Court Opinion

ID: 9549850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:25:39.769595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:59.118615
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring):
I join the majority in holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in *1132denying Duke’s motion to intervene. However, I wish to comment on a question raised at oral argument that goes to the heart of this matter: the effect of the judgment for Republic on Duke’s separate suit.
I think it plain that any finding by the trial court in the present case that the tort was intentional could not be used against Duke in his separate civil action against Doman and Hadley because Duke was not a party to the instant case. The issue preclusion branch of res judicata applies only against one who was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication. Madsen v. Borthick, 769 P.2d 245, 250 (Utah 1988). The insurance company here may have outsmarted itself in its attempt to avoid liability. If it wanted the real benefit of this declaratory judgment on the intentional nature of the tort, it should have ensured that Duke was a party, not striven to keep him out.
DURHAM, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of ZIMMERMAN, J.