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. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  2. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

  3. @ Rebecca D Fell, I am very sorry for your loss. I think it gives the family solace and a bit of closure to go to a road side memorial. Those that oppose them probably did not experience the loss of a child or a loved one.

  4. If it were your child that died maybe you'd be more understanding. Most of us don't have graves to visit. My son was killed on a state road and I will be putting up a memorial where he died. It gives us a sense of peace to be at the location he took his last breath. Some people should be more understanding of that.

  5. Can we please take notice of the connection between the declining state of families across the United States and the RISE OF CPS INVOLVEMENT??? They call themselves "advocates" for "children's rights", however, statistics show those children whom are taken from, even NEGLIGENT homes are LESS likely to become successful, independent adults!!! Not to mention the undeniable lack of respect and lack of responsibility of the children being raised today vs the way we were raised 20 years ago, when families still existed. I was born in 1981 and I didn't even ever hear the term "CPS", in fact, I didn't even know they existed until about ten years ago... Now our children have disagreements between friends and they actually THREATEN EACH OTHER WITH, "I'll call CPS" or "I'll have [my parent] (usually singular) call CPS"!!!! And the truth is, no parent is perfect and we all have flaws and make mistakes, but it is RIGHTFULLY OURS - BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS GREAT NATION - to be imperfect. Let's take a good look at what kind of parenting those that are stealing our children are doing, what kind of adults are they producing? WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO THE CHILDREN THAT HAVE BEEN RIPPED FROM THEIR FAMILY AND THAT CHILD'S SUCCESS - or otherwise - AS AN ADULT.....

ADVERTISEMENT