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

2,680 chars

news. The issues under consideration are complex, and
         there is strong authority for the proposition that, in a
         case involving more robust factual allegations, conduct
         that is designed to harass or delay an insured can consti-
         tute abuse of process.19 See part II C of this opinion
         (addressing authorities at length.) In addition, multiple
         courts have held that litigation conduct by an insurance
         company that is designed to coerce the withdrawal of
         a claim or a settlement unfavorable to the plaintiff may
         give rise to a claim of bad faith.20 I see no reason why
         a CUTPA claim based on the systematic use of litigation
         for these purposes should be barred merely because
         the underlying litigation pursued by the insured was
         properly brought. Indeed, this point seems especially
         strong because the legislature has expressly recognized
         that an insurance company can engage in an unfair
         claim settlement practice by forcing an insured into
         litigation in order to obtain his or her contractual bene-
         fits. See General Statutes § 38a-816 (6) (G) (listing as
         prohibited unfair claim settlement practice ‘‘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’’). This statutory provision
         means that an insurance company, unlike other liti-
         gants, can abuse the litigation system merely by compel-
         ling an insured to resort to that system as a means of
         ‘‘dispute’’ resolution.
         based on other litigation misconduct designed to harass the plaintiff or delay
         the proceedings would be barred. See part II of this opinion.
            19
               See, e.g., General Refractories Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., supra,
         337 F.3d 308; Crackel v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 208 Ariz. 258–59; Givens
         v. Mullikin ex rel. Estate of McElwaney, supra, 75 S.W.3d 401–402.
            20
               See Tucson Airport Authority v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Lon-
         don, supra, 186 Ariz. 48; Gooch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.,
         supra, 712 N.E.2d 43; Federated Mutual Ins. Co. v. Anderson, supra, 297
         Mont. 43–44; O’Donnell ex rel. Mitro v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra, 734 A.2d
         906; Poling v. Motorists Mutual Ins. Co., supra, 192 W. Va. 48.
Page 114                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text