Plaintiff’s Discovery Request Denied because Seeking Discovery as to Issues Barred from Re-Litigating by the Law of the Case Doctrine
In American Service Insurance Company v. China Ocean Shipping Company, a multi-vehicle accident occurred and resulted in the deaths of eight people and injuries to many others. Multiple lawsuits were filed against Vincent Zepeda (“Zepeda”); his employer, Frontline Transportation; China Ocean Shipping Company (“COSCO”); and Interpool Titling Trust (“Interpool”), which allegedly owned, leased, maintained, and/or controlled the trailer Zepeda was hauling when the accident occurred.
The court reviewed whether American Service Insurance Company’s request for discovery, as to funds the owners and lessors of the truck received from others in connection with their defense costs, was properly denied on the ground that American Service Insurance was barred from re-litigating the issue.
American Service Insurance asserts that the purpose of the requested discovery was to determine whether another insurer had already paid the attorney fees and costs that COSCO and Interpool were seeking to recover in the supplemental fee petition, that the discovery was relevant because COSCO and Interpool may not have exclusively tendered their defense, and that it was possible COSCO and Interpool could receive an impermissible double recovery. COSCO and Interpool respond that American Service Insurance’s discovery request is barred by the law of the case doctrine because the circuit court had previously denied its request for the same discovery and that decision was affirmed on appeal.
The law of the case doctrine protects the settled expectations of the parties, ensures uniformity of decisions, maintains consistency during the course of a single case, effectuates the proper administration of justice, brings litigation to an end, and maintains the prestige of the courts. To allow American Service Insurance to now challenge its duty to defend on the basis of a legal theory it could have previously pursued would violate the settled expectations of the parties, threaten the uniformity of the courts’ decisions, and disrupt consistency during the course of this case, as to the issue of plaintiff’s duty to defend. In addition, reopening this issue would prolong litigation and diminish the prestige of the courts by undermining the finality of this court’s decisions. The court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying American Service Insurance’s discovery request because it was seeking discovery as to issues it was barred from re-litigating by the law of the case doctrine.
Am. Serv. Ins. Co. v. China Ocean Shipping Co., 2014 IL App (1st) 121895.
