pjc-oil-and-gas-2022-lib

PJC 312.15

D EFENSES

does not alone bar a claim of fraudulent inducement. International Business Machines Corp. v. Lufkin Industries, LLC , 573 S.W.3d 224, 229 (Tex. 2019). Whether an adequate disclaimer of reliance exists as to negate a claim of fraudulent inducement is a matter of law. Italian Cowboy Partners , 341 S.W.3d at 333. If fraud is not established as a matter of law, the burden is on the party asserting fraudulent inducement to obtain jury findings to establish the necessary elements of this affirma tive defense. Oilwell Division, U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fryer , 493 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Tex. 1973). The agreement and the circumstances surrounding its formation determine whether a disclaimer of reliance is binding to bar a fraudulent inducement defense. Schlumberger , 959 S.W.2d at 179–80. Definition of fraud. The supreme court has repeatedly identified these elements of common-law fraud. See, e.g. , Anderson v. Durant , 550 S.W.3d 605, 614 (Tex. 2018); Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. , 73 S.W.3d 193, 211 n.45 (Tex. 2002) (identifying the recognized elements of common-law fraud); Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Engineers & Contractors, Inc. , 960 S.W.2d 41, 47 (Tex. 1998) (dis cussing recoverable damages sounding in tort); Fryer , 493 S.W.2d at 491 (first announcing the recognized elements of common-law fraud and discussing fraudulent inducement as an affirmative defense). The word “justifiably” is in brackets because some recent supreme court cases list it as an element of fraud while others do not. For additional discussion, see the current edition of State Bar of Texas, Texas Pattern Jury Charges—Business, Consumer, Insurance & Employment PJC 105.2. Accompanying instructions and definitions. PJC 312.15 should be accompa nied by appropriate instructions and definitions for fraud. See PJC 312.16A— 312.16E.

202