Dorfman v. Smith
Citations
- 342 Conn. 582
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed from that part of the trial court's judgment dismissing her claims against the defendant insurance company for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.) based on a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act (CUIPA) (§ 38a-815 et seq.). The plaintiff had been involved in a motor vehicle collision with J, one of the defendant's insureds. The plaintiff thereafter filed a claim with the defendant under the underinsured motorist provision of her policy. The defendant investigated the claim, concluded that J was 100 percent at fault and made notations of its findings in the claim file. The defendant then notified the plaintiff that her right to pursue her claim was condi- tioned on her provision of an affidavit of no excess insurance. The plaintiff subsequently brought the present action. The defendant hired attorneys to represent it in connection with the plaintiff's action but deliberately withheld from them its file notes, which included the recorded statement and identity of a witness to the collision, even though the defendant knew that information was necessary for its attorneys to prepare accurate responses to the plaintiff's complaint and discovery requests. The defendant pleaded in its answer to the plaintiff's complaint that it denied or did not have sufficient information to admit the plaintiff's allegations regarding the cause of the collision and her injuries, and asserted a special defense of contributory negligence, even though it knew that it was without a basis in fact. The defendant also provided false responses to the plaintiff's discovery requests, including that it did not know of the existence of the witness to the collision or whether any recorded statements of witnesses existed. In the plaintiff's deposition of the defendant, the defendant's designee admitted
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
63 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court· 1976-03-02· cited 7,274×
- Arnold v. National County Mutual Fire Insurance Co.Texas Supreme Court· 1987-01-28· cited 622×
- Petyan v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-06-17· cited 552×
- DeLaurentis v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-08-20· cited 503×
- Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-07-03· cited 437×
- Barquis v. Merchants Collection Assn.California Supreme Court· 1972-05-10· cited 404×
- Mead v. BurnsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-05-20· cited 373×
- Board of Education v. Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals· 1975-12-29· cited 304×
- Fort Bend County v. DavisSupreme Court· 2019-06-03· cited 277×
- Mozzochi v. BeckSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-07-28· cited 240×
- Haynes v. Yale-New Haven HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-08-26· cited 235×
- Givens v. Mullikin Ex Rel. McElwaneyTennessee Supreme Court· 2002-03-25· cited 229×
- Buckman v. People Express, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-09-01· cited 216×
- E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. PressmanSupreme Court of Delaware· 1996-07-10· cited 208×
- Carrol v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-02-25· cited 188×
- Ritter v. RitterIllinois Supreme Court· 1943-01-19· cited 187×
- General Refractories Company Grefco, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Gilberg & Kiernan Andrew Butz General Refractories CompanyThird Circuit· 2003-07-24· cited 172×
- Best Place, Inc. v. Penn America Insurance Co.Hawaii Supreme Court· 1996-06-21· cited 165×
- Sportsmen's Boating Corp. v. HensleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-04-17· cited 165×
- O'Donnell Ex Rel. Mitro v. Allstate Insurance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-06-30· cited 160×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.