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

2,479 chars

have recognized that an insurance company’s obligation
         to investigate and settle claims in good faith does not
         end when litigation begins. See, e.g., Tucson Airport
         Authority v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London,
         186 Ariz. 45, 48, 918 P.2d 1063 (App. 1996) (‘‘[t]he duties
         [of good faith and fair dealing] would be rendered mean-
         ingless if . . . the litigation privilege could be
         employed to excuse a breach of those duties, which
         occurs as part of the conduct of a coverage action’’),
         review denied, Arizona Supreme Court, Docket No. 2
         CA-CV 95-0052 (June 19, 1996); Gooch v. State Farm
         Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 712 N.E.2d 38, 43 (Ind.
         App. 1999) (insurance company’s intentional refusal to
         investigate matter relevant to claim in order to provide
         counsel with ‘‘a ‘litigation position’ ’’ could support bad
         faith claim), transfer denied, 735 N.E.2d 223 (Ind. 2000);
         Federated Mutual Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 297 Mont. 33,
         43, 991 P.2d 915 (1999) (jury could consider insurance
         company’s frivolous appeal as evidence of bad faith
         conduct);14 O’Donnell ex rel. Mitro v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
         734 A.2d 901, 906 (Pa. Super. 1999) (‘‘bad faith suits are
         not restricted to the denial of claims, but, rather, may
         extend to the misconduct of an insurer during the pen-
         dency of litigation’’ (internal quotation marks omitted));
         Poling v. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co., 192 W. Va. 46, 48,
         450 S.E.2d 635 (1994) (plaintiff is not precluded from
         bringing bad faith action based on insurance company’s
         litigation conduct).
            The majority states that the litigation privilege applies
         in this case because the plaintiff’s bad faith claim ‘‘does
         not require the plaintiff to challenge either the purpose
         of the underlying litigation or the purpose of a particular
         judicial procedure.’’ Part II A of the majority opinion.
         This assertion is flatly incorrect. To prevail on her claim
           14
              Thus, even if litigation misconduct in furtherance of an unfair claim
         settlement practice cannot provide the basis for a bad faith violation, it
         should be admissible as evidence of one.
Page 106                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text