140 Conn. App. 335
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Marques sues Allstate for underinsured motorist benefits after collision with Oshinski, who had $20,000 liability coverage.
- Arbitration in Danbury found liability and damages; damages set at $20,000, within the high/low arbitration range and paid by Oshinski’s insurer.
- Marques filed suit for UIM benefits March 18, 2011; Allstate moved for summary judgment on collateral estoppel grounds and the trial court granted it.
- Center issue: whether the damages determination in the prior arbitration bars this UIM claim under collateral estoppel because damages did not exceed Oshinski’s liability limit.
- Appellate court affirms, holding collateral estoppel properly barred relitigation of the damages issue; privity not required for defensive use; notice argument abandoned.
- Court notes that arbitration decisions may have preclusive effect and discusses relevant trail-to-arbitration procedural points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does collateral estoppel bar the UIM claim? | Marques challenged estoppel applicability. | Allstate contends damages issue was fully and fairly litigated. | Yes, collateral estoppel bars the UIM claim. |
| Was the damages amount actually litigated and necessarily determined in arbitration? | Damages not beyond Oshinski’s policy limit are not necessarily determined. | Damages were litigated; arbitrator fixed $20,000 as damages. | Damages were actually litigated and determined. |
| Did defendant meet the burden to prove collateral estoppel applied? | Plaintiff disputes necessary-determination. | Burden met; issue was litigated and decided in prior arbitration. | Yes; the issue was litigated and decided, supporting summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Connecticut Natural Gas Corp. v. Miller, 239 Conn. 313 (1996) (collateral estoppel bases on issues actually litigated and determined)
- Genovese v. Gallo Wine Merchants, Inc., 226 Conn. 475 (1993) (arbitration decisions may have preclusive effect)
- Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364 (1999) (burden on movant to show issue litigated if collateral estoppel raised)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Jones, 220 Conn. 285 (1991) (collateral estoppel development and privity considerations)
- Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511 (2008) (plenary review of collateral estoppel application)
- Young v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 60 Conn. App. 107 (2000) (defensive use of collateral estoppel doesn't require privity)
- Gionfriddo v. Gartenhaus Cafe, 211 Conn. 67 (1989) (defensive collateral estoppel explained)
- Coyle Crete, LLC v. Nevins, 137 Conn. App. 540 (2012) (privity considerations in collateral estoppel)
- LaSalla v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., 278 Conn. 678 (2006) (contractual arbitration context and preclusion)