X hits on this document

8 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

4 / 4

to provide engineering services, it cannot be said that Haag is engaged in the business of insurance.

  • 6.

    Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. 1994).

  • 7.

    Id. at 698.

  • 8.

    Dear v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 947 S.W.2d 908 (Tex. App. —

Dallas 1997, writ denied).

  • 9.

    Bui v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 981 F.2d 209, 210 (5th Cir.

  • 1993)

    .

  • 10.

    Dear, 947 S.W.2d at 916-17; see also Dagley, 18 S.W.3d at

793.

  • 11.

    Amstadt v. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996).

  • 12.

    Id. at 650.

  • 13.

    Kennedy v. Sale, 689 S.W.2d 890, 892 (Tex. 1985).

  • 14.

    Id. at 892.

  • 15.

    Id.

  • 16.

    Dagley v. Haag Eng’g Co., 18 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App. —

Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no writ). The DTPA claims were based on Haag allegedly engaging in an unconscionable ac- tion or course of action; representing that its services were of a particular standard when they were of another, representing that its services have characteristics and/or benefits which they

Journal of Texas Consumer Law

do not have, and representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it did not have.

  • 17.

    Id. at 792.

  • 18.

    Id.

  • 19.

    Dear v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 947 S.W.2d 908, 917 (Tex.

App. —Dallas 1997, writ denied).

  • 20.

    Id. at 916-17.

  • 21.

    TEX. INS. CODE ART. 21.21 § 2(a) (2004).

  • 22.

    Dagley, 18 S.W.3d at 793. In Dagley, the plaintiffs also filed

a claim based on negligence. The court dismissed this claim, noting that an essential element of negligence was a duty to the plaintiff and “Haag did not owe a duty to appellants in its investigation of their claims or providing evaluation materials to State Farm.”

  • 23.

    TEX. INS. CODE ART. 21.21 § 1(a) (2004).

  • 24.

    Id. at § 2(a) (emphasis added).

  • 25.

    Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors, Inc., 966

    • S.

      W.2d 482 (Tex. 1998).

  • 26.

    Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. 1994).

  • 27.

    Id. at 698.

  • 28.

    Id.

147

Document info
Document views8
Page views8
Page last viewedWed Oct 26 20:11:08 UTC 2016
Pages4
Paragraphs142
Words3072

Comments