In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peppers, 64 Ill. 2d 187, 355 N.E.2d 24 (1976), the supreme court stated: "Under the principle of collateral estoppel the finding in the declaratory judgment action that the injury was intentionally inflicted could possibly establish the allegations of the assault count in the complaint and might preclude the victim's right to recover under the other theories alleged. The appellate court held that the ruling and judgment of the trial court in a declaratory judgment action under such circumstances were 'premature' and should be reversed. This issue was one of the ultimate facts upon which recovery is predicated in the underlying personal injury action against the shooter." Peppers, 64 Ill. 2d at 197. Moreover, in a more recent case that also involved a shooting, declaratory judgment action, and underlying tort suit, our supreme court stated: "We also uphold the rule that it is inappropriate to resolve a declaratory judgment action in such a manner as would bind the parties in the underlying litigation on any issues therein." American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Savickas, 193 Ill. 2d 378, 387, 739 N.E.2d 445, 451, 250 Ill. Dec. 682 (2000).