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

2,419 chars

I would further note that, because §§ 52-99 and 52-568
           make it clear that it is the strong public policy of this
           state to discourage dishonesty during the litigation pro-
           cess, those statutes support the plaintiff’s argument
           that the privilege does not bar a claim that an insurance
           company violated its obligation of good faith by engag-
           ing in such conduct.
              To summarize, I do not agree with the majority’s
           conclusion that the plaintiff’s bad faith claim is prem-
           ised exclusively on false statements in the course of
           the litigation and, instead, would conclude that the
           plaintiff has adequately alleged a bad faith claim based
           on conduct entirely outside of the litigation. Even if I
           agreed with the conclusion that the plaintiff’s bad faith
           claim is barred because it is premised exclusively on
           false statements in the course of the litigation, I would
           not agree with the remainder of the majority’s analysis.
           I therefore dissent from part II of the majority opinion.
           Because the defendant makes no claim that an insur-
           ance company’s bad faith conduct outside the context
           of litigation cannot provide the basis for a claim of
           negligent infliction of emotional distress, I would also
           conclude that the allegations in count four of the plain-
           tiff’s complaint are sufficient to withstand a motion to
           dismiss. If the plaintiff could demonstrate at trial that
           the defendant acted in bad faith within the meaning of
           Connecticut law, I believe that she would be entitled
           to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional
           distress on that basis. Accordingly, I also dissent from
           part III of the majority opinion.
                                       III
              I next address part IV of the majority opinion address-
           ing the plaintiff’s CUIPA/CUTPA claim. To put the mat-
           ter directly, I am concerned that the majority’s discus-
           sion of the litigation privilege in this case will be
           extended to CUIPA/CUTPA cases involving allegations
March 29, 2022                  CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                        Page 109

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text