 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Everett v. TK-Taito11/3/2005
ee Brown, 53 S.W.3d at 305. We hold that the trial court did not err by dismissing the Everetts' claim for money had and received for lack of standing.
F. Exemplary Damages
The Everetts' pleadings for exemplary damages add nothing to our standing analysis. An exemplary damages claim will not stand alone; it depends on some pleaded liability claim. See, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ยง 41.004(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05); see also Fed. Express Corp. v. Dutschmann, 846 S.W.2d 282, 284 (Tex. 1993) (holding " ecovery of punitive damages requires a finding of an independent tort with accompanying actual damages"). Because we hold that the Everetts lack standing to assert all of their pleaded claims, we likewise affirm the trial court's dismissal of their exemplary damages claim.
Taking as true the facts set forth in the Everetts' second amended original petition, we hold that they have not pleaded any facts establishing an injury that is redressable through their breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, DTPA, constructive trust, money had and received, and exemplary damages claims. Consequently, we hold that the trial court did not err by holding--following a nonevidentiary hearing on Appellees' motions to dismiss--that the Everetts lack standing to assert these claims. We overrule the Everetts' sole issue.
IX. Conclusion
Having overruled the Everetts' sole issue, we affirm the trial court's order dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
PANEL A: CAYCE, C.J.; HOLMAN and WALKER, JJ.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|