Continental Cas. Co. v. McAllen Independent School Dist.
| Citation | 850 F.2d 1044 |
| Decision Date | 13 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-6133,87-6133 |
| Parties | 47 Ed. Law Rep. 850 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McALLEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Larry Watts, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellants.
Alice Giessel, Henry P. Giessel, Houston, Tex., Richard A. Simpson, Ellen M. Vollinger, Ross, Dixon & Masback, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, JOHNSON, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
McAllen Independent School District appeals from a declaratory judgment holding that an insurance policy issued by Continental Casualty Co. did not cover a student's claims against the school district arising from the student's personal injury. We affirm.
Chad Garcia, a McAllen High School student, suffered burns when he put potassium wrapped in paper towels in his pocket. Garcia sued McAllen Independent School District seeking damages for his injuries and alleging that the school district's safety policies were so inadequate as to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
At the time of the accident, MISD had two insurance policies, a Board of Education Liability policy issued by Continental Casualty Co., and a Comprehensive General Liability policy issued by Houston General Insurance Co. Continental filed this declaratory action based on diversity jurisdiction, seeking determination that its policy did not cover any claims asserted against MISD arising out of Garcia's accident. 1
The district court found that the Continental policy did not cover Garcia's injury because it contained a clause excluding coverage for any damages arising from bodily injury. MISD appeals from this declaratory judgment.
Initially, MISD challenges the district court's exercise of federal jurisdiction, arguing that Continental is estopped from denying that it is a Texas corporation because agents of Continental represented that it was a Texas corporation in an earlier, unrelated lawsuit.
The district court found that Continental was an Illinois "citizen," although it had mistakenly represented itself as a Texas corporation in an unrelated Mississippi state lawsuit. The court found that Continental's mistake was not "cold manipulation" but rather "confused blunder" and held that Continental was not estopped to deny Texas citizenship based on its attorney's prior inconsistent statement. The district court relied on our decision in In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., where we said:
Federal Courts deciding federal issues have applied the judicial estoppel doctrine cautiously, usually confining it to circumstances in which the opposing party took action in reliance upon the estopped party's prior stance. Whatever the scope of the doctrine may be, so far as we have been able to discover it has never been employed to prevent a party from taking advantage of a federal forum when he otherwise meets the statutory requirements of federal jurisdiction. People who meet those criteria have a statutory, and indeed a constitutional right to resort to the federal courts.
535 F.2d 859, 861 (5th Cir.1976) (footnotes omitted), aff'd en banc 542 F.2d 297 (5th Cir.1976), judgment vacated, 556 F.2d 370 (5th Cir.1977). That decision was vacated by the Supreme Court, however, on the ground that the district court's order remanding the cause to state court, no matter how erroneous, was not reviewable. Thus, while Southwestern Bell may very well be sound, it is of no precedential value.
In any event, however, we find that under the Texas 2 doctrine of judicial estoppel, Continental is not estopped from denying Texas citizenship. The district court found as a fact that Continental's prior counsel's statements that it was a Texas corporation occurred only through inadvertence, and that finding is not clearly erroneous. Under the Texas doctrine:
Judicial estoppel is a technical rule designed to meet needs of broad public policy. It is directed against those who would attempt to manipulate the court system through the calculated assertion of divergent sworn positions in judicial proceedings. Because the rule looks toward cold manipulation and not an unthinking or confused blunder, it has never been applied where [a part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University of Illinois v. Continental Cas. Co.
...no significant help. A burn is a bodily injury and a claim therefor is excluded from coverage (Continental Casualty Co. v. McAllen Independent School District (5th Cir.1988), 850 F.2d 1044, 1046), and a claim for an injury to a child's hand during a tug-of-war is excluded from coverage even......
-
Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
...presents a question of fact. See Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir.2010); cf. Cont'l Cas. Co. v. McAllen Indep. Sch. Dist., 850 F.2d 1044, 1046 (5th Cir.1988). As discussed above, the district court granted summary judgment in Tyson's favor, finding that Love had ......
-
Hall v. Ge Plastic Pacific Pte Ltd.
...some older Fifth Circuit cases have held that state law applies when "nonfederal issues are at stake," Continental Cas. Co. v. McAllen ISD, 850 F.2d 1044, 1046 n. 2 (5th Cir.1988), but generally this Circuit considers judicial estoppel "a matter of federal procedure" and therefore applies f......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Blanton
...review the district court's decision on Blanton's plea in abatement for abuse of discretion. Continental Casualty Co. v. McAllen Indep. School Dist., 850 F.2d 1044, 1047 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam). Blanton argues that the district court abused its discretion because failure to abate result......