BROADCASTS.com

b'

When You Sue & Lose You Can\\u2019t Sue the Same Defendants Again  

In DAB Three, LLC, et al. v. Sandra Fitzpatrick, Allen Fischer et al. v.  Lawyers Title Corporation et al., No. AC 44393, Court of Appeals of  Connecticut (October 18, 2022) the plaintiff attempted to avoid the  effect of the doctrine of res judicata. 

FACTS  

After a suit to recover damages for fraudulent concealment the trial  court granted the defendant\\u2019s motion for summary judgment in the first  action and the defendant Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation\\u2019s motion  for summary judgment in the second action and rendered judgments from  which the plaintiff Alan Fischer appealed. 

OPINION  

Alan Fischer appealed and claimed that the court incorrectly determined  that both of his complaints were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  The plaintiff was the sole owner, designee, managing partner, and  assignee of DAB Three, LLC (DAB Three), and he was the sole person  acting through and for DAB Three. In August, 2006, DAB Three sued (the  2006 action) against seven defendants.  The gravamen of the 2019 suits is that the defendants are liable for the  $2,049,185.62 judgment rendered in the 2006 action because the  defendants failed to procure adequate insurance coverage with respect to  the property. The plaintiff alleged that, prior to and throughout the  2006 action, the defendants intentionally misrepresented and  fraudulently concealed which of the 2006 defendants was:   1   the broker of the policy,  2   Fitzpatrick\\u2019s employer, and  3   the party financially liable to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendants \\u201cwithheld\\u201d the identity of the  individual or entity that brokered the policy so as to force DAB Three  \\u201cto try the case and obtain a judgment in the [2006 action] against a  defendant purportedly without assets.\\u201d Both of the complaints in the  2019 actions assert three claims:      fraudulent concealment pursuant to General Statutes \\xa7 52-595,     common-law fraud, and     violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA)  The defendants moved for summary judgment in the 2019 actions on at  least eight different grounds, including res judicata. The court granted  both motions for summary judgment and overruled the plaintiffs  objections.  

DISCUSSION  

The doctrine of res judicata provides that a valid, final judgment  rendered on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is an  absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties upon the  same claim or demand. Res judicata prevents a litigant from reasserting a  claim that has already been decided on the merits. Moreover, claim  preclusion prevents the pursuit of any claims relating to the cause of  action which were actually made or might have been made. Res judicata is  based on the public policy that a party should not be able to  relitigate a matter which it already has had an opportunity to litigate.  In order for res judicata to apply, four elements must be met:    1  the judgment must have been rendered on the merits by a court of  competent jurisdiction;  2   the parties to the prior and subsequent actions must be the same or  in privity;  3   there must have been an adequate opportunity to litigate the matter  fully; and  4   the same underlying claim must be at issue.