PJC Business

PJC 102.7

DTPA/I NSURANCE C ODE

PJC 102.7

Question and Instructions on Unconscionable Action or Course of Action (DTPA §§ 17.50(a)(3) and 17.45(5))

QUESTION ______ Did Don Davis engage in any unconscionable action or course of action that was a producing cause of damages to Paul Payne ? “Producing cause” means a cause that was a substantial factor in bringing about the damages, if any, and without which the damages would not have occurred. There may be more than one producing cause. An unconscionable action or course of action is an act or practice that, to a consumer’s detriment, takes advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, expe rience, or capacity of the consumer to a grossly unfair degree. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 102.7 is to be used with PJC 102.1 to submit a claim based on Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §17.50(a)(3) (DTPA). This statute gives a consumer a cause of action for “any unconscionable action or course of action by any person.” The defi nition of “unconscionable action or course of action” is derived from DTPA § 17.45(5). Questions for other causes of action based on the DTPA or the Insurance Code may be found at PJC 102.1 (false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice), 102.8 (warranty), 102.14 (Insurance Code), and 102.21 (knowing or intentional con duct). “Producing cause.” Under section 17.50(a) of the DTPA, a “consumer may maintain an action where any of the following constitute a producing cause ” of actual damages. DTPA § 17.50(a) (emphasis added). The definition of “producing cause” is from Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma , 242 S.W.3d 32, 46 (Tex. 2007) (stating that “[d]efin ing producing cause as being a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, and with out which the injury would not have occurred . . . is the definition that should be given in the jury charge”). “For DTPA violations,” the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that “only producing cause must be shown.” Transcontinental Insurance Co. v. Crump , 330 S.W.3d 211, 223 (Tex. 2010) (quoting Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Jefferson Associates, Ltd. , 896 S.W.2d 156, 161 (Tex. 1995)). In Ledesma , the supreme court explained that, “[t]o say that a producing cause is ‘an efficient, exciting, or contributing cause that, in a natural sequence, produces the incident in question’ is incomplete and, more importantly, provides little concrete guidance ...

148