Opinion ID: 1815325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of Prior Judgment on a Party Who Appears in a Different Capacity in Subsequent Litigation.

Text: Under the conclusions reached in the prior division of this opinion, the district court correctly determined that those persons or entities who were parties to the prior litigation against defendant, Illinois Casualty Company, are now precluded from making further claims on the subject of policy coverages. As a result, Betty, in her capacity as administrator, may not pursue the present claims against defendant. There remains for consideration, however, whether Betty, in her individual capacity, is similarly precluded. Although Betty was a party to the prior litigation only in her capacity as administrator of her deceased son's estate, we conclude that claim preclusion also bars her right to litigate the present claims in her individual capacity. As stated in Restatement (Second) Judgments § 36 (1982), (1) A party appears in his individual capacity unless, in his designation as a party or by other manifestation, it is made evident that he appears in some other capacity. (2) A party appearing in an action in one capacity, individual or representative, is not thereby bound by or entitled to the benefits of the rules of res judicata in a subsequent action in which he appears in another capacity. (Emphasis added.) The foregoing rule deals only with the effects of difference in capacity as such. It does not alter those rules which otherwise subject nonparties to the consequences of res judicata. Comment c of section 36 of the Restatement states: The rule of this Section deals with the effects of difference in capacity as such. Rules in addition to those that differentiate a person's multiple capacities may result in a judgment's having effects with respect to a person who appears in litigation in different capacities.... See Illustrations 6 and 7. Illustration 7 referred to in the foregoing comment states as follows: A, on behalf of his child B, brings an action for injuries to B in which his claim includes amounts he expended for B's medical care. An adverse judgment precludes A from suing in his own capacity to recover the medical expenditures. In the prior litigation involving defendant's policy limits, Betty, as administrator, sought to litigate the scope of defendant's obligation to indemnify its insured against both her judgment as executor and her judgment in her individual capacity. Sufficient identity of interest exists between Betty's claims under the policy in dual capacities to support the district court's finding of claim preclusion. For the reasons stated, that court was correct in sustaining the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Its judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED.