Texas Court Dismisses ERISA Lawsuit due to Judicial Estoppel

The case of Kidd v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America demonstrates the importance of disclosing all potential assets on a bankruptcy petition. This includes an administrative claim for long-term benefits and potential for a lawsuit if those benefits are denied. Because of the plaintiff’s claim she had no assets in Bankruptcy Court, she was judicially estopped from pursing her ERISA lawsuit in the Texas federal District Court, since long-term disability benefits and causes-of-actions to receive them are considered an asset.

Factual Background

Plaintiff Cassandra Kidd, employee of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, filed a claim for long-term disability benefits on January 7, 2013. Her claim was subsequently denied and she appealed. On March 11, 2016, she was informed that she had exhausted her administrative remedies and subsequently, on August 11, 2016, she filed this ERISA lawsuit.

Meanwhile, on February 3, 2015, plaintiff filed a petition for bankruptcy, stating she had no assets and was given a no asset discharge on June 15, 2016. At no time did she ever disclose that she had a pending claim for claim for long-term disability benefits. When she was informed her claim had been denied, she failed to disclose that she had the potential for filing an ERISA cause-of-action and would be doing so.

ERISA Lawsuit Barred by Judicial Estoppel Doctrine

The common law doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents parties to litigation from taking inconsistent positions in different court actions. There are three principles, all of which the Texas District Court determined plaintiff violated.

1. Parties cannot present one position in a court proceeding that is inconsistent with their “prior legal position.” Here, plaintiff claimed in the bankruptcy proceeding she had no assets, even though her potential for receiving long-term disability benefits, either directly from Prudential or by way of the ERISA cause of action, are considered assets by the bankruptcy court. The plaintiff conceded that her claim of no assets in bankruptcy court was inconsistent with her pursuit of disability benefits in the ERISA court.

2. A court accepted the prior position. Again, the plaintiff agreed that the bankruptcy court accepted her position that she had no assets.

3. The party did not act inadvertently. Inadvertently is interpreted as when the failure to disclose was because “the debtor either lacks knowledge of the undisclosed claims or has no motive for their concealment.” The court held that plaintiff had “both knowledge of the undisclosed claim and a motive to conceal the claim.” Therefore, her action was not inadvertent.

The Court ultimately concluded, “Plaintiff has the potential to collect on her insurance claim after having received the benefit of failing to disclose it to her creditors in her bankruptcy proceeding, a windfall that the judicial estoppel doctrine is designed to prevent.”

This case was not handled by our office, but we think it is instructive to those who may be considering filing for bankruptcy, or are already in the process of bankruptcy, while pursuing their claim for disability benefits. If you have questions about this case, or any questions concerning your own disability claim, contact one of our disability attorneys at Dell & Schaefer for a free consultation.

Leave a comment or ask us a question

Questions About Hiring Us

Do you work in my state?

Yes. We are a national disability insurance law firm that is available to represent you regardless of where you live in the United States. We have partner lawyers in every state and we have filed lawsuits in most federal courts nationwide. Our disability lawyers represent disability claimants at all stages of a claim for disability insurance benefits. There is nothing that our lawyers have not seen in the disability insurance world.

What are your fees?

Since we represent disability insurance claimants at different stages of a disability insurance claim we offer a variety of different fee options. We understand that claimants living on disability insurance benefits have a limited source of income; therefore we always try to work with the claimant to make our attorney fees as affordable as possible.

The three available fee options are a contingency fee agreement (no attorney fee or cost unless we make a recovery), hourly fee or fixed flat rate.

In every case we provide each client with a written fee agreement detailing the terms and conditions. We always offer a free initial phone consultation and we appreciate the opportunity to work with you in obtaining payment of your disability insurance benefits.

Do I have to come to your office to work with your law firm?

No. For purposes of efficiency and to reduce expenses for our clients we have found that 99% of our clients prefer to communicate via telephone, e-mail, fax, GoToMeeting.com sessions, or Skype. If you prefer an initial in-person meeting please let us know. A disability company will never require you to come to their office and similarly we are set up so that we handle your entire claim without the need for you to come to our office.

How can I contact you?

When you call us during normal business hours you will immediately speak with a disability attorney. We can be reached at 800-682-8331 or by email. Lawyer and staff must return all client calls same day. Client emails are usually replied to within the same business day and seem to be the preferred and most efficient method of communication for most clients.

Dell & Schaefer Client Reviews   *****

Randy K.

This was the second time my LTD provider (Prudential) terminated my coverage. Steve got my coverage back the first time the provider terminated it. I contacted Steve and Danielle immediately when I was notified of the second termination.

Even though the LTD provider was to use Dell & Schaefer as a conduit of communication to me, they superseded this agreement and communicated this fact directly to me. Steve and Danielle began gathering the supposed facts behind the termination and saw they were bogus. My case file was sent to an independent physician in a different state who simply read documents to determine that my symptoms were falsified and upheld the termination. Steve contacted the provider and drew exception to that entire process.

Since I am not an attorney I can’t begin to imagine the legal wrangling that took place to contradict that opinion. An actual “hands on” IME was scheduled by the LTD provider to see if it would concur with the other physicians findings. The findings of the “hands on” physical examination disagreed in nearly every way with the report delivered by the physician that simply read a report and didn’t lay a hand on me.

As a result of the dedication of Steve and Danielle my LTD was reinstated this month, along with all the back benefits dating back to the date of termination in June of 2015. Steve and Danielle went, in my opinion, above and beyond the call of duty to see that I got back what was rightfully mine. They have my eternal admiration and respect!

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

Request a free legal consultation: Call 800-682-8331 or Email Us