Opinion ID: 1444047
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: effect of prior judgment

Text: The Yoakums argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hartford on their claims of a section 1983 deprivation of their civil rights, racketeering, and for the torts of spoliation of evidence, liability for intended consequences, and intentional harm to a property interest. The event at the heart of these claims is the successful attempt by Cantrill Skinner to contact Thompson and utilize him as an expert witness. As indicated previously, after Thompson's reexamination of the golf cart, he discovered that he had made a mathematical error when he originally calculated the vehicle's roll-over speed. After correcting his calculations and recomputing the formula, he substantially changed his opinion and concluded that the golf course vehicle was safe at speed. The district court found that all of these causes of action amounted to nothing more than a claim of bad faith by a third party against an insurer which is not actionable in Idaho. Further, the district court concluded that any claims about Hartford's misconduct in the wrongful death action should have been asserted in Yoakum v. City of McCall, # CV 90-244 (Valley County, Idaho), and could now be asserted in that action by a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to I.R.C.P. 60(b). In so concluding, the district court erred. Relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(3), based upon fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party, would have been unavailable to the Yoakums in the wrongful death suit since the alleged misconduct of Hartford in hiring Thompson was known well before the offer of judgment was made and the judgment entered. See Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328, 334-35, 612 P.2d 1175, 1181-82 (1980). Further, the claims asserted now by Yoakums against Hartford are not barred by the claim preclusive effects of res judicata. Under the principle of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a judgment on the merits in a prior proceeding generally bars relitigation between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action. Foster v. City of St. Anthony, 122 Idaho 883, 888, 841 P.2d 413, 418 (1992) (quoting Andre v. Morrow, 106 Idaho 455, 680 P.2d 1355 (1984)). Although the claims asserted by the Yoakums against Hartford in this action are not the same as those involved in the wrongful death suit that particular difference, in itself, would not prevent claim preclusion since res judicata also prohibits litigation of matters which might and should have been litigated in the first suit. Diamond v. Farmers Group, Inc., 119 Idaho 146, 148-51, 804 P.2d 319, 321-24 (1990) (quoting Joyce v. Murphy Land & Irrigation Co., 35 Idaho 549, 208 P. 241 (1922)). The claims which Yoakums now assert against Hartford are separate and independent causes of action arising out of Hartford's activities and are irrelevant to the negligence action asserted against McCall. Thus these are not claims which might and should have been litigated in the first suit, and res judicata is not a bar. The district court also determined that the bulk of the Yoakums' claims could be distilled into a single claim of bad faith against an insurance company. Since third parties are precluded in this state from bringing a bad faith claim against an insurance company, Hettwer v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho, 118 Idaho 373, 797 P.2d 81 (1990), the district court concluded that the Yoakums' claims must fail. A review of Yoakums' claims, however, supports Yoakums' assertion that these causes of action for violation of civil rights, racketeering, spoliation of evidence, liability for intended consequences and intentional harm to a property interest relate directly to Hartford's allegedly tortious actions against Yoakums, irrespective of any insurance policy. Thus these claims are more properly characterized as separate and independent torts against Hartford, rather than as third party bad faith claims, and therefore we will analyze the merits of each. The Yoakums' first allegation is that Hartford conspired with Thompson, a public official, to deprive the Yoakums of their civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the record clearly indicates that Hartford hired Thompson to reexamine the vehicle, there is absolutely no evidence in the record of any conspiracy between them to falsify Thompson's report in order to minimize McCall's fault for the accident or to violate any of the criminal bribery statutes as alleged by Yoakums; nor have the Yoakums presented evidence of any cognizable deprivation of their civil rights to support such a claim. See Hopper v. Hayes, 573 F.Supp. 1368, 1371 (D.Idaho 1983). Furthermore, it appears that, at least from the time Thompson performed his second investigation, he was no longer employed by the State of Idaho and was therefore not a state actor for the purposes of invoking section 1983. The Yoakums' cause of action for Hartford's alleged pattern of racketeering activity must also fail since the Yoakums' racketeering claim apparently is predicated completely upon Hartford's single action of employing Thompson in violation of the bribery and corrupt influences statutes and, hence, does not satisfy the statutory requirement that a pattern of racketeering activity must involve at least two (2) incidents. I.C. § 18-7803. The Yoakums' next claim is for spoliation of evidence, a tort we have previously discussed but have not expressly adopted. Murray v. Farmers Ins. Co., 118 Idaho 224, 229, 796 P.2d 101, 106 (1990) (citing Smith v. Superior, 151 Cal.App.3d 491, 198 Cal.Rptr. 829 (1984); Hazen v. Anchorage, 718 P.2d 456 (Alaska 1986)). Assuming arguendo that ... spoliation of evidence is part of the law of Idaho, Murray, id., it is clear, however, that an essential element of that tort is not present here. Any person who willfully destroys or conceals evidence is liable for the tort of intentional spoliation of