Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers and Contractors, Inc.

26 citing decisions · 22 quoted from the citing opinion itself

Where each one reaches back.

Every passage below is lifted verbatim out of the citing opinion, with the citation itself highlighted. Nothing here is a summary and nothing is generated — it is what the later court actually wrote.

• Groves2026-05-07
  …officer knowingly participates in a tortious act, there is no need to pierce the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability.”) 66 Formosa Plastics Corp. United States v. Presidio Eng'rs & Contractors, 960 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tex. 1998). 67 Springs Window Fashions Div., Inc. v. Blind Maker, Inc., 184 S.W.3d 840, 868 (Tex. App. 2006). plaintiff, without piercing the corporate veil, even if those representations were made on behalf of the LLC and in connection with a contract between the LLC and the plaintiff.68 Here, Plaintiff alleges Defendant comm…
• ARCH & ENG, LLC d/b/a Z GRILL AND TAP v. GATOR FLOWER MOUND, LLC a/k/a FLORIDA GATOR FLOWER MOUND, LLC2026-02-05
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• ARCH & ENG, LLC d/b/a Z GRILL AND TAP v. GATOR FLOWER MOUND, LLC a/k/a FLORIDA GATOR FLOWER MOUND, LLC2026-02-03
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Gibson2026-01-26
  …loss to the subject of the contract itself.” Stanley Indus. of S. Fla. v. J.C. Penney Co., No. 3:05-cv-2499-L, 2006 WL 2432309, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006) (citing Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 45-47 (Tex.1998)); DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d at 494-95. Gibson contends that the economic loss rule does not apply to his fraud claim against Fay because Fay is not a party to the Security Instrument and, so, has “no contractual privity” with him. Dkt. No. 42 at 27. But the economic loss rule is consistently a…
• Bauer2026-01-16
  …false, and which was either known to be false when made or was asserted without knowledge of its truth, which was intended to be acted upon, which was relied upon, and which caused injury.” Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In federal court, “[f]raud claims must [] meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), under which ‘a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.’” City of Clinton, Ark. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148, 153 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Fed. R…
• Nouranifar2026-01-14
  …ion of the contributions, his “promise of future performance constitutes an actionable misrepresentation if the promise was made with no intention of performing at the time it was made.” Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 48 (Tex. 1998). “[I]ntent to defraud is not usually susceptible to direct proof.” Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 305 (Tex. 2006). Thus, circumstantial evidence may support reasonable inferences of intent to deceive. Brackens v. Mayes, No. 14-24-00424-CV, 2025 WL 2048201, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]…
• Jason Rudolph Stanford2025-10-28
  …1. Compensatory. Actual damages include both out-of-pocket and benefit-of-the-bargain measures. Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 49 (Tex. 1998). 2. Exemplary / Punitive. Fraud automatically qualifies for exemplary damages upon clear and convincing proof. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003(a)(1); Presidio, 960 S.W.2d at 47–48. 3. Equitable Remedies. Fraud…
• Mitchel2025-10-28
  …egard as to its truth, (2) the defendant intended the plaintiff to rely on the statement, (3) the plaintiff relied on the statement, and (4) the statement caused damage to the plaintiff. See Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng'rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998). A claim for common law fraud must meet the heightened pleading standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (“In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.”); see also Biliouris v. Sundance Res., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 7…
• Dobbins2025-10-27
  …intent that the other party should act on it; (5) the party acted in reliance; and (6) the party was injured as a result. Coffel v. Stryker Corp., 284 F.3d 625, 631 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998)); In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 758 (Tex. 2001). In addition to satisfying these elements, a plaintiff alleging fraud must plead the claim with particularity by specifying the “time, place and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what [that…
• RTREE Logistics, LLC v. Neely Coble Company2025-07-29
