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

2,528 chars

duct in a single case, when the allegations claim a sys-
temic business practice across multiple cases.
Despite leaving open the possibility that CUIPA/
CUTPA claims based on other types of litigation miscon-
duct might not be subject to the litigation privilege, the
majority suggests that, if the legislature had wanted
claims based on systematic litigation misconduct to
be subject to CUTPA, it ‘‘would have been explicit in
abrogating the immunity . . . .’’ Part IV of the majority
opinion. I disagree with this speculation. This court has
recognized that ‘‘[t]he Connecticut General Assembly
deliberately chose not to define the scope of unfair or
deceptive acts proscribed by CUTPA so that courts
might develop a body of law responsive to the market-
place practices that actually generate such complaints.’’
Sportsmen’s Boating Corp. v. Hensley, 192 Conn. 747,
755, 474 A.2d 780 (1984). ‘‘Because CUTPA is a self-
avowed remedial measure . . . it is construed liberally
in an effort to effectuate its public policy goals.’’ (Cita-
tion omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.,
756. In light of the legislature’s deliberate choice to
allow the courts to define the scope of proscribed con-
duct and the statute’s broad remedial purpose, it seems
extremely doubtful to me that the legislature’s failure
to expressly recognize an exception to the common-law
litigation privilege for CUTPA claims involving conduct
during litigation evinces an intent to bar such claims.
Cf. Barefield v. DPIC Cos., 215 W. Va. 544, 554, 600
S.E.2d 256 (2004) (‘‘We find no caveat in the [West
Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act] . . . [that] states
that an insurance company or other person in the busi-
ness of insurance . . . has a duty to refrain from unfair
methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or
practices [only] prior to the filing of a lawsuit by a
party, but has no such duty thereafter. We find nothing
to show that the public policy established in [the stat-
ute] is obviated once litigation ensues. We therefore must
conclude that the language of the [statute] does not
Page 116 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL March 29, 2022

Other Sections in This Document (164)

Full Text