ILNews

COA affirms dismissal of case due to res judicata

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Res judicata prevents a title insurance company from taking a “second bite” at the apple, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday, in a case in which the company appealed dismissal of its second attempt to challenge an action by the Indiana Department of Insurance.

The case began in March 2009 when the Indiana Department of Insurance issued a market conduct examination warrant to the First American Title Insurance Company and hired a third party to conduct the examination.

The examination was completed on Sept. 30, 2010, and sent to FATIC on Oct. 18, with FATIC filing a response by Nov. 10. Indiana code requires the IDOI commissioner to enter an order within 30 days after the end of the submission/rebuttal period either adopting the report as filed or with modifications, rejecting the report, or calling for an investigatory hearing to obtain additional data, information and testimony. However, commissioner Stephen Robertson failed to file an order within the initial deadline, and also failed to do so after his timeframe was extended twice.

The commissioner requested a third extension, but FATIC declined. Regardless, he issued an order on April 15, 2011, ordering an investigatory hearing. FATIC filed for judicial review and declaratory relief with the Marion Superior Court in May, arguing that the order was void because it was not timely. The insurance company did not file a complete agency record, but instead only filed the documents necessary to address the timeliness issue.

IDOI moved to dismiss the complaint because the entire agency record was not filed, but the trial court rejected that argument. However, it also rejected FATIC’s petition, finding that the company had “failed to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by (IDOI’s) failure to act on the Report within thirty days.”

Both parties cross-appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals and Indiana Supreme Court both found that IDOI could not argue that FATIC had to exhaust its administrative remedies before taking the case to court because that issue was not raised until appeal. Additionally, both courts found that the commissioner’s order was void.

But the high court also found that because FATIC had not filed the entire agency record, the trial court erred in denying IDOI’s motion to dismiss. The insurance department then filed for a Supreme Court rehearing, challenging the “conflict” between ordering the dismissal of FATIC’s judicial review petition and affirming the appellate court’s timeliness and administrative remedies opinions. The justices agreed to remove language from a footnote in its opinion that said the commissioner’s order was void.

The case was then remanded to the trial court and FATIC argued that an administrative agency’s void action is subject to collateral attack at any time. IDOI filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the insurance company’s writ of prohibition and action for mandate and request for declaratory relief were barred by res judicata. The trial court dismissed FATIC’s claims “with the Supreme Court’s clear directive,” finding that “where an administrative remedy is available, filing a declaratory judgment action is not a suitable alternative.”

FATIC appealed, arguing that the dismissal was improper because it was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a declaratory action against a void agency action.

But in a Friday opinion, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, writing that “FATIC is merely asserting the same claim that our supreme court previously rejected due to FATIC’s failure to file the entire agency record.”

Further, the appellate court wrote that the central issue of the case is whether Robertson’s opinion was timely, and such an issue “should be resolved in the first instance by the administrative agency.”

“Although its remedy failed due to its failure to file the complete agency record, res judicata prevents FATIC from taking a second bite at the apple by filing the instant action,” the court wrote.

The case is First American Title Insurance Company v. Stephen W. Robertson, Insurance Commissioner of the state of Indiana, in his official capacity, on behalf of the Indiana Department of Insurance, 49A05-1512-PL-2309.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT