context: If Fullerton had been convicted on the murder counts after a full trial, there would be no question that the jury's factual finding that he killed intentionally would satisfy the full-and-fair-litigation prong of the test for issue preclusion. Texas law collaterally estops an insured who has suffered a conviction for murder before a jury from arguing in a subsequent coverage dispute that the killing was not willful.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 709 F.2d 968, 972
citation_a.parenthetical: "Because of the existence of a higher standard of proof and greater procedural protection in a criminal prosecution, a conviction is conclusive as to an issue arising against the criminal defendant in a subsequent civil action."
citation_a.sentence: See also United States v. Thomas, 709 F.2d 968, 972 (5th Cir.1983) (“Because of the existence of a higher standard of proof and greater procedural protection in a criminal prosecution, a conviction is conclusive as to an issue arising against the criminal defendant in a subsequent civil action.”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 841 S.W.2d 51, 54
citation_b.parenthetical: imposing sanctions for frivolous litigation on an insured who sought to recover benefits after a murder conviction
citation_b.sentence: Francis v. Marshall, 841 S.W.2d 51, 54 (Tex.App.— Houston 1992) (imposing sanctions for frivolous litigation on an insured who sought to recover benefits after a murder conviction).