 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flores v. Barretto9/24/2002
R>
hether it would be generally unfair in the second case to use the result in the first case, whether assertion of the plea of estoppel by a stranger to the judgment would create anomalous [result], whether the party adversely affected by the collateral estoppel offers a sound reason why he should not be bound by the judgment, and whether the first case was litigated strenuously or with vigor. Id. at 188, 938 P.2d at 1207 (citation omitted) (some brackets added).
Under the circumstances of this case, I believe that it would not be generally unfair to adopt the arbitrator's finding regarding damages in the subsequent tort action. As indicated above, one of the purposes of collateral estoppel is to avoid the kind of anomalous and inconsistent results in the present case, that is, where the arbitrator found that Flores was entitled to compensation for the treatment of injuries resulting from the accident pursuant to the December 1993 Plan and the trial court found that Flores could not recover for the identical treatments. The record reflects that the arbitration award and the damages awarded at trial were well within the insurance policy's limits, demonstrating the shared common interest of Barretto and AIG. In light of Barretto's liability for the accident and AIG's obligation to indemnify Barretto for the civil judgment, AIG is the party ultimately liable for the judgment in the tort action. AIG, as a party to the arbitration, vigorously litigated and actively participated in pre-arbitration and arbitration proceedings, as well as submitted a post-arbitration brief. In light of the foregoing circumstances and the fact that AIG has not offered a sound reason why it should not be bound by the arbitrator's decision, I would hold that AIG is deemed in privity with Barretto. I would also hold that, as in both Medeiros and Tradewind, application of collateral estoppel does not lead to an unjust result in the present case.
Based on the foregoing, I would hold that, under the facts of this case, collateral estoppel applies, and the trial court was bound by the arbitrator's decision.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|