PJC Business

F IDUCIARY D UTY

PJC 104.2

arises from an attorney-client relationship, see the current edition of State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges—Malpractice, Premises & Products PJC 61.12. If the existence of a formal fiduciary relationship is disputed, a preliminary question should be submitted. Schiller v. Elick , 240 S.W.2d 997, 999 (Tex. 1951) (dispute whether defendant was plaintiff’s agent); see also Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. , 73 S.W.3d 193, 202–03 (Tex. 2002) (whether to impose fiduciary duty on employee depends on whether he was agent with respect to particular transaction). See also the current edition of State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges—Malprac tice, Premises & Products PJC 61.3. PJC 104.1 submits the existence of an informal fiduciary relationship. PJC 104.2 should be conditioned on an affirmative answer to either PJC 104.1 or the preliminary question asking whether the formal fiduciary rela tionship exists. Source of question and instruction. The question and instruction are based on principles stated in Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. , 823 S.W.2d 591, 594 (Tex. 1992) (fiduciary duty requires party to place interest of other party before his own); Stephens County Museum, Inc. v. Swenson , 517 S.W.2d 257, 261 (Tex. 1974) (material issues are whether fiduciary made reasonable use of trust and confidence placed in him and whether transactions were ultimately fair and equitable to beneficiary); Fitz-Gerald v. Hull , 237 S.W.2d 256, 264–65 (Tex. 1951) (fiduciaries owe utmost good faith and most scrupulous honesty); Slay v. Burnett Trust , 187 S.W.2d 377, 387–88 (Tex. 1945) (duty of loyalty prohibits trustee from using advantage of his position to gain any benefit for himself at expense of his cestui que trust and from placing himself in any position where his self-interest will or may conflict with his obligations as trustee); Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp. , 160 S.W.2d 509, 512–14 (Tex. 1942) (it is duty of fiduciary to deal openly and to make full disclosure to party with whom he stands in such relationship); Johnson v. Peck ham , 120 S.W.2d 786, 787 (Tex. 1938) (fiduciaries required to make full disclosure of all material facts within their knowledge relating to fiduciary relationship; it is neces sary to make disclosure of all important information), cited in Schlumberger Technol ogy Corp. v. Swanson , 959 S.W.2d 171, 175, 181 (Tex. 1997); Lundy v. Masson , 260 S.W.3d 482, 503–04 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (fiduciaries owe utmost good faith and most scrupulous honesty); and Salas v. Total Air Services, LLC , 550 S.W.3d 683, 692 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.) (at-will employee who ran a competing business while still working for employer). Broad-form submission. PJC 104.2 is a broad-form question designed to be accompanied by one or more appropriate instructions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 requires that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; see Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012) (rule 277’s use of “whenever feasible” mandates broad-form submission in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC 116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine.

213