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

2,510 chars

My point is not that there is a perfect identity between
           an abuse of process claim and a well pleaded CUIPA/
           CUTPA claim alleging that the defendant has engaged
           in unfair claim settlement practices effectuated, in whole
           or part, through a business practice involving litigation
           misconduct. A perfect fit is not required to make the
           litigation privilege inapplicable, or, otherwise, the majori-
           ty’s analysis could be stated in one sentence: a CUIPA/
           CUTPA claim is barred because every claim is barred
           that does not state a cause of action for vexatious litiga-
           tion or abuse of process. As the majority recognizes,
           the proper inquiry, rather, is whether, when viewed in
           its factual context, the plaintiff’s claim—whether it be
           for fraud, tortious interference, or a statutory viola-
           tion—is more like a claim for defamation or fraud, on
           the one hand, or a claim for vexatious litigation or
           abuse of process, on the other. See MacDermid, Inc.
           v. Leonetti, supra, 310 Conn. 631 (considering whether
           ‘‘the allegations in the counterclaim [for retaliation]
           are more akin to an abuse of process claim [than] a
           defamation or tortious interference claim’’ (internal
           quotation marks omitted)); Simms v. Seaman, supra,
           308 Conn. 547–51 (analyzing whether fraud is similar
           to defamation for purposes of litigation privilege). We
           cannot resolve the inquiry in the abstract with respect
           to some future CUIPA/CUTPA claim, and I do not intend
           to suggest a definitive answer here. I am convinced
           only that it is a real issue and has not yet been properly
           presented or briefed before this court.
             With respect to the issue of alternative remedies, the
           legislature enacted CUTPA with the intent ‘‘of encourag-
           ing litigants to act as private attorneys general’’ to com-
           bat systemic unfair business practices. Stone v. East
           Coast Swappers, LLC, 337 Conn. 589, 605, 255 A.3d 851
           (2020). It undermines this intent to limit a plaintiff’s
           remedies to sanctions, grievance proceedings and con-
           tempt proceedings restricted to particular acts of miscon-
March 29, 2022           CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 115

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text