 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
United Healthcare of Ohio v. Percival6/18/2002
e doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment between parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims or issues therein litigated. Whitehead, supra, at paragraph one of the syllabus; Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379,1995-Ohio-331, 653 N.E.2d 266, at the syllabus; National Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 60, 62, 558 N.E.2d 1178. Assuming arguendo in the case sub judice that the probate court had jurisdiction over the derivative claims of Wyatt's parents, and thus the subrogated claims of appellee , we agree with the trial court that no final judgment was issued in that case so as to invoke the doctrine of res judicata.
. Although the Ross County Probate Court initially ordered no funds be paid to appellee for its subrogated interest, the court did order that net settlement proceeds be "deposited in the name of the minor "not be released until the minor attains the age of majority or upon further order of this Court . . ." On February 23, 2001, the probate court issued a second entry that states, inter alia, as follows:
. "It is further the agreement of counsel for the parties that the net amount of the settlement, $49,357.12, [$300,000.00 less the cost of the structured settlement ($150,000.00) less suit expenses and attorney fees ($100,642.28)] shall be deposited by the Guardian for the benefit of the minor child in an approved insured depository and impounded by this Court until such time as the issues of reimbursement to United Healthcare of Ohio have been fully and finally terminated as set forth in . . . the Court of Common Pleas, Ross County, Ohio.
. "It is further agreed by the parties that the net amount of said proceeds ($49,357.72) shall then be subject to expenditure only upon termination of the aforesaid litigation (United Healthcare of Ohio v. Alan J. Percival, supra)." (Emphasis added.)
. It is apparent from the entry's language that the probate court envisioned further proceedings on the issue of appellee's subrogated interest. Thus, the probate court's judgment cannot be deemed a final determination of appellee's claim and the doctrine of res judicata would not apply.
. For these reasons, Blaney's assignment of error is not well taken and is hereby overruled. II
. We now turn to Percival's and Corcoran's assignment of error which, unfortunately, is somewhat difficult to understand. However, the gist of their position seems to be that the trial court erred in holding them liable to appellee. They appear to argue that they should be shielded from liability in this case because of the previous settlement with Blaney and that, because of such settlement, any judgment for appellee should have been entered against Blaney. We disagree.
. First, general principles of insurance law hold that any settlement between an injured party and a tortfeasor does not destroy a subrogation claim of the injured party's insurer if, prior to release, the tortfeasor has knowledge of such claim. See 16 Couch on Insurance (3d Ed. 2000) 224-138, ยง 224:113. That principal has been adopted by several Ohio courts. See e.g. Hines v. State Farm Ins. Co. (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 128, 133, 765 N.E.2d 414; Hartford Accident Co. v. Elliot (1972), 32 Ohio App.2d 281, 282-283, 290 N.E.2d 919; Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Motorist Mutual Ins. Co. (Nov. 27, 1995), 5th Dist. Nos. 1995CA00101 & 1995CA00108. With that in mind, we turn to the joint stipulations of evidence submitted by the parties below which include the following:
. "7. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff, United Healthcare of Ohio, had placed Defendants herein, as well as the liability insurance carrier fo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|