The court held that the insured's arguments that it could recover under the entitled-to-benefits rule, benefits lost rule, and independent injury rule were sufficient to state a plausible claim for extra-contractual damages under the DTPA and denied the insurer's motion to dismiss that claim, but granted the insurer's motion with respect to misrepresentation because the insured did not allege detrimental reliance
Reviewing the Case Document is for members only. Please login