practice. See General Statutes § 38a-816 (6)
(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’’ is unfair
claim settlement practice). Although a single instance
of such conduct does not give rise to a CUIPA violation
in the absence of a general business practice, an insur-
er’s refusal to honor a contractual obligation to pay
a claim for no good reason does constitute bad faith
conduct sufficient to state a claim for breach under our
common law. See Capstone Building Corp. v. Ameri-
can Motorists Ins. Co., supra, 308 Conn. 795 (refusal
to perform express contractual obligation not prompted
by honest mistake constitutes bad faith). I would there-
fore conclude that these allegations—which do not
implicate the litigation privilege because they do not
involve any litigation conduct by the defendant—are
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
The majority, in my view, fails to acknowledge that
the contractual obligations of liability insurance compa-
nies to their insureds are treated differently under Con-
necticut law than the obligations of most other contracting
parties. Many parties may risk nothing more than contrac-
tual liability if they choose to meet a legitimate contractual
demand with the time-honored response, ‘‘so sue me.’’
An insurance company defending a first-party claim is
different because it is subject to a higher duty under
our common law and can incur liability if it compels
its insured to resort to litigation to obtain payment due
insurance policy . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) I take these allegations, liber-
ally but fairly construed, to state a claim that the plaintiff was contractually
entitled to obtain payment of her claim without resorting to litigation but
was left no choice by the defendant’s prelitigation conduct to commence
litigation to obtain what was rightfully hers.
Page 96 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text