The First Circuit today took a roundabout tour through Massachusetts precedents before concluding that a declaratory judgment didn't preclude "coercive" claims that arose from the same nucleus of operative facts. The reason? Section 33 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments — which section the court found controlling — "[a] valid and final judgment in an action brought to declare rights or other legal relations of the parties is conclusive in a subsequent action between them as to the matters declared."
The "as to matters declared" part made the difference. Although in the first case the plaintiff obtained a declaration that the defendant's insurance policy covered the plaintiff's loss, the judgment didn't touch on whether — as the plaintiff alleged in the second suit — that the insurer's stonewalling amounted to a deceptive trade practice for which the plaintiff could recover treble damages. Robinson v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 08-1255 (1st Cir. Nov. 10, 2008).
And, yes, Judge Selya did write the opinion.
