Dorfman v. Smith — concurring in part and dissenting in part

Summary

Justice Ecker would have held that the litigation privilege did not bar the insured's claims insofar as they alleged that the insurer compelled her to litigate a valid claim and then used litigation procedures to delay or avoid payment. She also would have allowed the related negligent infliction of emotional distress claim to proceed, while agreeing that the CUTPA/CUIPA claim was inadequately pleaded because it did not allege a general business practice with sufficient specificity. The majority affirmed the dismissals, and Justice Ecker concurred in part and dissented in part from that disposition.