  …at 9. A promise of future performance is actionable fraud “if the promise was made with no intention of performing at the time it was made.” Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v Presidio Eng’rs and Contractors, 960 S.W.2d 41, 48 (Tex. 1998). “However, the mere failure to perform a contract is not evidence of fraud.” Id.; see also Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 823 S.W.2d 591, 597 (Tex. 1992) (“[A] party’s failure to perform a contract, standing alone, is no evidence of that party’s intent not to perform at the time the contract was ma…
• Alexander2025-07-03
  …e because it is against public policy to enforce any agreement entered into by means of deceit and fraud” (Dkt. #16 at p. 3). True, the law does not enforce such agreements. See generally Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tex. 1998) (“As a rule, a party is not bound by a contract procured by fraud.”). But the party seeking contract avoidance carries the burden to prove fraud. Tex. Black Iron, Inc. v. Arawak Energy Int’l Ltd., 566 S.W.3d 801, 819 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). A far cry from carrying his burden, Plaintiff has merely u…
• Thornton Ranch, LLC v. Continental Resources, Inc.2025-06-04
  …entioned in Sections H(a) and H(b) of SLA do not include Continental’s operations outside Leased Premises). 45 Doc. 155 at 1. 46 See Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 49–50 (Tex. 1998). price the expenses that party would have incurred through performance. What remains is the true measure of lost profits: not gross receipts, but the net benefit the contract would have produced.…
• Eric Terry in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee f v. Texas Partners Bank d/b/a The Bank of San Antonio2025-06-04
  …718–19). Generally, for example, the economic loss rule “does not preclude tort claims that are independent of a contract.” Chubb Glob. Mkts. Syndicate 2488, 2023 WL 348998, at *11 (citing Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs. & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46–47 (Tex. 1998)). The Texas Supreme Court previously noted that the economic loss rule does not preclude tort claims for “negligent misrepresentation, legal or accounting malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, tortious interference with contract, nuisance, wrongful death claims related to loss of…
• Banquete Independent School District v. The Alliance for Community Solutions, Ltd.2025-03-31
  …Inc., 227 F.R.D. 467, 470-71 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (Ramirez, Mag. J.) (applying standard). Texas law recognizes two measures of damages: (1) out-of-pocket and (2) benefit-of-the- bargain. Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 49 (Tex. 1998) (first citing Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812, 817 (Tex. 1997); then citing W.O. Bankston Nissan, Inc. v. Walters, 754 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. 1988); and then citing Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 373 (Tex. 1984)). “The out- of-pocket measure computes the difference betwee…
• Bank of America NA v. Ztar Mobile Inc2025-02-27
  …Inc. v. Egle Grp., LLC, 490 F.3d 380, 387 (5th Cir. 2007). But, because “a party is not bound by a contract procured by fraud,” Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tex. -14- 1998) (collecting cases), the Court begins with the Defendants’ fraud defenses to BANA’s breach-of-contract claims. Defendants first assert that BANA falsely represented that Defendant…
• Grand Treviso Condominium Association Inc v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company2025-01-28
  …to perform does not constitute misrepresentation, but rather the breach of a contractual duty.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Haden & Co., 1998 WL 648603, at *7 (5th Cir. 1998) (unpub.) (citing Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tex. 1998)). Here, Grand Treviso explains that the misrepresentation allegations are “based upon the very language of the policy itself.” Pl.’s Resp. 9 [26]. FFIC’s representation in the policy that it would fulfill its contractual duty — which Grand Treviso alleges it did not fulfill — does not constitute a misrepresentation formi…
• BMSH I Katy TX, LLC v. Smith Seckman Reid, Inc.2024-09-18
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Dynamic Robotic Solutions, Inc. v. Simwon Tech, Inc.2024-07-10
  The citing opinion is in this library and the link is real, but the passage could not be quoted: this decision is named there in a short form, in a parallel reporter, or in text that came through OCR imperfectly. Recorded as unquoted rather than dropped.
