With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". judgment. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c). Because appellees did not raise the issue of collateral estoppel in their motions, we need not consider the Price case. In Izaguirre, several worker’s compensation claimants filed suit against the insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. 749 S.W.2d at 552. The insurer moved for summary judgment attaching as exhibits to its motion certain documents filed in a prior proceeding (appealing the IAB award), including the claimants’ petitions, releases and settlement agreements, affidavits, and the IAB awards. Id. at 555. The court granted summary judgment and the claimants appealed. Id. at 552. The appellate court noted that two of the clai .2d 326 (1991); Washburn v. Associated Indem. Corp., 721 S.W.2d 928, 932 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986) (<HOLDING>), writ ref'd n.r.e., 735 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.1987).

A: holding judicial estoppel inapplicable because the claimant did not contend the carrier alleged or admitted in pleadings in a former proceeding under oath contrary to any assertion made in the present case
B: recognizing that pleadings in the underlying case are subject to judicial notice by an appellate court
C: holding that in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by statements made under oath during his plea colloquy
D: holding judicial estoppel inapplicable where record revealed no legal pleadings signed by the claimant under oath asserting a position contrary to the one asserted in the instant case
A.