• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Adjuster ignoring us

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
Even a collateral estoppel argument would not suffice because property damage and PI are 2 separate issues. Collateral Estoppel is meant to get rid of a portion of a cause of action, if applicable, therefore, even if applicable (which it isn't) Summary Judgment would be denied.
Thank you for that learned legal analysis.
 


W

Willlyjo

Guest
Without research, just on memory, I'm uncertain why willyjo disagrees with latigo or YAG. When we're talking about the same facts or occurrence with the same parties, it tends to scream res judicata. This division of claims as advocated by some (bodily injury/property damage) does not have any basis in law I know of. Why use those categories? Why not left side of the body vs. right side of the body injuries? Or, sue on a finger and see the results. Then, sue on the knee and see the results. Courts prefer to deal with things once--even though some causes can be bifurcated for parties or other reasons by the judge.

That does not completely solve things for New York small claims which seem to have an odd wording in section 1808A:
I'm not sure how that is implemented. It would certainly require the OP re-prove up his facts on a future action. He does not get to rely on preclusion for the facts and not for the claims.

In most states, there can be a third party bad faith action against another's insurance carrier. There is a duty to give the injured some answer on if liability is found or not. In other words, there are deadlines for informing an injured party what the insurance company intends to do or not do. If the insurance company has truly not communicated, a complaint to the governmental insurance oversight board (whatever it is called in NY) will get the agency to respond to them within a certain amount of time or suffer sanctions.

Info edit:
If we want more questions, we might go to the fact the judgment was a default one. Does that give us a preclusion if it was not on the facts?
Haven't you read my posts? I gave good examples as to why I disagree with YAG and Latigo on their opinions concerning Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel.

Same facts but different issues! One, a claim for injuries and the other issue (which has been decided) Property Damage. Res Judicata is the relitigation of a claim. The OP's car accident isn't a claim, it spawned 2 separate claims. You cannot relitigate either one, once judgment has been rendered on either one. In this case, judgment has been rendered on one of the claims for Property Damage. The remaining claim for injuries has yet to be decided.

Why do you think there could be several different Causes of Actions in a lawsuit? Because there are several issues/claims that need to be addressed. I agree, the OP could have bundled his claims into one action, but under the circumstances, he didn't have to. It doesn't mean he split a claim as Res Judicata forbids. Further, it is up to the discretion of the court to decide whether to enjoined 2 claims into one litigation or not. If the property damage claim was an ongoing claim, then I could see a court consolidating the claim with the PI claim. Since it was decided, it now leaves one claim to be decided.

If the OP wasn't happy with the amount of judgment for his property damage, after options for appeal have been exhausted, he couldn't turn around and litigate his property damages for a higher amount--THAT would be attempting to re-litigate a claim!

Really Latigo, YAG and now Tranquility...can't you see that, in view of the Appellant Judges decision cited in YAG's post? I would have thought that would have been the end of the discussion.:rolleyes:
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Sorry to say, I may be the barrel of flour. I...um...think willyjo is correct. (Unless the law changed in NY since 1989--which is a possibility as the trend is towards the same transaction or occurrence.)

I was wrong to reply without looking into things a touch. Go to:
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1623&context=llr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522new%2520york%2522%2520%2522automobile%2520accident%2522%2520%2522mandatory%2520joinder%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D8%26ved%3D0CHMQFjAH%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1623%2526context%253Dllr%26ei%3DSLboT_XPMsaC2wXKj8yHCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNFJ1Ta2zV8wDuK6ASb7Nqn4uq9lmQ%26cad%3Drja#search=%22new%20york%20automobile%20accident%20mandatory%20joinder%22

New York is (was?) a "primary rights" jurisdiction. There is a chart on the first substantive page of the cited article explaining the difference between a primary rights jurisdiction and a "same transaction" jurisdiction. It certainly explains the procedure section I quoted earlier.

Link edit:
If the link does not work, google the title in quotes.

"Res Judicata: Should California Abandon Primary
Rights"
 
Last edited:

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
Try O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 429 N.E.2d 1158 (1981). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7736283953838040639&q=O'Brien+v+City+of+Syracuse&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33
This State has adopted the transactional analysis approach in deciding res judicata issues ( Matter of Reilly v. Reid, 45 N.Y.2d 24, 407 N.Y.S.2d 645, 379 N.E.2d 172). Under this address, once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy ( id., at pp. 29–30, 407 N.Y.S.2d 645, 379 N.E.2d 172). Here, all of defendants' conduct falling in the first category was also raised during the 1973 suit as the basis for that litigation. That proceeding having been brought to a final conclusion, no other claim may be predicated upon the same incidents.
As far as I am aware, that is still good law: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2007/2007-09963.html

I have not heard this referred to as "primary rights" or "same transaction", just "transactional approach" and "splitting". ("The splitting doctrine is related to the election of remedies. While the election doctrine generally deals with a claim having different theories or counts, the splitting doctrine is usually concerned with a money claim sued on in spurts instead of at one time. If P has a money claim against D and sues for only part of what is presently due, P forfeits the rest under the splitting rule." -- Siegel's NY Practice hornbook)

And just to throw some more gasoline out there, while res judicata technically does require a final judgment on the merits, the "law of the case" theory does not have the same requirement :)



PS: To fix Tranq's link: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1623&context=llr
The sole (?) reference to NY's policy seems to be culled from: Simultaneous Injury to Person and Property As Giving Rise to Single Cause of Action, 24 ALR4th 646. I do not have access to ALR at the moment, but I can't find any reference to it in any NY case. I would be curious to see what the original source of this claim is.
 
