Injured Workers in Idaho were Given a Late Christmas Gift by the Idaho Supreme Court: Part II

By Fred Lewis

At the oral argument, I argued on Mr. Maravilla’s behalf that Simplot’s subrogated claim was separate and apart from Mr. Maravilla’s negligence claim against IIC. The Idaho Supreme Court held there were only two claims that had been asserted in Mr Maravilla’s case. First was Mr Maravilla’s own original negligence claim against IIC and second, Simplot’s present claim of subrogation against Mr. Maravilla. The Idaho Supreme Court went on to state that a critical component in deciding when claims are the same for purposes of res judicata is that the subsequent and present claims must be one that arises out of the same cause of action and should have been litigated in the first suit. Clearly, Maravilla’s cause of action in his negligence claim against IIC was based upon the October 16, 2011 industrial accident. On the other hand, Simplot’s subrogation claim is based upon Idaho Code Section §72-223 (3) and is derived from Mr Maravilla’s recovery from IIC. The Idaho Supreme Court pointed out that Mr. Maravilla’s recovery, rather than his injury, acted as the cause of action for Simplot’s subrogated claim. Simplot’s subrogated claim did not ripen until after Mr. Maravilla recovered from IIC. Therefore, Simplot’s subrogation claim and Mr. Maravilla’s negligence claims do not share a cause of action. Simplot could not bring its subrogation claim against Mr. Maravilla until Mr. Maravilla had recovered from IIC. 　The Idaho Supreme Court then held that for purposes of claim preclusion, Simplot’s subrogation claim was not the same claim as Mr. Maravilla’s negligence claim against IIC.