Opinion ID: 3018675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nationwide

Text: The District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that Duong had split her cause of action. Duong, whose success in this action against Nationwide and the defendant lawyers is dependent upon a holding that the New Jersey action for property damage precluded her Pennsylvania suit for personal injuries, seeks to hold the defendants responsible for that effect. Therefore, it is her position that the Philadelphia judge’s decision that the Pennsylvania suit was barred was both correct as a matter of law and should be given full faith and credit. The District Judge rejected Duong’s argument. The Court recognized that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Spinelli v. Maxwell, 430 Pa. 478, 243 A.2d 425 (1968), held that because plaintiff had recovered a judgment for the damages to his vehicle, he split his action and was barred by res judicata from bringing a second complaint for his personal injuries. However, shortly thereafter in Stahl v. Hilderhoff, 432 Pa. 179, 247 A.2d 582 (1968), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, faced with a somewhat similar factual situation, concluded that the Spinelli rule was inapplicable because the plaintiff was not a party or in privity with the parties in the property damage action. Holding that Stahl rather than Spinelli was applicable in this case because Duong had not alleged that she authorized the New Jersey action, the District Court held that Duong had preserved her right to sue for personal injuries by refusing to consent to the subrogation action filed by 5 Nationwide in New Jersey. The District Court also rejected Duong’s argument that it erred in failing to give full faith and credit to the decision of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The District Court stated that under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, it “must accord state-court rulings the same effect they would have in a state court.” App. at 18a. The Court continued, “This requires us to follow the state law of issue preclusion. . . . Pennsylvania law on issue preclusion [referring primarily to Spinelli and Stahl] does not bar the defendants from litigating the claim-preclusive effect of the New Jersey summary judgment on the Philadelphia action. Hence, we are giving the ruling in the Philadelphia action the same effect a state court would.” App. at 18a. We see no reason to disturb the District Court’s decision granting Nationwide’s motion to dismiss.