Court Opinion

ID: 9450758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:56:49.95759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:26.362829
License: Public Domain

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached by the Court but I prefer to do so on grounds which do not bring the District Judge’s findings of fact into question.
Plaintiff’s declaration in the state court action specifically alleged: “Defendant Wilmer A. Stafford was also employed by defendant Clint Oakley to help with the hauling of said bales of hay. * * * ” Plaintiff’s own testimony, as well as the *65rest of his evidence in the state court, supported this allegation.
On the other hand, the complaint filed by plaintiff in the United States District Court is specific in denying the existence of an employment relationship.
Plaintiff obtained his state court judgment upon allegations and evidence that Stafford was “employed” by Oakley. Defendant, in reliance on these allegations, refused to defend its insured, claiming there was no liability to indemnify under the insurance contract in the circumstances claimed by plaintiff in the state court action. The failure of defendant to defend in the state court action— based on plaintiff's prior pleadings— would obviously work to defendant’s prejudice in this case if plaintiff were allowed to plead an utterly inconsistent position.
Plaintiff should be estopped from urging inconsistent positions solely because his interests have changed. Davis v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689, 15 S.Ct. 555, 39 L.Ed. 578 (1894); Clinchfield Railroad Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 160 F.Supp. 337 (E.D. Tenn., 1958), aff’d. 263 F.2d 932 (C.A. 6, 1959).