There has been alternative precedent from the First Department, addressing this same exact issue, that the Fourth Department refused to follow. The matter had a similar fact pattern, and the First Department determined that since the plaintiff failed to litigate the bad faith claims in the Insurance Law Section 3240, the action against the insurer was barred due to the fact that both sets of claims arose out of the same set of transactions. That decision was rejected in the Corle case because the Fourth Department found that since Corle's father did not have standing to assert a bad faith claim against Allstate until it had obtained the assignment of rights from Teeter, the insured, and the claim cannot be barred by res judicata.

 Editor's Note: Res judicata is a Latin term for "a matter judged", and is also known as claim preclusion. The term is meant to describe a case where there has been a final judgment and the case is no longer subject to appeal, res judicata is meant to preclude continued litigation on the same issues between the same parties. In this case, Allstate argued that since the case had already been decided, Corle should not be able to bring essentially the same case against them, only with the added claim of bad faith which Corle had failed to bring earlier. The court found that although it is true that the facts are the same, Corle did not have the standing to bring the bad faith claim until he received the assignment of rights and claims from Teeter. When Teeter assigned the rights and claims to Corle, it essentially gave Corle the benefits of being the insured, and also allowed him the right to file a bad faith suit against the insurer.

Since the Fourth Department blatantly refused to follow the previous decision of the First Department, Allstate may seek further review of the matter from the New York Court of Appeals.