Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a new 2024 lawsuit against Able asserting claims arising from both the defective installation and Able’s alleged conduct during the insurance claim process. The superior court dismissed the 2024 case on summary judgment based on res judicata and collateral estoppel and struck Cromp’s motion to compel discovery as moot.
LAW
The key doctrine was res judicata, also known as claim preclusion. Under Washington law, res judicata bars a later lawsuit when there has been a final judgment on the merits and the later case shares identity with the prior case in:
1. subject matter,
2. cause of action,
3. persons and parties, and
4. the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.
Res judicata also bars claim splitting, meaning a plaintiff may not bring separate lawsuits based on the same transaction or occurrence when the claims could have been litigated in the earlier action.
DISCUSSION
The court concluded that Cromp’s 2022 case ended in a final judgment on the merits because the breach-of-contract claim was dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment, even though the dismissal was based on the statute of limitations.
The court then found all four res judicata elements satisfied. The 2022 and 2024 lawsuits involved the same subject matter because both arose from Able’s toilet installation and related events. The causes of action were sufficiently identical because they arose from the same transactional nucleus of facts: the plumbing contract, the alleged leaking toilets, and Able’s conduct after the leaks were discovered. Although Cromp framed the 2024 claims as fraud, negligence, bad faith, insurance fraud, and emotional distress, the court emphasized that res judicata bars not only claims actually litigated but also claims that could have been brought with reasonable diligence in the earlier case. The court also found identity of parties and quality of parties because Cromp and Able were parties in both lawsuits in the same capacities.
The superior court therefore did not abuse its discretion by striking the motion as moot.
ANALYSIS
The court’s reasoning turned less on the labels Cromp attached to his later claims and more on the factual basis underlying both lawsuits. Cromp knew of the alleged insurance-related misconduct during the 2022 case and even attempted to add similar claims by amendment. Because those claims arose out of the same contractual relationship and sequence of events, he was required to pursue them in the original action rather than filing a second lawsuit after the first case was dismissed.
Washington law prohibits filing two separate lawsuits based on the same event or claim splitting. As a threshold requirement of res judicata, there must be a final judgment on the merits in the prior suit. If claim splitting were permitted, the practice would lead to multiple suits and force a defendant to incur the cost and effort of defending multiple suits. The prohibition on claim splitting generally arises under the doctrine of res judicata, also commonly known as claim preclusion. We review de novo whether res judicata bars an action.
Even a plaintiff who later pleads different legal theories cannot avoid res judicata if the later claims arise from the same factual transaction and could have been litigated previously. The ruling also shows that a dismissal with prejudice on statute-of-limitations grounds can have preclusive effect.
Res judicata rests upon the ground that a matter which has been litigated, or on which there has been an opportunity to litigate, in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, should not be permitted to be litigated again. It puts an end to strife, produces certainty as to individual rights, and gives dignity and respect to judicial proceedings.
CONCLUSION
The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court. It held that Cromp’s 2024 lawsuit was barred by res judicata because it constituted impermissible claim splitting following the final judgment in his 2022 case. The court also affirmed the order striking Cromp’s motion to compel discovery as moot.
The Court of Appeals held that Able was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Cromp’s 2024 lawsuit constituted impermissible claim splitting barred by res judicata. Accordingly, it affirmed the superior court’s summary judgment dismissal of Cromp’s claims and its decision to strike Cromp’s motion to compel discovery as moot.
ZALMA OPINION
Litigation is a win or lose proposition. You sue, you win or you lose. And when you lose a lawsuit you cannot sue again to get another chance to win. Cromp lost. He tried suing again using different legal concepts. The Court of Appeals put an end to the strife betweem the homeowner and the contractor. Res Judicata produced certainty as to individual rights, and gave dignity and respect to the judicial proceedings.
(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. wEYk.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