evidence. Smith, 198 Cal.Rptr. at 833. In Smith, the plaintiffs sought compensation for the intentional destruction of important evidence that was to be used in future litigation. Id. at 835. In contrast, the Yoakums have not demonstrated that Hartford destroyed any evidence which would justify holding the insurer liable for this tort. As an expert witness, Thompson's opinion as to the vehicle's role in the accident is not evidence that the jury is bound to accept and, in fact, the jury may totally reject his views on causation for any reason. See IDJI 124. The golf cart itself, upon which Thompson's opinion was based, had not been tampered with and could easily have been examined by another expert hired by the Yoakums who could have proffered his opinion for the jury's consideration. In addition, Thompson's original investigation report finding that the vehicle was unsafe to operate at any speed was also still intact and readily available for use by the Yoakums for any purpose, including impeachment of Thompson, at the wrongful death trial. Hartford's hiring of Thompson to conduct a subsequent investigation and file a new report, although it certainly devalued Thompson's original report, does not create the type of destruction or concealment of evidence which this tort requires. The Yoakums have also sought to hold Hartford liable for torts not heretofore recognized in this state, i.e. liability for intended consequences and intentional harm to a property interest, based upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 870, 871 (1979). We note, however, that the Restatement has set forth these two sections, not to define specific causes of action labeled as such, but as mere guidelines for a court to use in fashioning the contours of new intentional torts a court may wish to create. Id. We therefore find no cogent reason to convert these unifying principles into actionable torts for the purposes of this lawsuit. Based upon the foregoing, we find no basis for any assertion of liability against Hartford under the circumstances presented by this case; however, for guidance in future litigation we take this opportunity to opine on a possible cause of action for conduct more egregious than that presented here. The guidelines offered by the authors of the Restatement and the cases which have defined the intentional spoliation of evidence cause of action provide a framework for another cause of action based upon intentional conduct that unreasonably interferes with a party's prospective cause of action. The tort of intentional spoliation of evidence has been alternatively identified by courts as the intentional interference with prospective civil action by spoliation of evidence. Hazen, 718 P.2d at 463. The court in Smith described this tort as closely analogous to the intentional interference with a prospective business advantage, a tort which has been recognized in this state. Idaho First National Bank v. Bliss Valley Foods, 121 Idaho 266, 284-87, 824 P.2d 841, 859-62 (1991). As we discussed in Bliss Valley Foods, in order to recover for the tort of intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must establish that the intentional interference by the defendant resulting in injury was wrongful. This may be shown by proof that either: (1) the defendant had an improper motive to harm the plaintiff; or (2) the defendant used a wrongful means to cause injury to the prospective advantage. Id. at 286, 824 P.2d at 861. To be actionable, the means used to cause injury must be wrongful by reason of a statute, regulation, recognized common law rule, or an established standard of a trade or profession. Downey Clinic v. Nampa Restaurant Corp., 127 Idaho 283, 286, 900 P.2d 191, 194 (1995) (citing Top Serv. Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate, 283 Or. 201, 582 P.2d 1365, 1371 (1978)). What may be wrongful for an unprivileged defendant in a given situation, however, may not be so when the defendant is acting under a recognized privilege. Bliss Valley Foods, 121 Idaho at 286, 824 P.2d at 861. In this case Hartford was acting to minimize McCall's liability, and therefore its own exposure to substantial damages therefrom, by hiring Thompson to reinvestigate the vehicle and the accident. That is clearly not an improper motive and the only question is whether, given Hartford's position as McCall's insurer, the means used to devalue the Yoakums' claims was wrongful. Although not confined solely to the spoliation of evidence, a claim for intentional interference with a prospective civil action must nonetheless allege and prove conduct that amounts to an unreasonable interference by the defendant, taking into account any recognized privileges that party might hold. See, e.g., Hazen, 718 P.2d at 464. Although even a defendant's recognized privilege may be overcome when the means used is not justified, Top Serv. Body Shop, 582 P.2d at 1371, the record before us does not reveal that Hartford's conduct amounted to an unreasonable interference with the Yoakums' claims in the underlying wrongful death action. As we discussed earlier, neither Hartford nor Thompson destroyed any evidence and Hartford's mere hiring of Thompson to reexamine the accident vehicle, without more, is insufficient to impose liability. In addition, although we are disturbed by Sanderson's alleged misconduct in investigating the Yoakums' claims we again find that the claims adjuster's actions are not sufficiently egregious to amount to an unreasonable interference with the Yoakums' claims. For these reasons, and although we clearly do not condone Hartford's actions in this case, we cannot conclude that they amounted to an unreasonable interference with the Yoakums' civil action, especially considering Hartford's role as McCall's insurer and the party ultimately responsible for paying whatever damages a jury might find McCall ultimately liable for in the wrongful death action. Thus, even if we were to apply such a cause of action to the facts of this case, Yoakums would still not be able to withstand summary judgment.