The Michigan Court of Appeals recently upheld a trial court’s granting of summary disposition against the plaintiff in a trucking-accident, bodily-injury claim after learning about the plaintiff’s statements in his personal bankruptcy case.
In Hernandez v Hires, No. 345229, 2019 WL 6171074, at *1 (Mich Ct App, November 19, 2019), the appellate court found the plaintiff held “contrary positions” in his lawsuit, “that he had a claim for damages arising out of the collision between the two trucks, while [his prior] position in the bankruptcy proceeding was that he had no claims against third parties, including any stemming from an accident.”
The appellate court reasoned that a “potential cause of action [for bodily injuries] constitutes an asset under bankruptcy law, [and] plaintiff’s failure to disclose the potential claim [in the bankruptcy proceeding] against defendants was contrary to the bankruptcy code which requires debtors to file a schedule of assets.”
In sum, the court ruled the plaintiff’s civil claims arising out of the truck accident were barred by a common-law doctrine known as “judicial estoppel,” which prevents a party from asserting a position in one legal proceeding that directly contradicts a position taken by that same party in an earlier proceeding.
This opinion is a good reminder that insurers and defendants should inquire into whether a party bringing or making a claim for bodily injuries has filed for bankruptcy which may reveal evidence that would judicially estop the claimant from bringing such a cause of action.
A full copy of the court’s opinion can be found here.
A partner in the firm's Bloomfield Hills office, Abe Barlaskar concentrates his litigation practice on defending insurers and personal line carriers, rental car companies, trucking companies, and corporations and ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- No Fault Liability
- Auto Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Trucking Liability
- Premises Liability
- Fraud Activity
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- insurance policy
- Cargo Liability
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
- Defending Against Fraudulent Claims Following Michigan Supreme Court’s Ruling in Meemic v Fortson
- Michigan Expands Chiropractic Coverage Under No-Fault Act
- Arbitration is a Road Less Traveled but one Worthy of Consideration for UM/UIM Claims
- Truck Driver’s Bodily Injury Claim barred by his Bankruptcy Case
- Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association Slashes 2020-2021 Fee Assessments
- What the No-Fault Act Giveth the No-Fault Act can Taketh Away
- Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Vacationer’s PIP Claims for Fraud
- Court Reaffirms One Year Back Rule, Rejects Use of Consent to Treat Forms as Assignments
- Once Again, More Fees for Michigan Drivers
- Don't Tweet and Drive!