Patterson v. Infinity Insurance Co.
303 P.3d 493
Alaska2013Background
- Patterson held Infinity motor vehicle insurance; after a December 2006 accident Infinity paid $5,000 to medical providers and stopped further payments.
- Patterson's first suit (December 2008) claimed Infinity acted in bad faith by misrepresenting paid bills and by other conduct; Infinity moved for summary judgment.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment on October 14, 2009, concluding no genuine issues of material fact and that Infinity fulfilled its contractual obligations.
- Patterson filed a second suit (April 15, 2010) alleging false advertising, breach of contract, embezzlement, falsified documents, and fraud (RICO overtones).
- Infinity moved for summary judgment in the second suit; the superior court granted, holding all claims barred by res judicata, except Patterson’s embezzlement claim which it treated as barred as well.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed as to the embezzlement claim, holding it alleged a distinct injury, but affirmed on all other res judicata grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar Patterson's embezzlement claim in the second suit? | Embezzlement involves a distinct injury not adjudicated in the first suit. | All claims arise from the same transaction and are barred. | Embezzlement claim not barred; remanded for further proceedings on that claim. |
| Were Patterson's other claims barred by res judicata because of the first suit? | Claims stem from related conduct in the aftermath of the accident. | Same parties, same underlying transaction, same injuries. | False advertising and the other claims barred by res judicata. |
| Did Patterson have a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first case? | Procedural issues (jury trial, recusal, change of judge) deprived him of fair hearing. | No due process violation; Patterson had opportunity to appeal. | Patterson was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beegan v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Pub. Facilities, 195 P.3d 134 (Alaska 2008) (res judicata; final judgment on merits; same transaction)
- Smith v. CSK Auto, Inc., 132 P.3d 818 (Alaska 2006) (claims arising from same injury; relitigation rule)
- Angleton v. Cox, 238 P.3d 610 (Alaska 2010) (transaction-focused test for same cause of action)
- Alderman v. Iditarod Props., Inc., 104 P.3d 136 (Alaska 2004) (res judicata scope; final judgment mechanics)
- Calhoun v. Greening, 636 P.2d 69 (Alaska 1981) (underlying facts sufficient for res judicata analysis)
- Tope v. Christianson, 959 P.2d 1240 (Alaska 1998) (preclusion of claims that could have been litigated)
- Plumber v. Univ. of Alaska, Anchorage, 936 P.2d 163 (Alaska 1997) (res judicata prevents relitigation of adjudged matters)
- Capolicchio v. Levy, 194 P.3d 373 (Alaska 2008) (summary judgment considerations for pro se litigants)