that a claim of personal injury is precluded where there had been a previous action on damage to property arising from the same accident); Pielhau v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 314 P.3d 698, 701-03 (N.M.Ct.App.2013) (citing Restatement (Second), section 24 and holding that claim preclusion prohibits an insured from litigating underinsured motorist coverage where in prior litigation, plaintiffs had sought to establish coverage under different policies with the insured); Peterson v. Temple, 323 Or. 322, 918 P.2d 413, 417 (1996) (stating that claim preclusion prohibited plaintiff from recovering damages for personal injuries arising from an accident where plaintiff had previously litigated property damage arising from the same accident and ag .Y.S.2d 36, 371 N.E.2d 798, 800 (1977) (<HOLDING>). If, however, the “issue” in the prior
holding that a civil claim is barred by collateral estoppel even though the prior adjudication was in criminal proceedings and the parties are not the same because the matters were actually litigated and decided in the prior trial holding arbitration decision disallowing insurers coverage defense binding in subsequent personal injury action where the issue was actually litigated and decided in prior action holding common issue of fault was actually litigated in prior property damage suit and determined adversely to plaintiff and therefore fault could not be relitigated in subsequent per sonal injury action under issue preclusion holding that where issue of intent to injure was not necessary or essential issue in previous action it was nevertheless material fact for litigation in coverage action holding that driver was not bound in subsequent personal injury case by prior arbitration decision that plaintiffs injuries were related to auto accident because driver was not in privity with his insurance carrier and did not participate in arbitration