Bruno v. The Travelers Companies, 161 A.3d 630

Background

Plaintiff Lisa Bruno sued The Travelers Companies and Travelers Home & Marine after a company representative testified and produced two letters at a post‑judgment dissolution hearing; Bruno alleged those materials were defamatory and caused various tort and statutory claims.
Original complaint asserted seven counts including defamation, emotional distress, CUTPA, negligence, and vicarious liability.
Defendants moved to strike all counts based on the litigation privilege / absolute immunity; the trial court granted the motion to strike but did not address subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff repleaded and filed an amended complaint adding breach of contract and bad‑faith counts (nine counts total).
Defendants moved again to strike counts 3–9 and moved for summary judgment on counts 1–2 as time‑barred under the parties’ insurance contract; the trial court granted judgment for defendants.
On appeal, the principal question was whether absolute immunity (litigation privilege) implicates subject‑matter jurisdiction and, if so, whether the trial court should have dismissed rather than permit repleading.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does absolute immunity (litigation privilege) implicate subject‑matter jurisdiction?	Bruno: It does; court erred in allowing the privilege via a motion to strike rather than a motion to dismiss.	Travelers: Privilege defeats claims and may be raised by motion to strike or other procedural vehicle.	Yes. Absolute immunity implicates subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Were the defendants’ communications and documents protected by the litigation privilege?	Bruno: Statements/letters were defamatory and actionable.	Travelers: Testimony and subpoenaed documents were made in a judicial proceeding and relevant, so absolutely privileged.	Yes. Testimony and letters were produced in court, relevant to the matter, and absolutely privileged.
What is the proper procedural consequence when absolute immunity applies to all claims?	Bruno: Court should not have allowed repleading after striking — plaintiff contends dismissal was required.	Travelers: Seeking dismissal/striking; argued the amended pleading failed to cure defects and new counts were time‑barred.	When absolute immunity applies to the entire complaint, the court lacks jurisdiction to permit repleading and must dismiss.
Were the amended complaint’s first two counts time‑barred?	Bruno: Claims were timely or tolling applies.	Travelers: Counts 1–2 barred by the two‑year limitation in the insurance contract; summary judgment proper.	Court’s grant of summary judgment is moot because the entire action was jurisdictionally barred by absolute immunity; judgment reversed and case remanded with direction to dismiss.

Key Cases Cited

Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (explains litigation privilege and its expansion beyond defamation)
MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 310 Conn. 616 (discusses policy reasons for absolute immunity and its application)
Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (applies absolute immunity to intentional interference claims arising from litigation)
DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (applies absolute immunity to intentional infliction of emotional distress from litigation statements)
Tyler v. Tatoian, 164 Conn. App. 82 (holds absolute immunity concerns subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Perugini v. Giuliano, 148 Conn. App. 861 (same)
Stone v. Pattis, 144 Conn. App. 79 (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where litigation privilege applied)
Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459 (sets generous relevance test for judicial proceedings)
Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hosp., 272 Conn. 776 (analogizes absolute immunity to sovereign immunity—protects against suit)
State v. Ramos, 306 Conn. 125 (judgment void for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Scarfo v. Snow, 168 Conn. App. 482 (form of judgment improper where trial court lacked jurisdiction; remand with direction to dismiss)