Hicks v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

*854{¶ 1} In this case, Defendant-Appellant, James Hicks, appeals from a judgment granting summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"). In support of his appeal, Hicks contends that the trial court erred in finding that Hicks was collaterally estopped from obtaining coverage under the State Farm policy.

{¶ 2} We conclude that the trial court's judgment was correct. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Couse of Proceedings

{¶ 3} The pertinent facts in this case are not disputed. On May 24, 2010, Danny Norman, Sr. ("Norman")…