Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Barzoukas v. FOUNDATION DESIGN, LTD.

Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)

Decided April 11, 2012No. 14-10-00505-CVPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCharles W. Seymore, Justice

I withdraw my concurring and dissenting opinion dated February 2, 2012 and issue this substitute concurring and dissenting opinion.1

I concur with the majority’s holding that the record contains no evidence raising a fact issue regarding Barzoukas’s claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement. However, I respectfully dissent from the majori*842ty’s reversal of summary judgment on Barzoukas’s negligence claims because I believe (1) the economic loss rule forecloses his negligence claims against Smith and (2) Barzoukas failed to present evidence raising a fact issue relative to his negligence claims…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. City of Keller v. WilsonTexas Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Valence Operating Co. v. DorsettTexas Supreme Court · 2005
  3. MacK Trucks, Inc. v. TamezTexas Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Star-Telegram, Inc. v. DoeTexas Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Timpte Industries, Inc. v. GishTexas Supreme Court · 2009

22 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