The School Board of Hamilton County provided Health Insurance to its employees including Excess Medical provided through Ace American Insurance Company. The Board's Plan contained a Self-Insured Retention. When one of the Board's employees "incurred medical bills [of] $293,762.67 above the self-insured limit and coverage was denied by Ace, Board paid the employee's due and owing bills and then sought reimbursement from Ace and/or Brown." Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Board of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *1 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012), Download Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Bd. of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *1 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012). "Brown was the insurance agency retained to administer the insurance plan." Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Board of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *1 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012), Download Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Bd. of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *1 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012).
The School Board then settled with Ace. In their settlement, Ace denied liability but paid $175,000.00 "in return for being dismissed from the lawsuit. Subsequently, Brown was permitted to amend its answer and raise the affirmative defense of judicial estoppel." Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Board of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *1 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012), Download Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Bd. of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *1 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012). Brown then moved for Summary Judgment based at least in part on this affirmative defense, Brown's motion was denied, and the case went to Trial concluding with a Jury Verdict rendered and Judgment entered against Brown.
Brown argued for reversal based on the Trial Court's denial of Brown's Motion for Summary Judgment and its affirmative defense of judicial estoppel in this case. The Florida Appellate Court affirmed, holding that judicial estoppel had no place in this case.
The Appellate Court explained that judicial estoppel, where it is recognized, is an equitable doctrine having to do with preventing a mockery of justice where one party to a lawsuit convinces a Court to agree with its position in one lawsuit, but the party then maintains inconsistent positions in a later lawsuit or lawsuits. "One of the elements necessary to establish judicial estoppel is that the opposing party must have 'successfully maintained' an inconsistent position in the prior proceeding." Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Board of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *2 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012), Download Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Bd. of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *2 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012).
In this case, there was a settlement of the Board's claim to "reimbursement" of the Board's payment of Health Insurance/Excess Medical expenses. Even if that settlement took place in the context of what arguably was an earlier lawsuit or judicial proceeding, still there was not a prior proceeding in which any party "'successfully maintained' a prior claim or position" adopted by the first Court. For that reason alone, the affirmative defense of judicial estoppel did not apply here: The affirmative defense of judicial estoppel does not apply to a prior settlement. Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Board of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *2 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012), Download Brown & Brown, Inc. v. School Bd. of Hamilton County, 2012 WL 3758638 *2 (Fla. 5th DCA August 31, 2012).
Today is Labor Day. Why are you working? Honor the Day, Honor the Labor who made this Day possible -- And Go Home and eat a Hot Dog or Hamburger like all the other people who live in America!
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments