|
No. 130460
| Richard James, |
|
|
Plaintiff, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Safeco Insurance Co., |
|
Larry W. Hoskins |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(St. Clair - Deegan, P.) |
|
|
| State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., |
|
Cary R. Berlin |
Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| David Gasowski, |
|
David R. Dyki |
Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Mario Sylvestri and Auto Club Group Insurance Co., |
|
|
| Defendants. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee's Reply Brief
Background
David Gasowski and Richard James were riding on a jet-ski that crashed into a bridge; Gasowski was seriously injured. The jet-ski was owned by Mario Sylvestri, who was insured under a policy issued by State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. The insurance policy covered Sylvestri and any other person driving the jet-ski with his permission. The police interviewed James and prepared a report that stated that Gasowski was the driver; however, James later said that he was the driver. Gasowski sued James and Sylvestri for negligence, and the trial court ruled that James was the jet-ski’s driver. James then filed this declaratory action against State Farm, Gasowski and Sylvestri; James sought to obtain a determination that he, as the jet-ski’s driver, was covered by the State Farm policy. The parties eventually settled Gasowski’s lawsuit under a “Release and Settlement Agreement,” which dismissed that lawsuit but permitted the driver’s identity to be litigated in James’ declaratory action. Gasowski then moved for summary disposition based on collateral estoppel, a legal doctrine which prevents a party from raising an issue which was already decided in a previous lawsuit. Because the trial court in the first suit had determined that James was the driver of the jet-ski, that determination could not be challenged in the declaratory action, Gasowski argued. State Farm disagreed, arguing that collateral estoppel did not apply as to State Farm because it was not involved in the first lawsuit. State Farm also contended that the parties to the first lawsuit could be colluding to provide coverage for James; the insurer presented evidence suggesting that Gasowski was the driver. But the trial court ruled in James’ favor, holding that State Farm was barred from further litigating the question of who was driving the jet-ski. It had already been determined that James was the driver and that James was covered under the State Farm policy, the trial court said. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. State Farm appeals..
Top of Page
|
