Res Judicata Eliminates Second Suit
Post 5056
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gfeiyYgX and at https://lnkd.in/gwH87tHz, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Final Judgment Prohibits a Second Try
JC Robinson, Jr. (“JC”), pro se, appealed the trial court’s summary judgment decision in favor of defendant-appellee, Progressive Insurance Corporation (“Progressive”). In JC Robinson, Jr., et al. v. Progressive, 2025-Ohio-1370, No. 114348, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (April 17, 2025) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.
FACTS
In May 2024, JC sued Progressive on behalf of himself and his minor daughter, E.R., (collectively “the Robinsons”). JC claimed that the Robinsons were involved in a “hit-and-skip,” rear-end, motor vehicle accident in November 2023 (“the MVA”) resulting in property damage, physical and mental injuries, medical expenses, lost income, and loss of enjoyment of life. JC claimed that the Robinsons’ presented to an emergency room after calling 9-1-1 following the MVA and that their medical treatment was ongoing.
Progressive filed a motion to dismiss the C.P. Complaint in its entirety. Progressive argued that the C.P. Complaint was barred by res judicata and claim preclusion, noting that this was the second lawsuit the Robinsons filed against Progressive stemming from the MVA.
The Robinsons previously filed a complaint in JC Robinson, Jr. v. Progressive Ins. Corp., Cleveland M.C. No. 2023-CVI-0013723 (“Mun. Complaint”), which was dismissed with prejudice in March 2024.
Progressive filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment. However, JC argued that Progressive was responsible for 100 percent of the Robinsons medical bills, pain and suffering and loss of wages and those claims had not been settled.
In September 2024, the trial court granted Progressive’s motion for summary judgment “for the reasons argued in the briefs, namely res judicata.” JC appealed.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Summary Judgment and Res Judicata
JC argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it was unreasonable, unjust, and unconstitutional to strictly apply the doctrine of res judicata when the Robinsons’ claims were not ripe for review, litigated, or dismissed on the merits.
Pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and are held to the same standards as litigants who are represented by counsel. Indeed, pro se litigants are not entitled to greater rights, and they must accept the results of their own mistakes.
One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. There can be no genuine issue as to any material fact, since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of a non-moving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial
After the moving party’s initial burden is satisfied, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in the pleadings. Rather, the nonmoving party’s reciprocal burden is triggered, requiring it to set forth specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial. A trial court may consider evidence other than the materials specified in the motion if no objections are raised.
Res judicata ensures the finality and stability of judicial decisions, deters vexatious litigation, and allows courts to resolve other disputes. The doctrine prevents a party from relitigating an issue or claim that has already been decided in a final, appealable order or a valid, final judgment in a prior proceeding and could have been raised on appeal in that prior proceeding.
The Ohio Supreme Court adopted res judicata’s modern application, which includes claim preclusion and issue preclusion. The claims raised in the C.P. Complaint are barred by claim preclusion. First, a court of competent jurisdiction rendered a valid, final judgment on the merits in an earlier action. A dismissal with prejudice is a final decision on the merits. The current case involves the same parties or their privies.
The C.P. Complaint raises claims that were or could have been raised in the Mun. Complaint. JC pleaded the same breach-of-contract, unfair-claims practices, and bad-faith claims, which were previously raised in the Mun. Complaint.
The C.P. Complaint arises out of the same operative facts and evidence as the Mun. Complaint. The MVA and Progressive’s handling of the Robinsons’ claims under JC’s automobile insurance policy. An exception to the res judicata doctrine will not apply when the parties had a full and fair opportunity to be heard on an issue.
After Progressive moved for summary judgment JC’s reciprocal burden was triggered. To survive summary judgment, JC was required to set forth specific facts rebutting the application of res judicata and showing that genuine issues remained. JC has not done so. The record reveals that JC had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Robinsons’ claims; accepted a settlement from Progressive; voluntarily requested the dismissal of the Mun. Complaint with prejudice; and failed to pursue a direct appeal of the municipal court’s final, appealable order. JC failed to provide any evidence to rebut Progressive’s res judicata argument.
Because the doctrine of res judicata applies and no exception is warranted the trial court did not err in granting Progressive’s motion for summary judgment. The Judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance companies must be treated like any other litigant. Once a suit is settled and a judgment entered, it’s dispute with JC was resolved. Yet JC, acting as his own lawyer, sued again seeking another bite out of Progressive. The Court of Appeals wisely affirmed the trial court.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
