Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

American National Insurance Co. v. International Business Machines Corp.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 9, 1996No. 04-95-00196-CVPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDuncan, Justice

I join the majority in affirming the summary judgment against ANICO on its negligence, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation claims. But I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the summary judgment on ANICO’s fraud claims — not because I disagree with the statements of law set forth in the majority’s opinion, because I do not. Rather, I dissent because I believe the law governing this appeal is that enunciated by the First Court of Appeals, and that law clearly mandates affirmance of the summary judgment on ANICO’s fraud claims.

Facts

This case, and therefore IBM…

2Cases cited41 opinions

  1. Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. RobinsonTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Ferens v. John Deere Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Cleveland v. WardTexas Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Hudson v. WakefieldTexas Supreme Court · 1986

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API