58 Cal.2d 601, 26913, Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co.
|Citation:||58 Cal.2d 601, 25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 P.2d 439|
|Opinion Judge:|| Traynor|
|Party Name:||Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co.|
|Attorney:|| Leland, Plattner & Kalik and Horace L. Kalik for Plaintiffs and Appellants.  Thomas P. Menzies and James O. White, Jr., for Defendants and Appellants.|
|Case Date:||October 25, 1962|
|Court:||Supreme Court of California|
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Leland, Plattner & Kalik and Horace L. Kalik, Beverly Hills, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Thomas P. Menzies and James O. White, Jr., Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants.
Alleging losses by robbery, plaintiff corporations brought this action to recover $244,510.90 under contracts of insurance with defendant insurers. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, and the trial court granted defendants' motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The trial court denied defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiffs appeal from the order granting a new trial. Defendants appeal from the judgment.
We agree with defendants' contention that their plea of collateral estoppel defeats plaintiffs' action. In a criminal action that became final before the present action was commenced, Albert Teitelbaum, president of a plaintiff corporations was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft, attempted grand theft, and the filing of a false and fraudulent insurance claim. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. (People v. Teitelbaum, 163 Cal.App.2d 184, petition for hearing denied Oct. 22, 1958, cert. den., 359 U.S. 206, 79 S.Ct.
738, 3 L.Ed.2d 759.) Plaintiff corporations concede that the claim in this case is for the same loss involved in the criminal conviction and that they are mere alter egos of Teitelbaum. The issue adjudicated adversely to plaintiffs in the criminal action is identical with the issue in this action: whether the alleged robbery occurred as plaintiffs contend or whether it was staged by Teitelbaum as defendants contend. By its verdict, the previous jury necessarily found against plaintiffs on this issue.
The doctrine of res judicata has a double aspect: (1) it 'precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.' (2) 'Any issue necessarily decided in such litigation is conclusively determined as to the parties or their privies if it is involved in a subsequent lawsuit on a different cause of action.' (Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807, 810, 894; see Taylor v. Hawkinson, 47 Cal.2d 893, 895-896.) In the present case, since plaintiffs' cause of action is different from that of the state in the criminal proceeding, we are concerned with the latter aspect, often termed collateral estoppel.
In the Bernhard case...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP