984 N.E.2d 882
Mass. App. Ct.2013Background
- Korn obtained a disability policy in 1988 providing monthly benefits if he became occupationally disabled and unable to perform his occupation.
- In 2000 Korn claimed psychiatric problems led him to abandon his law practice and filed a disability-benefits claim.
- In 2001 Paul Revere denied Korn's claim on lack of proof of disability and failure to satisfy the proof-of-loss requirement.
- From 2004 Korn pursued federal breach-of-contract litigation; the federal case involved dismissal, remand, discovery deadlines, and an RSA regulatory settlement unrelated to Korn's injury claim.
- In 2010 Korn I (Sixth Circuit) affirmed the district court’s denial of Korn's amended claim and rejection of the RSA-related amendment; Korn II was filed in state court in April 2010 alleging the same RSA-related breach.
- The Superior Court granted Paul Revere summary judgment based on res judicata; Korn appeals, arguing the RSA claim was not barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Korn's RSA claim is precluded by claim preclusion | Korn asserts RSA claim could be raised; not barred by Korn I's merits. | Summary judgment proper because Korn II concerns a claim (RSA breach) not raised/decided in Korn I yet arising from the same transaction. | Yes; Korn II is barred by claim preclusion. |
| Whether denial of leave to amend in Korn I operates as res judicata to bar the RSA claim | Korn argues the RSA claim could not have been brought in Korn I; res judicata should not apply. | Denial of leave to amend constitutes a merits decision; res judicata bars subsequent claims. | Yes; denial to amend in Korn I constituted a merits decision and precluded the RSA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hatch v. Trail King Indus., Inc., 699 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2012) (three elements of claim preclusion)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (definition of claim and issue preclusion)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (preclusion principles for prior judgments)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (final judgment on the merits precludes relitigation)
- Anderson v. Phoenix Invest. Counsel of Boston, Inc., 387 Mass. 444 (1982) (Massachusetts res judicata approach)
- Bagley v. Moxley, 407 Mass. 633 (1990) (preclusion of untimely claims in first action)
- Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21 (1988) (public policy and end of litigation; broad res judicata)
- Isaac v. Schwartz, 706 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1983) (Massachusetts law of res judicata; failure to timely amend)
- Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000) (merits considerations for amendments and related effects)
- Johnson v. SCA Disposal Servs. of New England, Inc., 931 F.2d 970 (1st Cir. 1991) (untimely amendment supports claim preclusion)
- Nilsen v. Moss Point, 701 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1983) (untimely amendment preclusion considerations)
- Petromanagement Corp. v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture, 835 F.2d 1329 (10th Cir. 1988) (trial court’s denial of consolidation and preclusion effects)