Opinion ID: 6516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: underwriters' claim of res judicata

Text: Finally, it must be determined whether Gulf Island's claims against Underwriters were barred by res judicata. Underwriters concedes that it was not a named party defendant to the prior 1985 suit. Nevertheless, Underwriters argues that it is entitled to assert the defense of res judicata because Blue Streak is its insured, and thus, it stands in the shoes of Blue Streak.6 Underwriters correctly states the proposition that the direct action insurer stands as a party-litigant in exactly the same shoes as the assured. Ex parte Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 322 F.2d 5 In the court below Blue Streak filed a cross-claim against Wausau, indicating the parties' interests were not identical. 6 Both Underwriters and the court below have expressly recognized that Underwriters' liability is predicated solely on the liability of its assured, Blue Streak. 8 113, 116 (5th Cir.1963); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Mmahat, 960 F.2d 1325, 1330 n. 10 (5th Cir.1992). However, this argument offers Underwriters no succor in that this Court has determined that Blue Streak was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of res judicata. Because res judicata does not bar the suit against Blue Streak, it does not bar the suit against its insurer, Underwriters. Thus, Underwriters' assertion of res judicata must also fail.