PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBIN TURKAL, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Prudential Insurance Company challenges a trial court's summary judgment in an interpleader action, which was based on collateral estoppel arising from a prior probate proceeding. The appellate court reverses, holding that collateral estoppel cannot apply because Prudential was neither a party to nor in privity with any party in the prior probate action.
Collateral estoppel does not apply. The court held that collateral estoppel requires that the parties and issues be identical and that the matter have been fully litigated in a prior case resulting in a final decision. Because Prudential was neither a party to the probate action nor in privity with any party, collateral estoppel is inapplicable.
[1] Collateral estoppel requires that the parties and issues be identical in both the prior and current litigation.
[2] A party is not collaterally estopped from relitigating issues if they were not a party to the prior proceeding or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Collateral estoppel may be applied only where the parties and issues are identical and where a particular matter has been fully litigated and determined in a prior litigation which has resulted in a final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Establishes the foundational requirements for applying collateral estoppel doctrine.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrudential filed an interpleader action regarding insurance proceeds. The trial court granted summary judgment for Kenneth White, the Personal Represe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Privity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Prudential Insurance Company of America [Prudential] challenges the trial court’s entry of Final Summary Judgment for Defendant/Counterplaintiff, Kenneth White, the Personal Representative of the Estates of Robin Turkal and Joseph Tur-kal, in an interpleader action. The trial court found:
(A) That the issues which were the subject of that certain Probate proceeding pending in the Probate Division of this Court enstyled In Re: Estate of Joseph E. Turkal, Jr., deceased, Case No. 86-6005 (CP-02) are identical to the issues to be determined in this case.
(B) That said issues were fully litigated and determined resulting in a final decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction as represented by the certified copy of the Order rendered by the Probate Division of this Court and attached to the Defendant/Counterplaintiff’s Motion for Summary as Exhibit “A”.
(C) That the Plaintiff, PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, had an interest in the outcome of the subject proceeding before the Probate Division of this Court and had a right to participate in said proceeding through the filing of a Petition for Intervention, but chose voluntarily not to do so and, as a result, is bound by the findings of fact and conclusions of law heretofore made and determined in that proceeding and further is collaterally es-topped from relitigating those issues before this Court. See McGregor vs. Provident Trust Co., 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323 (1935) and Red Carpet Corporation of Panama City Beach vs. B.K. Roberts, 443 So. 2d 377 (1st DCA 1983).
We reverse.
Collateral estoppel may be applied only where the parties and issues are identical and where a particular matter has been fully litigated and determined in a prior litigation which has resulted in a final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1977); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Race, 508 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Weigh Less for Life, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Orange Park, 399 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see Trucking Employees of N. Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1984).
Because Prudential was neither a party to the probate action nor in privity with any party, collateral estoppel is inapplicable in this case.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stogniew v. McQUEEN, 656 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1995)…on and which were actually adjudicated in the prior litigation. Florida has traditionally required that there be a mutuality of parties in order for the doctrine to apply. Yovan v. Burdine’s, 81 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1955); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Turkal, 528 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Thus, unless both parties are bound by the prior judgment, neither may use it in a subsequent action. In Romano the question presented was whether a litigant, who was not a party to a prior criminal proceeding that resulted in a…
-
Jones v. The Upjohn Co., 661 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…the parties and issues are identical and where a particular matter has been fully litigated and determined in a prior litigation which has resulted in a final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Turkal, 528 So. 2d 487, 488 (Fla. 3d DCA1988). “A corollary to the doctrine of collateral estoppel is the doctrine of mutuality of parties which holds that strangers to a prior litigation— those who were neither parties nor in privity with a party — are not bound by the r…
-
R & S P'ship v. Martin Schaffel Enters., Inc., 529 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…only where the parties and issues are identical and where a particular matter has been fully litigated and determined in a prior litigation which has resulted in a final decision in a court of competent jurisdiction.” Prudential Ins. Co. v. Turkal, 528 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1977); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Race, 508 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Weigh Less for Life, Inc. v. Bar…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McGregor v. Provident Tr. Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1935)
- Vallen James Trumps v. State, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1977)
- Trucking Emps. OF N. Jersey Welf. Fund, Inc. v. Romano, 450 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1984)
- Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Weigh Less FOR Life, Inc. v. Barnett Bank OF Orange Park, 399 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- RED Carpet Corp. OF Panama City Beach v. B.K. Roberts, 443 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Race, 508 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)