PJC Business

PJC 104.1

F IDUCIARY D UTY

which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC 116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. Formal fiduciary relationships. If the existence of a formal fiduciary relation ship is disputed, a question should be submitted inquiring whether the formal fiduciary relationship exists at the time of the occurrence or transaction at issue, or with respect to the occurrence or transaction at issue, or both. See National Plan Administrators, Inc. v. National Health Insurance Co. , 235 S.W.3d 695, 700–704 (Tex. 2007); Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. , 73 S.W.3d 193, 200–203 (Tex. 2002); see also the current edition of State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges—Malpractice, Premises & Products PJC 61.3 (form question when the existence of a professional relationship is in dispute). When the existence of an informal fiduciary relationship is a question of law. Although the existence of an informal relationship of trust and confidence is ordinarily a question of fact, if the issue is one of no evidence, it becomes a question of law. Crim Truck & Tractor Co. , 823 S.W.2d at 594. Similarly, if the facts are undis puted, the question is one of law. Meyer , 167 S.W.3d at 330. The supreme court has held that the following situations, for example, do not rise to the level of a relationship of trust and confidence: • One businessman trusts another and relies on his promise to perform a contract. Consolidated Gas & Equipment Co. v. Thompson , 405 S.W.2d 333, 336 (Tex. 1966); Thigpen , 363 S.W.2d at 253. • The relationship has been a cordial one and of long duration. Thigpen , 363 S.W.2d at 253. • People have had prior dealings with each other and one party subjectively trusts the other. Meyer , 167 S.W.3d at 331; Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson , 959 S.W.2d 171, 177 (Tex. 1997); Consolidated Gas & Equipment Co. , 405 S.W.2d at 336; Thigpen , 363 S.W.2d at 253. • The plaintiff has always done everything requested by the defendant. Crim Truck & Tractor Co. , 823 S.W.2d at 596 n.6. If commencement or termination of relationship is at issue. If there is a dis pute about whether the relationship had begun or had terminated at the time of the alleged breach, the Committee suggests adding to the question the phrases, “on [ date ]” or “at the time of the [ occurrence or transaction ].” See Meyer , 167 S.W.3d at 331 (quoting Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc. , 964 S.W.2d 276, 287 (Tex. 1998)); Swanson , 959 S.W.2d at 177 (in business transaction, special relation ship of trust and confidence must have existed before, and apart from, agreement made basis of suit); Schiller v. Elick , 240 S.W.2d 997, 1000 (Tex. 1951) (relationship must not have been terminated before time of occurrence or transaction giving rise to cause of action).

210