Court Jury's Improper Calculation of Contract Fraud Damages
In Formosa Plastics Corp., USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, 960 S.W.2d 41, 46-47 (Tex. 1998), the supreme court determined that because damages for fraud were calculated improperly there was insufficient evidence to support the entire amount of fraud damages. See Presidio, 960 S.W.2d at 49-50.
Nonetheless, the supreme court recognized that Presidio had a viable fraud claim. See id. at 47.
In this regard, however, the court limited its consideration to whether there was sufficient evidence to support the theory that Formosa fraudulently induced Presidio to enter into the contract, and did not "consider whether any other representations Formosa allegedly made were fraudulent." Id. at 49.
Thus, the supreme court neither approved nor disapproved of our upholding the jury's finding of fraud damages for fraud in the performance of a contract.
In D.S.A., Inc. v. Hillsboro Indep. Sch. Dist., 973 S.W.2d 662, 663-64 (Tex. 1998) the supreme court analyzed the tort of negligent misrepresentation, which has a narrower scope of liability than fraudulent inducement, and concluded that to recover for such a claim, there must be an injury independent of the breach of contract. See id. (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 552B (1997)).