Uninsured motorist coverage (UIM); Collateral estoppel; Radwan v Ameriprise Ins Co; Mutuality of estoppel; Monat v State Farm Ins Co

The court held that collateral estoppel precluded plaintiff-estate from relitigating the amount of compensatory damages it could recover from defendant-Sandy, and as a result of the amount, no UIM benefits remained available to plaintiff under the terms of the decedent’s (Parks) insurance policy. Thus, the court reversed the order granting plaintiff’s motion to reinstate a UIM claim against defendant-Pioneer, and remanded for entry of an order dismissing plaintiff’s UIM claim against Pioneer. Parks was struck by a vehicle driven by Sandy and died of her injuries. Plaintiff sued Sandy and “Pioneer, alleging that Parks had a UIM policy with a provision for a $250,000 maximum limit and that Sandy was ‘underinsured for residual tort liability.’ Because Sandy’s insurance policy’s maximum limit for bodily injury liability was $100,000, plaintiff sought to recover from Pioneer any damages in excess of $100,000.” A jury found that “Sandy was negligent, that Parks was 50% comparatively negligent, and that plaintiff’s damages were $200,000. Thus,” after reducing the damage award “to account for Parks’s comparative negligence, the jury’s verdict represents a finding that the compensatory damages that plaintiff is ‘legally entitled to recover’ from Sandy is $100,000. Because Sandy’s bodily injury liability policy limit was $100,000, following entry of the $100,000 judgment against Sandy, plaintiff successfully recovered the exact amount of compensatory damages that it was legally entitled to recover against Sandy.” However, plaintiff now sought “a second trial, this time against Pioneer” apparently in the hope of receiving “a verdict indicating that the amount of compensatory damages that it can recover from Sandy will be in excess of Sandy’s $100,000 policy, thereby allowing plaintiff to collect additional money under the UIM policy.” The parties disputed whether the third requirement for collateral estoppel was met – mutuality of estoppel. But the Supreme Court concluded in Monat “that when ‘collateral estoppel is being asserted defensively against a party who has already had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue, mutuality is not required.’” That was the situation here. The court rejected plaintiff’s efforts to distinguish Monat, finding the distinctions were “not meaningful.”