Opinion ID: 1404608
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Same Transaction?

Text: The Kestersons' argue that their phantom vehicle claim against State Farm is a separate claim under the doctrine of claim preclusion because there are two separate sets of operative facts that form the basis for recovery of uninsured motorist benefits under the State Farm policy with respect to the accident of December 30, 1998:(1) the underlying negligence of Wallut as the driver' of his employer's vehicle; and (2) the underlying negligence of the phantom driver of the hit-and-run vehicle. Because of their differing subject matter, the evidence necessary to prove each claim is distinct. Since the evidence necessary to sustain the claim[s] is different in both cases, the Kestersons argue, their voluntary dismissal and refiling of the phantom vehicle claim did not violate the rule against improper claim splitting. The Kestersons are correct in their assertion that a court must look to the factual bases for the claims, not the legal theories, when determining whether claims may be split. Chesterfield Village, Inc . at 319. In order for a subsequent claim on the same transaction to be considered separate, however, there must be new ultimate facts, as opposed to evidentiary details, that form a new claim for relief. Id. at 320. The evidentiary details necessary to prevail on the phantom vehicle claim are indeed different than those necessary to prevail on the Kestersons' uninsured motorist claim against State Farm based on Wallut's negligence. The crux of the inquiry, however, is the same. Both claims require evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the car accident. Evidence of the road conditions on the day of the accident, Wallut's negligent driving, the relative positions of the ears and the tractor-trailer at the time of the accident and the fault of the driver of the phantom vehicle are integral to both claims. In other words, the ultimate facts in both claims are the same. That the phantom vehicle claim would require a greater focus on the negligence of the phantom driver does not create a separate claim for the purposes of claim preclusion. The phantom driver claim against State Farm undeniably arose out of the same transaction as the previously litigated claims because all of the claims originate from the same car accident.