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.