Bonnie Cruickshank-Wallace, et vir v. CNA Financial Corporation, et al.

This case provides an issue of first impression before this Court: should this Court affirm the standard that ‘“cZaim preclusion’ requires...the [new] claim arise from the same set of facts as a claim adjudicated on the merits in the earlier litigation”? U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“EDPa.”) grant of motion to dismiss Respondents Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) and Columbia Casualty Company (“Columbia”), affirmed by the Third Circuit (“3dCir.”), used ‘claim preclusion’ by arguing that plaintiff could have brought its new intentional tort claims in the previous litigation. But the previous state summary judgment dismissed on a technicality that case of legal negligent malpractice against a lawyer, not a party to this case, and therefore stated “we need not address whether issues of material fact exist concerning the individual elements of the claims.”

This case provides an issue of first impression before this Court: should this Court affirm precedent that finds a holding company of a wholly owned subsidiary, who controls and daily manages its holding company, liable for the conduct of its subsidiary? EDPa. grant of motion to dismiss Respondent holding company The Continental Corporation (“TCC”) regarding jurisdiction, affirmed by 3dCir., because TCC