Opinion ID: 1755861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the circuit court's grant of chandler-sampson's motion for summary judgment based on res judicata grounds was proper?

Text: ¶ 21. The Harrisons argue that the Circuit Court of Madison County erred in holding that their present action was barred by res judicata. They urge that the circuit court misapprehended the distinction between insurance coverage vel non, and the agent's duty to procure proper insurance coverage. The Harrisons seek to differentiate between the federal district court's dismissal, which included only those claims arising out of the insurers' alleged breach of contract, and the claims which they now assert in state court regarding their agent's negligence. They further argue that the action did not accrue until after the federal district court determined that there was no coverage by the Ohio Casualty and Great American policies for indemnity or defense. ¶ 22. Res judicata, as a doctrine of claim preclusion, has two functions. Under the principle known as bar, res judicata precludes claims which were actually litigated in a previous action. Under the principle known as merger, res judicata prevents subsequent litigation of any claim that should have been litigated in a previous action. [7] The United States Supreme Court has succinctly held, [r]es judicata prevents litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 2209, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979). Likewise, this Court has been clear in regards to our application of the doctrine of res judicata, and we have held `that when a court of competent jurisdiction enters a final judgment on the merits of an action, the parties or their privies are precluded from re-litigating claims that were decided or could have been raised in that action.' Miss. Dep't of Human Services v. Shelby, 802 So.2d 89, 95 (Miss.2001) (citing Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Berry, 669 So.2d at 66). ¶ 23. Res judicata is fundamental to the equitable and efficient operation of the judiciary and reflects the refusal of the law to tolerate a multiplicity of litigation. Little v. V & G Welding Supply, Inc., 704 So.2d 1336, 1337 (Miss.1997). It is a doctrine of public policy designed to avoid the `expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and foster reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibilities of inconsistent decisions.' Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-54, 99 S.Ct. 970, 973-74, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). The courts can not revisit adjudicated claims and all grounds for, or defenses to recovery that were available to the parties in the first action, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding, are barred from re-litigation in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata. Alexander v. Elzie, 621 So.2d 909, 910 (Miss.1992). ¶ 24. For the bar of res judicata to apply in Mississippi there are four identities which must be present: (1) identity of the subject matter of the action; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties to the cause of action; and (4) identity of the quality or character of a person against whom the claim is made. Quinn v. Estate of Jones, 818 So.2d 1148, 1151 (Miss.2002); Dunaway v. W.H. Hopper & Assocs., Inc., 422 So.2d 749, 751 (Miss.1982). We have held that the absence of any one of the elements is fatal to the defense of res judicata. Estate of Anderson v. Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank, 674 So.2d 1254, 1256 (Miss.1996). ¶ 25. The four requisite identities of claim preclusion are well-grounded in Mississippi jurisprudence and are dispositive in the instant appeal. Here, all four identities are present and require that res judicata bar the Harrisons' current claim.