Last edited:

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
The sole (?) reference to NY's policy seems to be culled from: Simultaneous Injury to Person and Property As Giving Rise to Single Cause of Action, 24 ALR4th 646. I do not have access to ALR at the moment, but I can't find any reference to it in any NY case. I would be curious to see what the original source of this claim is.
NY cases cited in 24 ALR4th 646 are:


Finnerty v. Consolidated Tel. & Elec. Subway Co., 82 N.Y.S.2d 529 (Sup 1948)
McAndrew v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 23 N.Y.S. 1074 (Sup 1893)
McNichols v. Weiss, 12 A.D.2d 646, 208 N.Y.S.2d 721 (2d Dep't 1960)
Reilly v. Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co., 170 N.Y. 40, 62 N.E. 772 (1902)
 

latigo

Senior Member
My accident was hit and run, in the beginning his insurance denied their driver was at the seen... I filed for small claim court against the driver damages for my vehicle since it was under 6000... The driver never showed up I won the case and his insurance paid for the damages 3500. Now, by them paying, their are admitting that thier are at fault. My lawyer and I pursuing for bodily injuries but thier adjuster never respond back, completely ignores us... Whats the next step?
Submitted are the following syllabi of New York case law applying the doctrine of re judicata as cited in web site of NY attorney D. M. Gottlieb. (I have not read the cases. All emphasis mine.))

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties of all other claims arising out of the same transaction or out of the same or related facts, even if based upon a different theory involving materially different elements of proof. The rule applies not only to claims litigated but also to claims that could have been raised in the prior litigation" Shelley v Silvestre, 2009 NY Slip Op 07822 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009; Matter of City of New York v Schmitt, 50 AD3d 1032, 1033; Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 NY2d 24, 30).


"The claims raised in the instant complaint were raised or could have been raised during a prior action between the same parties, which was disposed of on the merits. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Town of New Windsor v New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403, 404-405; Slavin v Fischer, 160 AD2d 934, 934-935.


"Res judicata serves to bar future litigation between the same parties or those in privity with the parties of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that was raised in a prior proceeding. " Lighthouse 925 Hempstead, LLC v Citibank, N.A., 2009 NY Slip Op 07597 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009; Winkler v Weiss, 294 AD2d 428, 429; Contr. & Constr., Inc. v Town of Southampton, 50 AD3d 1025, 1026.


“The fact that causes of action may be stated separately or invoke different legal theories will not permit relitigation of claims.” See Matter of Hodes v Axelrod, 70 NY2d 364, 372; see also Matter of ADC Contr. & Constr., Inc. v Town of Southampton, 50 AD3d at 1025).

But then there is this:

“A judgment obtained under this article shall not be deemed an
adjudication of any fact at issue or found therein in any other action
or court; except that a subsequent judgment obtained in another action
or court involving the same fact, issues and parties shall be reduced by
the amount of a judgment awarded under this article.”

NY Code - Article 18: SMALL CLAIMS Section 1808
 

jack153

Member
My laywer advised me to first take the defendent to small claims court for the property damages becuase its under 6000 and then if i win i have a higher chance on wining the bodily injury damages. my lawyer is the one to seperate both suits, most be a reason behind it. in order for me find out what would you rcommend me to ask my laywer, is RES JUDICATA IS GONNA PREVENT MY BODIY INJURUY SUIT TO BE FILED?
OF COURSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

Any fool would know that a cause of action for property damage involves some elements of proof differing from those related to a cause of action for injuries to the person.

But when the two “different”, but related claims or causes of action are based on identical factual circumstances - such as here a single tortuous act – and involve the same tortfeasor, then BOTH CLAIMS MUST BE JOINED AND PROSECUTED IN SAME LAW SUIT! Period!
____________________

Now if you have any recognized case law out of New York that under the same circumstances at hand rejects the principal of re judicata, which (again) is universally defined as follows:

"A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit,"

And by rejecting I mean case law that allows a person that has suffered both (1) property loss and (2) personal injuries as a result of a single tortuous act to bifurcate claims (1) and (2) and have them litigated in two separate lawsuits against the same defendant or defendants . . .

Then let those authorities speak for your argument, which I personally deem to be unschooled and legally unsound.
________________________

The only question I see is whether or not the OP was somehow precluded from asserting both claims in one small claims filing. Or perhaps, a New York small claims judgment is not afforded the necessary dignity to qualify as a final judgment on the merits. (Which would seem inexplicable.)

Such principles or res judicata, collateral estoppel, the “entire controversy doctrine”, are not solely designed to bring an end to litigation but as public policy to help unburden the court system, and to protect litigants against increased costs and the vexation of multiple lawsuits.

A policy which seems to have escaped your understanding.

One final comment.

I will guarantee you that if the defendant in the small claims case that suffered a judgment favoring the OP and compensating him for the damage to his vehicle, were to refile a lawsuit against the OP seeking to have his property damage compensated, the OP would be screaming RES JUDICATA! And the same if that defendant were to sue the OP for personal injuries which he could have cross claimed in small claims.
 

jack153

Member
Without reading the OP's other thread(s), we have this:



Why would a PI claim not be able to be litigated separately from a prop damages claim? (of course unless the order stated it was for all damages or the plaintiff signed a release)




Jack, didn't you have pre-existing injuries from an accident the year before? A herniated disc, a bulging disc and a shoulder injury? Have you even settled the prior case?

What are the new injuries from this accident?
yes my previous case settled for 50,000 his commercial policy was slapped with punituve damages being that he was drunk and ran away. The new accident MRI reveles new finding of herniation and the old one got worse.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
yes my previous case settled for 50,000 his commercial policy was slapped with punituve damages being that he was drunk and ran away. The new accident MRI reveles new finding of herniation and the old one got worse.
I think you may have your facts a bit mixed up. Insurance does not pay for punitive damages.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top