• Sweeney2024-06-27
  …y the difference between the value as represented and the value received, allowing the injured party to recover profits that would have been made had the bargain been performed as promised. Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 49–50 (Tex. 1998). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff submitted affidavit and documentary evidence at an April 18, 2024 hearing supporting the value of the vested shares of stock Plaintiff would have received as part of his agreement with Defendants. ECF No. 63 at 7. The evidence included a Stock Option Grant Notice from Defendan…
• Safety Vision LLC v. LEI Technology Canada2024-06-20
  …y are not barred by the economic loss rule because “the legal duty not to fraudulently procure a contract is separate and independent from the duties established by the contract itself.” Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tex. 1998). As for fraud after the formation of a contract, which is what Safety Vision alleges, there is no categorical rule as to whether the economic loss rule applies. Instead, the Court must look to (1) the source of the duty and (2) the damages sought.3 See Ibe, 836 F.3d at 526. As a general rule, “failure to dis…
• Warren2024-06-05
  …ees with PNC. The allegations underlying Plaintiff’s fraud claim allege a breach of duty created by the Deed of Trust, and Plaintiff’s related injuries are purely economic in nature. See Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Tex. 1998); L. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., 587 F. App’x 790, 795 (5th Cir. 2014). Thus, a straightforward application of the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s fraud claim. C. DTPA claim In order to pursue a claim under the DTPA, Warren must establish “consumer st…
• Robogistics, LLC v. Dematic Corp.2024-06-04
  …reme Court created an exception to the economic loss rule, holding that tort damages are recoverable for certain fraud claims even where the injury asserted is purely an economic loss. 19 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998); W. Loop Hosp., LLC v. Hous. Galleria Lodging Assocs., LLC, 649 S.W.3d 461, 488 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, pet. denied). Specifically, the Court differentiated between the duty to “abstain from inducing another to enter a contract through the use of fraudulent misrepresentations” and the duties “established by the con…
• Buford2024-05-31
  …cumstances, however, a “promise to do an act in the future is actionable fraud when made with the intention, design, and purpose of deceiving, and with no intention of performing the act.” Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc, 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Plaintiff did not allege that Defendants made a misstatement because Plaintiff did not plead that Defendants ever promised the $259,000 bonus. The first bonus program referenced in the FAC and Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement is the “Discretionary Bonus Program.” (Dkt. #14-1…
• KEM Construction, Ltd. v. Colossal Contracting, LLC2024-04-23
  …m Homes, Inc. v. Dallas Plumbing Co., 445 S.W.3d 716, 718 (Tex. 2014). The economic loss rule does not extend to fraudulent inducement claims. AT & T Corp., 2015 WL 150254, at *6 (citing Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46 (Tex. 1998)); Bates, 361 F. Supp. 3d at 655 (declining to apply economic loss rule at the pleading stage to bar fraud and fraudulent inducement claims where plaintiff alleged defendant fraudulently induced plaintiff to release escrow funds). Indeed, “tort damages are recoverable for a fraudulent inducement claim irrespective of whether…
• Nickel Bridge Capital, LLC v. International Power Services, LLC2024-04-22
  …ic loss rule to bar claims for fraud or fraudulent inducement. See, e.g., Peterson Grp., 417 S.W.3d at 62; Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407, 418 (Tex. 2011); Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 46–47 (Tex. 1998); Matlock Place Apartments, L.P. v. Druce, 369 S.W.3d 355, 377–78 (Tex. App. 2012). Those courts reason that “the duty not to commit fraud is different from and independent of the duty to comply with the terms of a contract,” Peterson Grp., 417 S.W.3d at 63, and that “party is not bound by a contract procured by fraud,” Fo…
• Antares Reinsurance Company Limited v. National Transportation Associates, Inc.2024-03-20
  …amages recoverable for breach of the underlying contract. It is hornbook law in Texas that “the mere failure to perform a contract is not evidence of fraud.” Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 48 (Tex. 1998). Thus, it doesn’t matter what kind of chicanery happened behind the scenes to breach a contract, such malfeasance doesn’t give rise to a fraud claim unless it resulted in damages beyond those recoverable for the contractual breach itself. See id.; see also Sw. Bell. Tel. Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493, 494–95 (Tex…