Cochran v. Griffith Energy Services, Inc.
426 Md. 134
Md.2012Background
- Oil spill in Cochran home and 2002 testing showed benzene increase; Cochran Parents sued Griffith for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud for nondisclosure; Parents prevailed at trial on negligence and breach of contract; fraud claim was dismissed on summary judgment and affirmed on appeal; Petitioners later sued Griffith and its attorneys in 2009 for fraud and negligent supervision based on same conduct; Circuit Court dismissed Petitioners' suit as barred by res judicata; CSA affirmed on res judicata, focusing on privity; Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to address whether fraud during litigation can shield a defendant from liability when harm occurred independent of litigation
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is petitioners barred by res judicata due to privity with the Cochran Parents? | Petitioners were not formal parties and had no privity | Petitioners were in privity; represented by the same attorney; had direct interest and occupancy | Yes; petitioners are in privity; res judicata applies |
| Do the facts establish privity under Ugast and related precedent? | Nonparties cannot be bound unless privity exists | Facts show direct interest, control, and representation by parents; occupancy and shared counsel support privity | Yes; privity established; petitioners barred |
| Did the trial court properly apply res judicata when considering outside-record materials? | Not necessary to consider extrinsic materials for res judicata | Extrinsic materials inform privity and prior final adjudication | Correctly applied res judicata principles; extrinsic materials considered but do not defeat privity |
| Would allowing a second suit contravene finality of the prior judgment? | Second bite at the apple should be allowed to remedy fraud affecting nonparties | Finality and privity prevent relitigation of same core issues; prevents inconsistent outcomes | Preclusion preserved; no second suit on the same fraud claims |
| Do damages to Petitioners negate privity? | Damages claimed by Petitioners were not alleged in first suit; may negate representation | Privity remains despite absence of claimed damages; preclusion focuses on core issues and representation | Privity not defeated; damages omission does not destroy privity |
Key Cases Cited
- R & D 2001, LLC v. Rice, 402 Md. 648 (Md. 2008) (three elements of res judicata: privity, same or raisable claim, final judgment on the merits)
- Anne Arundel County Bd. of Ed. v. Norville, 390 Md. 93 (Md. 2005) (final judgment on merits; three-element test)
- Ugast v. LaFontaine, 189 Md. 227 (Md. 1947) (privity definition: parties include those with direct interest and control or representation)
- Douglas v. First Sec. Fed. Sav. Bank, Inc., 101 Md.App. 170 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1994) (intentional familiarity supports privity for res judicata)
- Small v. Ciao Stables, Inc., 289 Md. 554 (Md. 1981) (binding nonparties where interests are represented)