Key Takeaways

  • Claim splitting occurs when a plaintiff divides a single claim or cause of action into multiple lawsuits.
  • It is generally prohibited to protect judicial economy and prevent harassment of defendants.
  • Exceptions exist, such as when there is consent, statutory allowance, or when different courts have jurisdiction over different elements.
  • The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of claims that could have been raised in the initial suit.
  • Consequences of improper claim splitting include dismissal of subsequent suits and loss of legal remedies.

Splitting a Claim/Cause of Action

Dividing a single or indivisible claim or cause of action into separate parts and bringing separate suits upon it, either in the same court , or in separate courts or jurisdictions. There is a general rule against such splittings.

Consent or tacit agreement is clear justification for splitting a claim. Restatement (Second) of Judgments S 26(1)(a), and comment a (1982). Because a primary purpose of claim preclusion is to protect defendants from being harassed by repetitive actions based on the same claim, the rule need not be enforced where the State and County have implicitly consented to the splitting of the Dodds' claim under state and federal laws. See Rennie, 294 Or. at 329 n. 9 (citing 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur C. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure S 4415 at 124-125; and Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 108 (1971)).

It may appear in the course of an action that the plaintiff is splitting a claim, but that there are special reasons that justify his doing so, and accordingly that the judgment in the action ought not to have the usual consequences of extinguishing the entire claim; rather the plaintiff should be left with an opportunity to litigate in a second action that part of the claim which he justifiably omitted from the first action. Restatement (Second) of Judgments S 26(1)(b).

The Constitution does not give "every person asserting a federal right . . . one unencumbered opportunity to litigate that right in a federal district court, regardless of the legal posture in which the federal claim arises." Allen, 449 U.S. at 103. "There is . . . no reason to believe that Congress [through passage of S 1983] intended to provide a person claiming a federal right an unrestricted opportunity to relitigate an issue already decided in state court simply because the issue arose in a state proceeding in which he would rather not have been engaged at all." Id. at 104.

Under the "entire controversy" doctrine, a party who has elected not to raise a related part of the controversy is barred from raising it in a subsequent proceeding. Peduto, 878 F.2d at 727 (citing Woodward-Clyde Consultants v. Chemical and Pollution Sciences, Inc., 523 A.2d 131, 135 (N.J. 1987)).

Practical Tips to Avoid Claim Splitting

To prevent issues with claim splitting, plaintiffs should:

  • Conduct a thorough legal analysis to identify all potential claims and related causes of action before filing.
  • Join all related claims arising from the same transaction or event in a single lawsuit where possible.
  • Consult with legal counsel to determine if jurisdictional issues require separate filings and whether a court order is needed to preserve claims.
  • Maintain detailed documentation showing all claims considered and filed to support good-faith efforts to comply with procedural rules.

Being proactive can help avoid procedural dismissals and preserve the right to legal remedies.

Claim Splitting vs. Claim Preclusion

Although closely related, claim splitting and claim preclusion serve distinct roles in litigation. Claim splitting refers to the act itself—filing multiple suits from a single cause of action—whereas claim preclusion is the legal doctrine used to bar those subsequent suits.

Under the “transactional test,” courts ask whether the claims arise from the same set of facts. If they do, claim preclusion applies, regardless of how the plaintiff frames the legal theories. Courts examine not only what was actually litigated but also what could have been raised in the first action.

Effects of Improper Claim Splitting

Bringing multiple suits on portions of a single claim without court approval or consent can lead to serious legal consequences. Most significantly, the second lawsuit may be dismissed outright under the doctrine of claim preclusion. This means:

  • The court will not hear the second suit.
  • The plaintiff may permanently lose the right to pursue the omitted claim elements.
  • Legal fees and court costs may be incurred unnecessarily.
  • The plaintiff's credibility and legal strategy may suffer in future litigation.

Courts are especially vigilant in enforcing these rules when the facts and legal theories presented in the second suit could have been addressed in the original action.

Exceptions to the Rule Against Claim Splitting

While claim splitting is generally impermissible, there are notable exceptions:

  • Express or Implied Consent: If the defendant agrees—explicitly or by conduct—to the splitting of a claim, courts may allow it.
  • Statutory Authorization: Some laws permit the bifurcation of claims. For instance, federal statutes may allow separate filings for state and federal components of a claim.
  • Jurisdictional Constraints: When different courts have exclusive jurisdiction over parts of a claim, splitting may be justified.
  • Claims Reserved by Court Order: A plaintiff may be permitted to pursue a separate action when expressly allowed by a court, such as when part of a claim is dismissed without prejudice.

These exceptions ensure that the policy behind claim splitting rules doesn’t unreasonably bar access to justice when unique circumstances arise.

Definition and Legal Basis of Claim Splitting

Claim splitting refers to the act of dividing a single, indivisible cause of action into multiple lawsuits. This practice is typically disallowed under the doctrine of res judicata, which aims to prevent repetitive litigation. U.S. courts generally expect plaintiffs to consolidate all aspects of a claim arising from a single transaction or occurrence into one action. Failing to do so may result in the forfeiture of any claims not included in the initial lawsuit.

The prohibition on claim splitting is grounded in public policy—namely, the efficient use of judicial resources, finality of judgments, and fairness to defendants. Courts seek to prevent parties from burdening opposing parties and the judicial system with multiple proceedings on essentially the same dispute.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is claim splitting?
    Claim splitting occurs when a plaintiff files multiple lawsuits based on the same transaction or cause of action, instead of combining them in a single case.
  2. Why is claim splitting generally not allowed?
    It is disallowed to prevent inefficient use of court resources, protect defendants from repetitive litigation, and uphold the finality of judgments.
  3. Are there exceptions to the rule against claim splitting?
    Yes. Exceptions include defendant consent, statutory provisions, court-authorized claim reservations, and jurisdictional necessities.
  4. What happens if I split a claim improperly?
    Your second lawsuit may be dismissed, and you might lose the ability to recover damages for omitted aspects of the claim.
  5. How can I avoid claim splitting?
    Work with a qualified attorney to identify all claims tied to a dispute and include them in one comprehensive lawsuit where possible.

If you need help with understanding claim splitting, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel’s marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.