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

2,573 chars

that an unscrupulous insurance company is engaging
in unfair claim settlement practices, in whole or in part,
by purposely utilizing the litigation process, or particu-
lar litigation tactics, as an integral part of a general
business with that objective. I genuinely appreciate the
majority’s effort to acknowledge the limited scope of
its holding,17 and, in light of that caveat, I may be over-
reacting to the possibility that its holding will be
extended to the situation I describe. A cautionary note
seems prudent nonetheless. In part III A, I express my
disappointment that the majority reaches the question
at all of whether the litigation privilege applies to the
CUIPA/CUTPA claim, as alleged in count five of the
plaintiff’s complaint; in my estimation, that claim is
legally insufficient wholly apart from any issue of privi-
lege. Part III B of this opinion takes issue with certain
language used by the majority that I consider unneces-
sary to the opinion and better left to a case in which
the issues addressed are properly before the court.
A
In my view, there is no need to address the litigation
privilege at all in connection with the CUIPA/CUTPA
claim, as alleged by the plaintiff in the present case.
The majority correctly observes that the only part of
the plaintiff’s complaint coming anywhere close to
asserting a CUIPA violation are her allegations that
(1) the defendant responded falsely to the plaintiff’s
discovery requests, and (2) this conduct represents a
general business practice because the defendant admit-
17
I refer in particular to the following passage in the majority opinion: ‘‘This
[holding] does not mean . . . that a defendant enjoys absolute immunity
for all CUTPA claims under the litigation privilege, even those premised on
a violation of CUIPA. Rather, we merely hold that this specific claim—a
business practice of filing false discovery responses—is afforded absolute
immunity. . . . Our holding leaves open the possibility that other CUTPA
claims may not be barred by absolute immunity under the litigation privi-
lege.’’ Part IV of the majority opinion.
Page 110 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text