Issue 1. Did the resolution of the tort claim against
Thorne in Pearson v. Thorne decide the same issue or
claim that plaintiff raises in the present suit against
Hudson, such that the present lawsuit is barred by
collateral estoppel? No.

Issue 2. As it relates to the litigation in the prior
lawsuit, is Hudson in privity with Thorne to be able to
avail itself of the affirmative defense of issue and/or claim
preclusion? No.

Issue 3. Collateral estoppel is not to be applied when
the result is against public policy. Plaintiff alleges that
the failure of Hudson to write a waiver of the sovereignty
defense into its policies (up to the limit of the policy) is
a pattern of conduct that nullifies the operation of 25
USC 5321 (c) (3) (A), thereby depriving tort victims of
the recovery that Congress intended should be available.
Hudson has never answered this allegation, instead
urging the court to stretch collateral estoppel to prevent
plaintiff from exposing an illegal and lucrative practice
of collecting premiums for liability policies under which
it is very unlikely that any plaintiff will be able to obtain
a recovery. Because the plaintiff has never had a full and
fair opportunity to litigate this claim, does public policy
require allowing plaintiff to go forward with her claim
against Hudson in the present case? Yes.

Did the resolution of the tort claim against Thorne in Pearson v. Thorne decide the same issue or claim that plaintiff raises in the present suit against Hudson, such that the present lawsuit is barred by collateral estoppel?