Massachusetts’ highest court has rebuffed John Otis III of Scituate, who first won a largely uncollectable $6.5 million verdict from a drunk driver and then tried to get that victory overturned so as to extract money from others. Otis, a pedestrian, was hit by inebriated motorist Todd Cusick, whose insurance policy limits were only $50,000. Here’s what happened next, according to reporter Sue Reinert of the Quincy Patriot-Ledger:
In a complicated legal maneuver, Otis agreed to free Cusick from his liability. In return, Otis got authority to sue Cusick’s attorneys and his insurer, Arbella Mutual Insurance of Quincy, on Cusick’s behalf. Otis would collect any winnings from the suit.
In this second lawsuit, Otis contended that Cusick got a raw deal from his lawyers, who were hired by Arbella. Cusick would have won the lawsuit if his attorneys had done a good job, Otis argued.
To make his case, Otis’ attorney, Driscoll, had to present the exact opposite arguments that he had made in winning the $6.5 million judgement, yesterday’s ruling said. He even contended that some crucial facts were different, the decision written by Justice Martha Sosman said.
“In short, Otis’ position in the present suit is that he should not have recovered anything in the first suit,” Sosman wrote.
Otis’s downfall proved to be the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which per Wikipedia “precludes a party from taking a position in a case which is contrary to a position they have taken in earlier legal proceedings”, at least if the position proved successful in the first round. (Sue Reinert, Quincy Patriot-Ledger, Mar. 15)(via Common Good Society Watch). For a 2004 case in which Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit invoked judicial estoppel to stymie the attempt of a bankrupt debtor to pursue a personal injury case not disclosed during his Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, see In re Superior Crewboats (PDF), summarized at the Louisiana blawg Naked Ownership (Jun. 21, 2004).
Comments are closed.