United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Law Offices of Libman
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16298
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- United Auto sued Libman for restitution, fraud, and insurance fraud to recover PIP benefits and fees from prior PIP lawsuits.
- Libman previously received monies from United Auto in connection with several PIP lawsuits.
- United Auto then filed a new suit alleging false billing by Continental Providers' Services, improper fee-splitting with Continental, and misprosecution of PIP lawsuits without authority.
- The trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice as barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel.
- The Third District Court of Appeal held res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply and reversed, remanding to reinstate counts for restitution and fraud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar United Auto's restitution claim? | Libman identity and same cause not present; distinct claim. | Same parties and issues preclude new claim. | No; res judicata does not apply. |
| Does collateral estoppel bar United Auto's fraud claim? | Different issues not fully litigated previously. | Same issues litigated in PIP actions apply. | No; collateral estoppel does not apply. |
| Was the amended complaint properly dismissed as barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel or by Rule 1.140(b)? | Counts should proceed; merits unresolved and not adjudicated. | Dismissal appropriate due to prior adjudications. | Counts were improperly dismissed; should be reinstated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 2006) (res judicata requires identity of thing, cause, parties, and interest)
- Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1984) (identities required for res judicata)
- McLean v. McLean, 461 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (mere reference to prior controversy insufficient for res judicata)
- Wacaster v. Wacaster, 220 So.2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (collateral estoppel applies only to matters actually litigated)
- Skidmore, Owings & Merrill v. Volpe Constr. Co. Inc., 511 So.2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (collateral estoppel requires that the matter be litigated and determined)
- Pa. Ins. Co. v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 241 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (collateral estoppel requires that the matter be essential to judgment)
- Felder v. State, Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., Div. of Ret., 993 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (res judicata review is de novo; relief barred if appropriate)
- Bess v. Eagle Capital, Inc., 704 So.2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (amended complaint may raise matters not decided in prior actions)
- Lonestar Alt. Solution, Inc. v. Leview-Boymelgreen Soleil Developers, LLC, 10 So.3d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (motion to dismiss tests whether plaintiff stated a cause of action)
- Extraordinary Title Servs., LLC v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 1 So.3d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (de novo review on motion to dismiss; relief barred if appropriate)