DTPA misrepresentation claim in Texas

2014Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995) (stating that under a DTPA misrepresentation claim, “[the alleged] . . . acts constituted a producing cause of the consumer’s damages”); Pagosa Oil & Gas, LLC v. Marrs & Smith P’ship, 323 S.W.3d 203, 215 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, pet. denied) (noting that the last element of a 7 breach of contract claim, the plaintiff incurred damages as a result of the defendant’s breach, includes a causation requirement); Elliot v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 50, 56 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (stating that

2010See Doe v. Boys Club, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 481 (Tex. 1995) (defining producing cause in context of a DTPA misrepresentation claim to be ―a substantial factor which brings about the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred.‖); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 46 (Tex. 2007) (defining producing cause in product liability case to be ―a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred‖).

2014Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995) (stating that under a DTPA misrepresentation claim, “[the alleged] . . . acts constituted a producing cause of the consumer’s damages”); Pagosa Oil & Gas, LLC v. Marrs & Smith P’ship, 323 S.W.3d 203, 215 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, pet. denied) (noting that the last element of a 7 breach of contract claim, the plaintiff incurred damages as a result of the defendant’s breach, includes a causation requirement); Elliot v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 50, 56 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (stating that

2014Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 478 (Tex. 1995) (stating that under a DTPA misrepresentation claim, “[the alleged] . . . acts constituted a producing cause of the consumer’s damages”); Pagosa Oil & Gas, LLC v. Marrs & Smith P’ship, 323 S.W.3d 203, 215 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, pet. denied) (noting that the last element of a 7 breach of contract claim, the plaintiff incurred damages as a result of the defendant’s breach, includes a causation requirement); Elliot v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 118 S.W.3d 50, 56 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (stating that

2010See Doe v. Boys Club, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472, 481 (Tex. 1995) (defining producing cause in context of a DTPA misrepresentation claim to be ―a substantial factor which brings about the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred.‖); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 46 (Tex. 2007) (defining producing cause in product liability case to be ―a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred‖).

2001See Sorokolit, 889 S.W.2d at 242 (holding that the underlying nature of the claim, not its label, determines whether section 12.01(a) of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act prevents suit for violation of the DTPA).

1999See Tex.Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.46(b)(23) (failure to disclose information with intent to induce customer into a transaction is unlawful deceptive trade practice); see also Weitzel v. Barnes, 691 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex.1985) (“[I]t is conceivable that in certain situations silence could amount to a misrepresentation.”).

1993Id. at 215, 218 . [2] Easterly did not raise the DTPA misrepresentation claim on appeal. [3] Walden also cites Waters ex rel.

1993Walton v. Del-Ky, Inc., 844 S.W.2d 250, 258 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, no writ), in support of his position.

1993Walton v. Del-Ky, Inc., 844 S.W.2d 250, 258 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, no writ), in support of his position.