Operators of vehicle dealerships filed suit alleging breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and money had and received against an administrator of vehicle service contracts that the plaintiff dealerships had sold to customers in connection with vehicle sales. Plaintiffs complained that defendants had improperly retroceded funds that had been reserved as reinsurance for payments to be made under the vehicle services contracts. The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs had stated a plausible claim for relief that the administrator had breached reinsurance agreements that were neither attached to the complaint nor to defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court also held that the economic loss rule did not bar plaintiffs’ conversion and breach of fiduciary duty claim because there was a possibility that plaintiffs could establish with certain (undescribed) facts that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties. ., Case No. A-12-CA-263 LY (USDC W.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2013).
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
Questions? Please contact email@example.comRegister
Court denies motion to dismiss where defendant retroceded reserves held on vehicle service contracts
Popular articles from this firm
If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Related topic hubs
Vice President, General Counsel and Compliance Officer
The MMIC Group
"I LOVE this resource. Absolutely the best and most reliable single source of what’s going on that affects our business. THANKS!!"