Opinion ID: 2429828
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Getty v. INA and Youell

Text: The court of appeals also held that Getty's claims against INA and Youell, NL's primary and excess insurance carriers, were barred by res judicata. Although INA and Youell were not parties to the Duncan suit, the court reasoned that res judicata bars a second suit against the same parties or their privies. 819 S.W.2d at 910 (emphasis added). Under Texas law, a former judgment bars a second suit against all who were in privity with the parties to the first suit. Benson v. Wanda Petroleum Co., 468 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.1971). There is no general definition of privity that can be automatically applied in all res judicata cases; the circumstances of each case must be examined. See Dairyland County Mutual Ins. Co. of Texas v. Childress, 650 S.W.2d 770, 773-74 (Tex.1983); Benson, 468 S.W.2d at 363. Those in privity with a party may include persons who exert control over the action, persons whose interests are represented by the party, or suecessors in interest to the party. See Dairyland, 650 S.W.2d at 774. Getty replies that even if INA and Youell were in privity with NL, res judicata would not bar Getty's present claims against them because Getty could not have asserted those claims in the Duncan suit. The insurance policies themselves specifically prohibited any claim from being brought against INA or Youell before the insured's liability was reduced to judgment or compromised. [7] We have held that when such no action policy provisions exist, a third party's right of action against the insurer does not arise until he has secured such an agreement or a judgment against the insured. Great American Ins. Co. v. Murray, 437 S.W.2d 264, 265-66 (Tex. 1969); see also State Farm County Mut. Ins. Co. of Texas v. Ollis, 768 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Tex.1989). Moreover, Tex.R.Civ.P. 38(c) prohibited Getty from joining INA and Youell in the Duncan suit. This rule provides, with respect to the joinder of third parties: (c) This rule shall not be applied, in tort cases, so as to permit the joinder of a liability or indemnity insurance company, unless such company is by statute or contract liable to the person injured or damaged. Rule 38(c) has been held to prohibit the joinder of insurers in situations resembling this case. See Langdeau v. Pittman, 337 S.W.2d 343, 355 (Tex.Civ.App.Austin 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Since Getty could not have asserted its present claims against INA or Youell in the Duncan suit, [8] it is not now precluded by res judicata from bringing these claims. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's summary judgment against INA and Youell on the ground of res judicata, and we remand this portion of the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.