When plaintiffs moved in and turned on the fireplace, a fire broke out and caused extensive damage. It was discovered that the fireplace was not vented to the outside. After Ashcroft paid, defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs had already recovered their damages from Ashcroft and were not entitled to double recovery. The trial court granted the motion based on the double recovery argument. The Court of Appeals holds that the arbitrator's findings as to actual damages, including non-economic damages, preclude relitigation of that issue in subsequent proceedings against defendant.
Collateral estoppel applies.
However, the rule against double recovery does not preclude plaintiffs from pursuing claims for punitive and enhanced damages under the Act. The summary judgment order is reversed to the extent it precluded plaintiffs' recovery on their claims for enhanced and exemplary damages. Summary judgment on these claims would not be justified. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The state appeals the order authorizing withdrawal of defendant's guilty plea, and dismissal of the charges against her.