Whispering Oaks Residential etc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co. CA6

I. BACKGROUND

In 2014, Whispering Oaks filed a lawsuit against Cincinnati in Missouri. Whispering Oaks alleged separate incidents in 2010 “caused severe loss to the covered

1 The parties use the term “direct estoppel,” a designation that refers to issue preclusion arising when “the second action is on the same claim.” (Sabek, Inc. v. Engelhard Corp. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 992, 997.) Courts “now refer to ‘claim preclusion’ rather than ‘res judicata’ [citation], and use ‘issue preclusion’ in place of ‘direct or collateral estoppel. [Citations.]’ ” (Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322, 326, fn. omitted.) In our analysis we therefore refer to the doctrine of “issue preclusion.” However, when describing the contentions of the parties in the trial court and in their appellate briefs, we use the term “direct estoppel” to accurately reflect their positions and the appellate record.

2 property and business,” and, “[i]n addition, the property was subject to vandalism [and] employee theft.” Whispering Oaks submitted a statement of proof of loss to Cincinnati, but Cincinnati refused to pay under Whispering Oaks’ insurance policy. The complaint included causes of action for breach of…