Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because the parties allegedly intended only the Auto Policy to cover such automobile-related risks.
Prime then amended the Commercial Policy and filed a declaratory action in Utah seeking reformation of the Commercial Policy. Medicab did not appear, and the Utah court entered a default judgment reforming the policy and declaring no Commercial Policy coverage.
Later, the Estate obtained a $412,440.71 judgment against Medicab and its employees in Florida, exceeding the Auto Policy’s $100,000 limit. Prime then filed this federal action in Florida, while Medicab counterclaimed for breach of contract, bad faith, fiduciary breach, and misrepresentation.
LAW
Under the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, a federal court must give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect it would receive in the rendering state. Applying Utah preclusion law, the court distinguished between claim preclusion and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel). Issue preclusion applies when:
1. the issue is identical to one decided previously,
2. there was a final judgment on the merits,
3. the issue was fully and fairly litigated, and
4. the party to be estopped was a party or in privity with a party in the earlier action.
Utah law also recognizes that a default judgment counts as a judgment on the merits, and that an insurer-insured relationship may create fiduciary duties in the third-party insurance context. Fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims require falsity, reliance, causation, and damages.
For collateral estoppel to bar a subsequent claim, four elements must be satisfied: (1) the issue challenged must be identical in the previous action and in the present case; (2) the issue must have been decided in a final judgment on the merits in the previous action; (3) the issue must have been competently, fully, and fairly litigated in the previous action; and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is invoked in the current action must have been either a party or privy to a party in the previous action.
DISCUSSION
The court held that the Utah default judgment had substantial preclusive effect. Medicab was a party to the Utah action. That preclusion barred Medicab’s contract claims, declaratory claim, and good-faith claim, because the Utah judgment had already determined that the Commercial Policy must be reformed, provided no coverage for the accident, and imposed no duty on Prime to defend or indemnify.
Utah law clearly indicates that default judgment is a judgment on the merits.
ANALYSIS
The case turns almost entirely on issue preclusion. The Florida federal court treated the Utah default judgment as binding not only on Medicab, but also on Medicab’s employees, because their rights depended on the same policy language and coverage position. When federal courts are asked to give res judicata effect to a state court judgment, it must apply the res judicata principles of the law of the state whose decision is set up as a bar to further litigation.
The court was also careful to separate claims that truly overlapped with the Utah adjudication from those that did not.
CONCLUSION
The Court declined Medicab Defendants’ invitation to set aside the Utah judgment. The court held that the Utah judgment precluded Medicab from relitigating whether the Commercial Policy covered the accident or whether Prime had a duty to defend or indemnify. Accordingly, Medicab’s claims for breach of contract, breach of good faith, declaratory relief, and breach of fiduciary duty failed, and PPCI was dismissed entirely.
ZALMA OPINION
Allowing a court to enter a default judgment against a plaintiff is a serious error. Once the judgment is entered it becomes final and all other courts, including federal courts, must give credit to the judgment regardless of claims providing to the judgment. The claims of bad faith died because of the default judgment.
(c) 2026 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://gbarryzalma.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://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Taking Money From a Client Trust Account Warrants Severe Disciplinary Sanction
Post number 5383
Stealing from a Client is Reprehensible
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lawyer-state-senator-permanently-disbarred-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-ixf9e and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In Re: Derrick D.T. Shepherd, No. 2026-OB-00357, Supreme Court of Louisiana (June 25, 2026) petitioner Derrick D.T. Shepherd, a former Louisiana State Senator and attorney, pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to commit money laundering after using his client trust account to help launder nearly $141,000 in fraudulently generated bond fees. The Louisiana Supreme Court permanently disbarred him in 2012.
Shepard returned $75,000 to Ms. Moyo and kept the rest of the funds for himself, using $20,000 to retire his campaign debt. To conceal all of this activity, Shepard created false billing statements and time records reflecting work his law firm had purportedly done on behalf of his “client,” Ms. ...
Negligent Hiring Tort not Preempted by Federal Statute
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/faa-authorization-act-does-preempt-all-state-tort-zalma-esq-cfe-6jkvc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al., 608 U.S.__ No. 24-1238, United States Supreme Court (May 14, 2026) Shawn Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries when his tractor trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena while Varela-Mojena was transporting plastic pots through Illinois for Caribe Transport II, LLC. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., acting as a transportation broker, had arranged the shipment.
Montgomery sued the driver, the motor carrier, the broker, and related entities, alleging that C.H. Robinson negligently hired Varela-Mojena and Caribe Transport despite safety information that allegedly showed Caribe Transport posed an unreasonable risk of crashes and injury.
LAW
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act ...
Million Dollar Roundup Verdict Reversed by SCOTUS
FIFRA Preempts the State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claim
Post number 5381
Posted on June 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, Certiorari To The Court Of Appeals Of Missouri, Eastern District, No. 24–1068, argued April 27, 2026, decided June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed a $1 million judgment found by a Missouri state court.
Facts
John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that his long-term use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto should have warned users of cancer risks. A jury awarded Durnell more than $1 million on a failure-to-warn theory, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether FIFRA preempts the state-law failure-to-warn claim.
Monsanto manufactures and distributes Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and has concluded that it is not likely to cause cancer; ...
