Res Judicata Produces Certainty | Zalma on Insurance

September 3, 2026

1 View 0

SaveSavedRemoved 0

Litigation is a Win or Lose Proposition.

Post 5484

In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.

Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.

On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a new 2024 lawsuit against Able asserting claims arising from both the defective installation and Able’s alleged conduct during the insurance claim process. The superior court dismissed the 2024 case on summary judgment based on res judicata and collateral estoppel and struck Cromp’s motion to compel discovery as moot.

LAW

The key doctrine was res judicata, also known as claim preclusion. Under Washington law, res judicata bars a later lawsuit when there has been a final judgment on the merits and the later case shares identity with the prior case in:

subject matter,
cause of action,
persons and parties, and
the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.

Res judicata also bars claim splitting, meaning a plaintiff may not bring separate lawsuits based on the same transaction or occurrence when the claims could have been litigated in the earlier action.

DISCUSSION

The court concluded that Cromp’s 2022 case ended in a final judgment on the merits because the breach-of-contract claim was dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment, even though the dismissal was based on the statute of limitations.

The court then found all four res judicata elements satisfied. The 2022 and 2024 lawsuits involved the same subject matter because both arose from Able’s toilet installation and related events. The causes of action were sufficiently identical because they arose from the same transactional nucleus of facts: the plumbing contract, the alleged leaking toilets, and Able’s conduct after the leaks were discovered. Although Cromp framed the 2024 claims as fraud, negligence, bad faith, insurance fraud, and emotional distress, the court emphasized that res judicata bars not only claims actually litigated but also claims that could have been brought with reasonable diligence in the earlier case. The court also found identity of parties and quality of parties because Cromp and Able were parties in both lawsuits in the same capacities.

The superior court therefore did not abuse its discretion by striking the motion as moot.

ANALYSIS

The court’s reasoning turned less on the labels Cromp attached to his later claims and more on the factual basis underlying both lawsuits. Cromp knew of the alleged insurance-related misconduct during the 2022 case and even attempted to add similar claims by amendment. Because those claims arose out of the same contractual relationship and sequence of events, he was required to pursue them in the original action rather than filing a second lawsuit after the first case was dismissed.

Washington law prohibits filing two separate lawsuits based on the same event or claim splitting. As a threshold requirement of res judicata, there must be a final judgment on the merits in the prior suit. If claim splitting were permitted, the practice would lead to multiple suits and force a defendant to incur the cost and effort of defending multiple suits. The prohibition on claim splitting generally arises under the doctrine of res judicata, also commonly known as claim preclusion. We review de novo whether res judicata bars an action.

Even a plaintiff who later pleads different legal theories cannot avoid res judicata if the later claims arise from the same factual transaction and could have been litigated previously. The ruling also shows that a dismissal with prejudice on statute-of-limitations grounds can have preclusive effect.

Res judicata rests upon the ground that a matter which has been litigated, or on which there has been an opportunity to litigate, in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, should not be permitted to be litigated again. It puts an end to strife, produces certainty as to individual rights, and gives dignity and respect to judicial proceedings.

CONCLUSION

The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court. It held that Cromp’s 2024 lawsuit was barred by res judicata because it constituted impermissible claim splitting following the final judgment in his 2022 case. The court also affirmed the order striking Cromp’s motion to compel discovery as moot.

The Court of Appeals held that Able was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Cromp’s 2024 lawsuit constituted impermissible claim splitting barred by res judicata. Accordingly, it affirmed the superior court’s summary judgment dismissal of Cromp’s claims and its decision to strike Cromp’s motion to compel discovery as moot.

Litigation is a win or lose proposition. You sue, you win or you lose. And when you lose a lawsuit you cannot sue again to get another chance to win. Cromp lost. He tried suing again using different legal concepts. The Court of Appeals put an end to the strife betweem the homeowner and the contractor. Res Judicata produced certainty as to individual rights, and gave dignity and respect to the judicial proceedings.