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, corporations and municipalities ...
Add a comment
- No Fault Liability
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Fraud Activity
- Auto Liability
- Trucking Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Premises Liability
- Cargo Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- insurance policy
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
- Court Clarifies New Tolling Provision of Michigan No-Fault Act
- Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of MAIPF Claimant’s No-Fault Action Based on Fraudulent Attendant Care Forms
- Appellate Court Rules 2019 Michigan No-Fault Law Amendments Not Retroactive, Violate State’s Constitution
- Shop Talk – July Auto Liability Update
- Appellate Court Rules No-Fault Policy Can't be Coordinated With Health Care Ministry Program
- Michigan Court of Appeals Reaffirms Assignor’s Settlement of No-Fault Benefits is Binding on Assignees Unless Insurer Receives Notice of Assignment
- Shop Talk - June Auto Liability Update
- Michigan Court of Appeals to Hear Oral Argument on Constitutionality of No-Fault Reform
- Effective Framing of Medical Records can Disprove Threshold Injuries in Transportation Litigation
- Don’t Text, Just Drive – Distracted Driving Awareness Month