Redman v. North River Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 November 1934
• Docket Number: 24639
• Citation: 193 N.E. 347,128 Ohio St. 615
• Parties: Redman v. The North River Ins. Co.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

193 N.E. 347

128 Ohio St. 615

Redman v. The North River Ins. Co.

No. 24639

Supreme Court of Ohio

November 21, 1934

Res judicata - Judgment on pleadings erroneous - Disagreement as to identity of issues involved in two cases - Insurance - Suit by insurance company against tortfeasor to recoup payments for property damage - Defendant pleaded favorable verdict in personal injury suit - Negligence.

On June 15, 1931, Albert F. Kuhl and John Redman, the plaintiff in error, were the respective owners and operators of two motor vehicles that became involved in a collision.

Kuhl had a so-called collision insurance policy with The North River Insurance Company, the defendant in error. He filed with the company a claim for property damage to his automobile, and shortly received the sum of $1,275 in full settlement thereof.

Subsequently on February 25, 1932, Kuhl filed an action against Redman asking damages for alleged injuries to his person.

Thereafter on April 19, 1932, the company filed the instant action against Redman asking judgment against him for the $1,275 it had paid Kuhl. To the company's petition Redman filed an amended answer alleging two defenses. The second of these was that of res judicata expressed in the following language:

"Further answering and by way of second defense to plaintiff's petition, defendant repeats and re-avers each and every allegation in his first defense contained and makes the same a part of this defense the same as if here rewritten and avers that on the 31st day of March, 1933, in an action in this court No. 26205 on the dockets thereof, wherein the said Albert F. Kuhl was plaintiff and this defendant was defendant, wherein the iSsues were the same as in the petition herein, after a trial had before a jury on the merits thereof, said defendant recovered a judgment in his favor and by reason of said fact all the issues involved herein have now been adjudicated in favor of defendant."

The plaintiff filed a motion to strike this defense from the amended answer. This was overruled, as was a subsequent motion by the plaintiff to strike the entire amended answer from the files.

Then the plaintiff filed the following reply:

"For reply to the second defense contained in said amended answer admits that, in case No. 26205 on the dockets of said court wherein Albert F. Kuhl was plaintiff and John Redman was defendant, a trial was held on the merits of that case admits that said Albert F. Kuhl did not recover a judgment but lost said case, but denies that by reason of said verdict in said case, that the issues involved in this case have been adjudicated in favor of the defendant John Redman, for the following reasons:

"First. That this plaintiff is the real party in interest herein having been subrogated in full before either action was filed and upon the date the cause of action arose, and the payment in full of all said damages to the automobile of said A. F Kuhl in the sum of one thousand two hundred seventy-five dollars ($1,275) under the provisions of said contract of insurance as set forth in the petition herein, which policy contract was in full force and effect at the time said cause of action arose, to all the interest, claim or action of said Albert F. Kuhl to damages to his property as a result of the negligent acts of said defendant as set forth in the petition;

"Second. That said action brought by Albert F. Kuhl was founded upon personal injuries and medical expenses sustained by said Albert F. Kuhl and not for any damages as pleaded and alleged by this plaintiff herein;

"Third. That said Albert F. Kuhl in said Case No 26205 had no interest, title or right to maintain...