Opinion ID: 1129101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: french's remaining contentions

Text: French argues that Travelers is estopped by the prior judgment against Cimarron from asserting any claims stemming from the occurrence that gave rise to the earlier lawsuit. In essence, French invokes the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion. [19] If French's liability under the six-foot law had already been fully and fairly litigated, then Travelers, as subrogee of Cimarron's statutory rights, would be foreclosed from asserting its claim against French. As a third-party defendant in the employee's suit against Cimarron, French approved the judgment's content as well as its form. Cimarron's claim against French was dismissed without prejudice as part of a settlement agreement whose terms were incorporated into the judgment. Although that case ended with an agreed judgment against Cimarron, the issues affecting Cimarron's third-party suit against French were neither judicially determined nor settled by the parties. Nay, the judgment explicitly reserved to Cimarron its right of action. Claim preclusion may not be invoked to block prosecution of a claim that was excepted or reserved in a prior judgment. [20] All issues to be pressed in Travelers' action were also reserved for future litigation. We hence hold that Travelers is not precluded in this suit from asserting its claim against French.