Brooks, Tarlton, Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 86-1768
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before RANDALL, WILLIAMS and GARWOOD; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 832 F.2d 1378 |
| Parties | BROOKS, TARLTON, GILBERT, DOUGLAS & KRESSLER, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1768,86-1768 |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1987 |
Page 1378
Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant,
Cross-Appellee.
Fifth Circuit.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1987.
William M. Murphy, Murphy, Shrull, Moore & Bell, Fort Worth, Tex., for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.
James B. Barlow, Cora S. Werley, Barlow, Garsek & Bowers, Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants.
Page 1379
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
(Opinion November 5, 1987, 5th Cir.1987, 832 F.2d 1358)
Before RANDALL, WILLIAMS and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Our opinion in this case was issued on November 5, 1987. In the course of deciding that the Lawyers' Deceptive Trade Practices Act cause of action should be remanded for further development in the district court, we discussed Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Barnes, 30 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 489 (June 17, 1987) and its potential impact on the Lawyers' implied warranty claim. See Brooks, Tarlton, Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1358, 1377 n. 16 (5th Cir. 1987). However, on November 4, 1987, the Texas Supreme Court withdrew its first opinion in Melody Home and substituted in its place a revised opinion. Therefore, we find it necessary now to briefly clarify, in light of this new opinion, the district court's task on remand.
I.
In Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Barnes, 30 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 489 (June 17, 1987) ("Melody Home I"), the Texas Supreme Court held that "all service providers impliedly warrant that their services will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner." Melody Home I,. However, two years earlier, in Dennis v. Allison, 698 S.W.2d 94 (Tex.1985), the Texas Supreme Court had decided that an implied warranty does not arise in "professional" service transactions. Id. at 96. Moreover, it had specifically recognized that because of the remedies provided by section 402A of the Restatement Second of Torts and the implied warranties of the Texas Uniform Commercial Code, "the protection of Texas consumers no longer requires the utilization of an implied warranty as a matter of public policy." Id. at 95 (quotations omitted). To reach its ruling in Melody Home I, therefore, the supreme court found it necessary to overrule Dennis. In our opinion, we acknowledged this new implied warranty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dennis v. General Imaging, Inc., No. 90-3052
...Douglas & Kressler v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1358, 1364 (5th Cir.) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)), clarified on rehearing, 832 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir.1987). After a careful review of the entire record, we conclude that no issue of material fact exists and that the four appellees ar......
-
FDIC v. Nathan, C.A. H-91-2845.
...authority Dennis v. Allison, 698 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex.1985); Brooks, Tarlton, Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1378, 1379 (5th FDIC properly corrects Defendants' misreading of Dennis, in which the Texas Supreme Court chose not to impose as a matter of publi......
-
Luig v. N. Bay Enters., Inc., Civil Action No. 7:13–cv–00094–O.
...as a question of law.” Brooks, Tarlton, Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1358, 1372clarified on reh'g, 832 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir.1987). “Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the......
-
Pope v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., No. 90-2597
...Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1358, 1364 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)), clarified on reh'g on other grounds, 832 F.2d 1378 (5th 16 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5221k (Vernon 1987 & Supp.1991). 17 Id. at Sec. 6.01 (emphasis added). 18 Id. at Sec. 1.02(1). 19 42 U.S......
-
Dennis v. General Imaging, Inc., 90-3052
...Douglas & Kressler v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1358, 1364 (5th Cir.) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)), clarified on rehearing, 832 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir.1987). After a careful review of the entire record, we conclude that no issue of material fact exists and that the four appellees ar......
-
FDIC v. Nathan, C.A. H-91-2845.
...authority Dennis v. Allison, 698 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex.1985); Brooks, Tarlton, Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1378, 1379 (5th FDIC properly corrects Defendants' misreading of Dennis, in which the Texas Supreme Court chose not to impose as a matter of publi......
-
Pope v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 90-2597
...Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1358, 1364 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)), clarified on reh'g on other grounds, 832 F.2d 1378 (5th 16 Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5221k (Vernon 1987 & Supp.1991). 17 Id. at Sec. 6.01 (emphasis added). 18 Id. at Sec. 1.02(1). 19 42 U.S......
-
Luig v. N. Bay Enters., Inc., Civil Action No. 7:13–cv–00094–O.
...as a question of law.” Brooks, Tarlton, Gilbert, Douglas & Kressler v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 832 F.2d 1358, 1372clarified on reh'g, 832 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir.1987). “Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the......