Chapter 9-20 Tortious Interference with Fiduciary Duty

• Jurisdiction: United States

9-20 Tortious Interference with Fiduciary Duty

9-20:1 Overview

Tortious Interference with Fiduciary Duty, as contrasted by Knowing Participation in Breach of Fiduciary Duty, is not a viable cause of action in Texas.

9-20:1.1 Related Causes of Action

Knowing Participation in Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Civil Conspiracy, Tortious Interference with Existing Contract

MUST READ CASES

Taylor v. Allstate Ins. Co., 356 S.W.3d 92, 100 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied)

Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C., 178 S.W.3d 398, 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied)

9-20:2 Expressly Rejected in Texas

Tortious interference with fiduciary duty is not recognized as a cause of action in Texas.⁹⁶ There is no Supreme Court of Texas opinion on this point. There is a claim for knowing participation in a breach of fiduciary duty.⁹⁷

--------

Notes:

^[96] Taylor v. Allstate Ins. Co., 356 S.W.3d 92, 100 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. denied); Alpert v. Crain, Caton & James, P.C., 178 S.W.3d 398, 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied); W. McDonald & Carlson Tex. Civ. Prac. § 2:35 (2d. ed.).

^[97] "[W]here a third party knowingly participates in the breach of duty of a fiduciary, such third party becomes a joint tortfeasor with the fiduciary and is liable as such." Meadows v. Hartford...