Susan Pierson v. Hudson Insurance Company, et al.

Issue 1. Did the resolution of the tort claim against Thorne in Pearson v. Thorne decide the same issue or claim that plaintiff raises in the present suit against Hudson, such that the present lawsuit is barred by collateral estoppel? No. Issue 2. As it relates to the litigation in the prior lawsuit, is Hudson in privity with Thorne to be able to avail itself of the affirmative defense of issue and/or claim preclusion? No. Issue 3. Collateral estoppel is not to be applied when the result is against public policy. Plaintiff alleges that the failure of Hudson to write a waiver of the sovereignty defense into its policies (up to the limit of the policy) is a pattern of conduct that nullifies the operation of 25 USC 5321 (c) (3) (A), thereby depriving tort victims of the recovery that Congress intended should be available. Hudson has never answered this allegation, instead urging the court to stretch collateral estoppel to prevent plaintiff from exposing an illegal and lucrative practice of collecting premiums for liability policies under which it is very unlikely that any plaintiff will be able to obtain a recovery. Because the plaintiff has never had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim, does public policy require allowing plaintiff to go forward with her claim against Hudson in the present case? Yes.