law-promissory-estoppel | estoppel law generally | judicial estoppel | equitable estoppel | collateral
estoppel and res judicata | estoppel as affirmative defense |
ELEMENTS OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
Ulico Casualty Co. v. Allied Pilots Association, No. 06-0247 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Johnson)
(insurance coverage, waiver, estoppel)
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a concurring opinion, in which Justice O'Neill joined.
Estoppel, on the other hand, generally prevents one party from misleading another to the other’s
detriment or to the misleading party’s own benefit. See, e.g., Johnson & Higgins of Tex., Inc. v.
Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507, 515-16 (Tex. 1998) (“[T]he doctrine of equitable
estoppel requires: (1) a false representation or concealment of material facts; (2) made with
knowledge, actual or constructive, of those facts; (3) with the intention that it should be acted on;
(4) to a party without knowledge or means of obtaining knowledge of the facts; (5) who
detrimentally relies on the representations.”); Trammell Crow Co. No. 60 v. Harkinson, 944 S.W.
2d 631, 636 (Tex. 1997) (“Promissory estoppel generally is a defensive doctrine in that it
estops a promisor from denying the enforceability of [a] promise.”).