The Law Office of Attorney John H. Davis Announces the Filing of Motion for Judicial Estoppel After United States Supreme Court Denied Petition for Writ of Certiorari Related to Error Allegedly Created by Defendant AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I.

MERRILLVILLE, Ind., March 27, 2023 /PRNewswire/ -- This case—GAIL LEWIS HICKS and LARRY HICKS v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I. ("American Family")—is based upon an automobile accident in Lake County, Indiana [Case #45D02-2007-CT-000727].  The trial court granted the Hickes judgment on the pleadings which is same as summary judgment.  American Family filed a motion objecting to court's granting Hickes judgment on the pleadings and subsequently American Family requested trial court to grant American Family a summary judgment which the trial court denied.  American Family filed an appeal to Indiana appellate court where said court—in error—granted summary judgment to American Family while judgment on the pleadings had not been vacated thus creating two (2) opposing summary judgments, leaving trial court with the need to correct its rulings.  Hickes' pleading alleges American Family's attorney cited inaccurate procedures regarding United States Supreme Court.

This Motion for Judicial Estoppel provides Lake County, Indiana trial court—Judge Calvin D. Hawkins—the authority and power to correct opposing summary judgments and such power lies in the trial court's authority through court of equity.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-law-office-of-attorney-john-h-davis-files-petition-
for-writ-of-certiorari-with-united-states-supreme-court-involving-bad-faith-against-american-
family-mutual-insurance-company-si-301656513.html

The doctrine of judicial estoppel serves to protect integrity of judicial systems by preventing parties from asserting positions inconsistent with that party's prior position in same or previous proceeding.  Judicial estoppel is not a technical defense to prevent meritorious claims.  It differs from equitable estoppels, which focus on the parties' relationship with each other as opposed to their relationship with the court.  For the doctrine to apply, a party must have intentionally made a misrepresentation in bad-faith.  Once a party shows that another party had knowledge and motive to conceal, the burden of proof shifts to that party to show the nondisclosure at issue was in good faith.

SOURCE Attorney John H. Davis & Associates