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. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  2. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  3. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  4. My husband left me and the kids for 2 years, i did everything humanly possible to get him back i prayed i even fasted nothing worked out. i was so diver-stated, i was left with nothing no money to pay for kids up keep. my life was tearing apart. i head that he was trying to get married to another lady in Italy, i look for urgent help then i found Dr.Mack in the internet by accident, i was skeptical because i don’t really believe he can bring husband back because its too long we have contacted each other, we only comment on each other status on Facebook and when ever he come online he has never talks anything about coming back to me, i really had to give Dr.Mack a chance to help me out, luckily for me he was God sent and has made everything like a dream to me, Dr.Mack told me that everything will be fine, i called him and he assured me that my Husband will return, i was having so many doubt but now i am happy,i can’t believe it my husband broke up with his Italian lady and he is now back to me and he can’t even stay a minute without me, all he said to me was that he want me back, i am really happy and i cried so much because it was unbelievable, i am really happy and my entire family are happy for me but they never know whats the secret behind this…i want you all divorce lady or single mother, unhappy relationship to please contact this man for help and everything will be fine i really guarantee you….if you want to contact him you can reach him through dr.mac@yahoo. com..,

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT