Coffee Iron Works v. Qore, Inc.
322 Ga. App. 137
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Three consolidated appeals from orders granting summary judgment to QORE, Inc. in three suits for damages allegedly caused by QORE's testing for the Georgia DOT.
- DOT contracted with Douglas Asphalt to perform highway paving on a 1-95 section; by 2003 a defect prompted DOT to hire QORE for materials testing, including hydrated lime content.
- Plaintiffs allege QORE's testing was scientifically invalid and produced unreliable results that led DOT to default Douglas Asphalt and lose contracts; Douglas Asphalt’s surety bond indemnity was affected.
- Douglas Asphalt sued QORE in federal court; district court granted summary judgment for QORE, affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit; judgment resolves the duty/negligence theory in that forum.
- Coffee (guarantor), Floriece Spivey (Douglas Asphalt stockholder), and Ronnie Spivey (guarantor) sue QORE in Georgia state court; trial court grants summary judgment to QORE; appeals consolidated and affirmed.
- Court holds that collateral estoppel bars re-litigation of issues decided in the federal case, while res judicata does not strictly apply because the current actions plead professional negligence with different theories and parties are in privity for collateral estoppel purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars the current claims. | Coffee argues prior federal decision forecloses relitigation of QORE's duty. | QORE contends prior ruling did not create res judicata on these professional-negligence claims. | Yes; collateral estoppel bars re-litigation of the duty issue. |
| Whether there is identity of claims/issues between the federal and state actions. | Household claims mirror federal theory of negligence causing DOT default. | Federal and state pleadings differ in theory (professional negligence); not identical. | Identity of issues supports collateral estoppel. |
| Whether Coffee is in privity with Douglas Asphalt for collateral estoppel purposes. | Coffee is a guarantor; stands in Douglas Asphalt's shoes. | Privity requires substantial identity of interests; not automatic. | Coffee is in privity with Douglas Asphalt; collateral estoppel applies. |
| Whether Floriece and Ronnie are in privity with Douglas Asphalt for collateral estoppel purposes. | Floriece (stockholder) and Ronnie (guarantor) derive from Douglas Asphalt's interests. | Privity must be established based on representing the same legal rights. | Floriece and Ronnie in privity; collateral estoppel applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2011) (rejected duty theory; Eleventh Circuit held QORE had no duty to Douglas Asphalt; prior federal judgment governs collateral estoppel analysis in related state action)
- Body of Christ Overcoming Church of God, Inc. v. Brinson, 287 Ga. 485 (2010) (illustrates res judicata/collateral estoppel principles in Georgia Supreme Court context)
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. MacLeod, 259 Ga. App. 761 (2003) (insurer stands in the shoes of the insured for privity considerations)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Gault, 280 Ga. 420 (2006) (privity/identity-of-parties considerations in res judicata/collateral estoppel)
- QOS Networks Ltd. v. Warburg, Pincus & Co., 294 Ga. App. 528 (2008) (to be in privity, parties need not be identical; must be closely connected with prior judgment)