be liable for Electric Mobility’s out-of-pocket expenses incurred prior to January 20, 1989. In support of their motion, the Defendants argue that the allegation in the First Amended Complaint rises to the level of a judicial admission. See Defs.’ Out-of-Pocket Expense Reply at 2-3. Electric Mobility, on the other hand, contends that the existence of conflicting deposition testimony regarding the time frame of the dispute precludes summary judgment on its out-of-pocket expense claim. See Pl.’s Out-of-Pocket Expense Mem. at 8-9. In addition, Electric Mobility als a Motor Co., 976 F.2d 58, 61 (1st Cir.l992)(affirming the District Court’s finding of a judicial admission from a “clear[] and unambiguous[ ]” allegation in the complaint); In re Corland Corp., 967 F.2d 1069, 1074 (5th Cir.l992)(<HOLDING>). When a statement meets such a threshold,
holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements holding that only deliberate clear and unambiguous statements are judicial admissions holding that only deliberate clear and unequivocal statements can constitute conclusive judicial admissions recognizing that statements in appellees brief can constitute judicial admissions holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal