Hilliard v. Jacobs
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1940
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment in a dispute over life insurance policy proceeds.
- Hilliard seeks to re-litigate dispositions decided in prior lawsuits concerning the same policies.
- Jacobs and Hilliard's husband David were business partners who had cross-purchased life insurance on each other; after dissolution, the policies remained in Jacobs' possession.
- The first suit (2008) sought termination or conveyance of the policies; the appellate history includes a prior Indiana Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding.
- In the current 2008-2010 litigation, Hilliard asserted multiple theories (breach, fiduciary duty, fraud, promissory estoppel, quasi-contract, criminal conversion, declaratory judgment), all centered on the Cross-Purchase Agreement and policy owners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the second suit. | Hilliard argues issues weren't fully adjudicated previously. | Jacobs contends the second suit reasserts the same dispute with preclusion. | Yes; res judicata bars the second suit. |
| Whether due process/fundamental fairness require reversal. | Due process demands re-litigation opportunity. | Full opportunity already afforded; second suit is improper forum. | No; due process not violated; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- MicroVote General Corp. v. Ind. Election Comm’n, 924 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (identical evidence test and claim preclusion analysis in res judicata)
- Biggs v. Marsh, 446 N.E.2d 977 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (illustrates traditional identical evidence approach (rejected as literal))
- Atkins v. Hancock County Sheriff's Merit Board, 910 F.2d 403 (7th Cir.1990) (recognizes Indiana follows identical evidence test but rejects narrow literal application)
- Wabash Valley Power Ass’n v. Rural Electrification Admin., 903 F.2d 445 (7th Cir.1990) (claim splitting and preclusion considerations in multi-suit context)
- Quimby v. Becovic Mgmt. Group, Inc., 946 N.E.2d 30 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (prohibition on pursuing multiple legal theories arising from same transaction; claim splitting)
- Dawson v. Estate of Ott, 796 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (framework for claim preclusion elements)
- Naugle v. Beech Grove City Sch., 864 N.E.2d 1058 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (summary judgment standard applied with favorable view to non-movant)
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind.2009) (summary judgment standards and res judicata considerations)