Kerins v. Prudential Property & Casualty

In Kerins v. Prudential Property & Casualty, 185 A.D.2d 403 (3d Dept. 1992), the plaintiff sought a judgment declaring that the defendant was collaterally estopped from denying coverage based on a prior arbitration between the defendant and a different party. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the collateral estoppel claim on the grounds that the arbitration agreement contained a provision that the arbitration award would have no collateral estoppel effect. The court reasoned: "The intention of the two insurance companies in this case not to have collateral estoppel apply to the arbitration decision is clear because of their agreement and the explicit rules governing their arbitration process. If the arbitration decision were to be given collateral estoppel effect here it would change that expectation."