130 Conn. App. 174
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Close, Jensen & Miller, P.C. sued Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. in seven counts alleging negligence and related claims arising from surveys.
- Fidelity/Commonwealth paid damages to their insureds for encroachments discovered after construction, opting to recover these amounts from Close/Miller.
- Judge Satter, after trial, held Close and Miller liable for negligence and awarded damages to the insurers totaling $98,330.30 and $85,018.15 respectively, including insureds' attorneys' fees.
- The judgment was later opened, set aside, and withdrawn at Close/Miller’s request to avoid a recorded judgment.
- On December 28, 2009, Close filed the present action seeking reimbursement, arguing that res judicata does not bar its claims; the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior judgment, opened and set aside, still qualifies as a final judgment for res judicata | Close contends no final judgment existed after opening. | Fidelity/Commonwealth argue the judgment retained finality despite opening for Close/Miller's benefit. | Yes; prior judgment retained finality for res judicata. |
| Whether damages in the prior action were properly determined for res judicata purposes | Close claims damages liability was not properly resolved and thus not barred. | Defendants contend the damages measure was resolved under the prior ruling and the issue is barred. | Damages measure was adjudicated and precluded; the issue is barred. |
| Whether res judicata bars Close's current claims seeking reimbursement from Fidelity/Commonwealth | Close asserts no final adjudication on the alleged lack of actual damages by insureds. | Defendants maintain the prior action resolved the merits and precludes relitigation. | Yes; res judicata bars the current claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446 (Conn. 2010) (claim preclusion applies when there was a fair opportunity to litigate)
- Fink v. Golenbock, 238 Conn. 183 (Conn. 1996) (preclusion policy emphasizing finality and repose)
- Black v. Goodwin, Loomis & Britton, Inc., 239 Conn. 144 (Conn. 1996) (illustrates settled claims and insurer reimbursement context)
- Tirozzi v. Shelby Ins. Co., 50 Conn. App. 680 (Conn. App. 1998) (appeal as remedy when disagreeing with prior damages ruling)