Court Opinion

ID: 9743391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:32:21.585833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:41.035207
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Judge,
concurring in result.
Because I remained convinced that the traditional rule in Indiana for invoking collateral estoppel provided needed protection for the right of all persons to assert and control the presentation of their individual claims and defenses in court, and that the judicial economy rationale for jettisoning the traditional rule had too little real weight, I dissented in Sullivan v. American Cas. Co. (1992), Ind., 605 N.E.2d 134. The traditional rule properly required privity and mutuality of estoppel. I would continue to require that those elements be present for the offensive as well as the defensive use of the rule. ~Here, the trial judge rejected the estoppel plea altogether. I therefore concur in affirming his judgment.