943 N.E.2d 945
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- In 1998, Sandman’s intoxicated driving collision with Hanlon led to a $17 million judgment against Sandman after a 2005 trial.
- Homeland Insurance hired attorney McGrath to defend Sandman; Hanlon sued McGrath and Homeland for malpractice, breach of contract, and unfair/ deceptive acts under G.L. c. 176D and c. 93A.
- Hanlon originally filed in 2008 as assignee of Sandman; Homeland moved to dismiss under judicial estoppel; Sandman was later substituted as plaintiff after amendment.
- A Superior Court judge dismissed the amended complaint on judicial estoppel grounds, finding Hanlon the real party in interest.
- Sandman appealed; the court held that judicial estoppel barred certain claims but did not bar all claims against the defendants.
- The court affirmed the judgment in part and reversed in part, allowing malpractice and defense/breach/deceptive practices claims to proceed, but barred others related to trial preparation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hanlon is barred by judicial estoppel from certain claims | Hanlon seeks to pursue claims despite prior positions. | Hanlon as real party in interest was estopped from those claims. | Judicial estoppel barred claims about trial preparation and defense. |
| Whether Hanlon can pursue claims about settlement opportunities | Hanlon’s settlement-based allegations are consistent with liability for defendants. | Estoppel applies due to inconsistency with prior positions. | Judicial estoppel does not bar settlement-related malpractice claims. |
| Who is the real party in interest for the action | Hanlon represented the assignee status at filing; Sandman later substituted. | Sandman is the real party in interest. | Hanlon was the real party in interest for the barred claims; Sandman substituted plaintiff did not cure legitimacy for all claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Otis v. Arbella Mut. Ins. Co., 443 Mass. 634 (Mass. 2005) (judicial estoppel's purpose to prevent manipulation of the judicial process)
- Blanchette v. School Comm. of Westwood, 427 Mass. 176 (Mass. 1998) (principles guiding judicial estoppel doctrine)
- Canavan’s Case, 432 Mass. 304 (Mass. 2000) (case cited in establishing estoppel standards)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (S. Ct. 2001) (three-factor approach to judicial estoppel including unfair advantage/detriment)
- Meyer v. Wagner, 429 Mass. 410 (Mass. 1999) (limits of applying judicial estoppel when plaintiff’s position relates to defendant’s malpractice)
- Alternative Sys. Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc., 374 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2004) (illustrates concerns about inconsistent determinations in litigation)