Claim Preclusion

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: John Teske, et al. v. Wilson Mutual Insurance Company

Case No.: 2019 WI 62

Focus: Claim Preclusion

The petitioner, Wilson Mutual Insurance Company (Wilson), seeks review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court’s order that determined the Teskes’ claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Wilson contends that the circuit court correctly dismissed the Teskes’ claims because the claims could have been brought in a prior action between the same parties.

Specifically, Wilson asserts that claim preclusion applies to bar all of the plaintiffs’ claims because all three elements of claim preclusion are established. It contends that the parties to the first and second actions were the same, or were in privity. Wilson argues next that identity of causes of action is present because the claims in this lawsuit and the previous lawsuit arose from the same common nucleus of operative facts. Finally, it advances that there was a final judgment on the merits in the first action.

We conclude that claim preclusion bars the claims brought by Julie, Katherine, and Elle Teske in this second action. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the decision of the court of appeals that allowed their claims to proceed. However, we are evenly divided as to whether claim preclusion bars the claims brought by John Teske. As a result, we affirm.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Concur:

Dissent:

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.