Sylanda Y. Johnson vs. Tammy Lapan, and others, March 15, 2010
Motion for Summary Judgment- Issue Preclusion
Facts
In December, 2005, the plaintiff was injured when a rental car she was a passenger in was hit by a car driven by the defendant. The plaintiff was not insured through the rental company or covered by any resident relative’s policy. She incurred $14,791.24 in medical expenses. She submitted a claim to the rental company’s insurer for uninsured motorist coverage of her personal injuries, and in October, 2006 sought arbitration of this claim in Superior Court.
In February of 2007 before the arbitration was complete, the plaintiff brought a negligence action against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries for the exact same amount as in her arbitration claim. In January of 2008 the arbitrator awarded Ms. Johnson $16, 791.24 in damages and the award was paid by the rental car insurance company. In March, 2008 the defendants in the negligence action moved jointly for summary judgment on the primary grounds that issue preclusion prevented Ms. Johnson from litigating the issue of her damages. The trial court allowed the motions and denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The plaintiff then filed a Rule 8C appeal. The Appellate Division reviewed the motion for summary judgment de novo and found no error.
Issue Preclusion
The court first noted that ordinarily summary judgment is not appropriate in negligence cases where so much is fact specific, but in cases where no rational view permits a finding of negligence a judge may decide it as a matter of law. For Issue Preclusion to apply there 1) must be final judgment on the merits, 2) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted must have been a party to the prior adjudication, 3) the issue in the prior adjudication was essential to the judgment and is identical to the current issue in adjudication. Arbitration may constitute a final judgment especially when the arbitration proceeding is similar in form and scope to judicial proceedings.
The court noted that while the defendants were not a party to the previous case, they can assert defensive issue preclusion against a party who was involved in the prior litigation. Essentially because the sole issue in Arbitration was Ms. Johnson’s damages, and because the arbitrator awarded her the full amount, she is precluded from re-litigating the amount of these damages in a personal injury action. The court noted that while a plaintiff may recover both from the responsible person in a negligence action and an insurance company, once the total amount of damages is collected from either source the plaintiff can collect no more money for the same damages. Furthermore G.L.c. 175, §113L does not entitle the plaintiff a right of subrogation against any negligent parties, but rather grants the insurance company that pays that money to the plaintiff the right of subrogation. The court affirmed the grant of the motion for summary judgment.
- Prepared by AEK
