Opinion ID: 1752918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Multiple Lawsuits

Text: First, the Nugents argue that not allowing them to join American Family in the underlying suit would give rise to the multiplicity of suits envisioned by the court in State v. Craig, 364 S.W.2d 343 (Mo.App. 1963). The Nugents are concerned that even if they obtained a judgment against the tort-feasor, they still will be required to retry the issues of liability and damages against their underinsured motorist carrier. This is not a problem because of the principle of estoppel. See Wells v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 459 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Mo. banc 1970); Sago, 827 S.W.2d at 756. In Wells , this Court held that an uninsured motorist carrier was estopped from relitigating issues necessarily decided in an action brought by its insured against an uninsured motorist if the carrier had been given notice and an opportunity to intervene and defend. Although Wells involved an uninsured motorist provision, its rationale holds equally true in an underinsured motorist case. Sago, 827 S.W.2d at 756. The Nugents can give American Family notice of the litigation and afford it an opportunity to intervene and defend. This concept is sometimes referred to as vouching in. If notice is given and American Family chooses not to intervene, it will be bound by the resulting judgment as to liability and damages. This alleviates any concern regarding multiplicity of lawsuits.