News & Community

Attached is the link to the Pennsylvania Superior Court opinion from May 14, 2010 in Catroppa v. Carlton. The Superior Court decision by Judge Bender reverses the trial court and holds that a third party is not bound by an underinsured motorist ("UIM") arbitration award and not collaterally estopped from challenging the amount of the Plaintiff's damages when the plaintiff received a UIM arbitration award for the same accident and the insurance company in the UIM proceeding is the same as the one insuring the third party.

This case involves a motor vehicle accident which occurred on September 10, 2004. Carlton was injured and filed a third party case against Catroppa in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County. Catroppa had bodily injury liability coverage of $50,000. Carlton had personal UIM coverage of $50,000 and pursued the UIM claim at the same time as the third party claim in separate proceedings. The UIM arbitration took place before the trial of the third party case and resulted in an award for Carlton in the amount of $100,000. Carlton then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the third party case and argued that since Catroppa had the same insurance company (State Farm) as the Defendant in the trial court case, she was collaterally estopped from relitigating the damages since the parties already stipulated to liability. Catroppa appealed.

The Superior Court reverses and finds that since the party against whom the claim of collateral estoppel is asserted (Catroppa) was not a party or in privity with a party in the prior case she cannot be bound by the UIM award. Catroppa was not a party to the UIM proceedings Carlton. Therefore, she is not able to impose the damage award by estoppel in the third party case even though the same insurance company State Farm insured both Carlton the defendant Catroppa in the third party case and the plaintiff Carlton in the UIM case. The case is remanded for the trial of the damages.

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/A04013_10.pdf