### NUM BER 13-07- 0012 0-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
CEL L COMP, L.L .C., A pp ellan t,
v . SOU TH WES TE RN B EL L WIR EL ESS, L.L. C., SOUTHWESTERN BELL M OBI LE SYS TEM S, INC. A ND SOUTHWESTERN BELL WIRELESS , I NC., CINGULA R WIR EL ESS L.L .C., E T A L., A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e 1 03rd Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Cell Comp, L.L. C. (“ Cell Co m p ”), ap pellan t, sue d Cingular W ireless, L.L .C. (“ Ci ng ula r” ), appel lee , for breachi ng an ag ency ag re ement, commi tti ng se v eral tor ts, and
v iol ati ng prov is ion s o f Texa s’ s D ecept iv e Tra de Pract ic es Act( “D TPA”)

. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17. 46 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 007)

. Ci ng ula r filed a joi nt moti on for tradi ti onalC el l C om p al l eged t he f ol l owi ng vi ol at i ons oft he D ecept i v e T r ade Pr act i ces Act : ( a) m aki ng f al se 1 o r m i s l e a d i n g s ta te m e n ts o f f a c t c o n c e rn i n g th e r e a s o n s f o r, e x i s te n c e o f, o r a m o u n t o f p ric e re d u c ti o n s , see T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 7.46 (b)(11 ) (V ern on S up p. 20 07 ); (b) rep res en t i ng t ha t an ag ree m en t co nfe rs ori nv ol v es r i gh t s, r em ed i es , o r ob l i ga t i on s wh i ch i t do es no t ha v e ori nv ol v e, o r wh i ch a r e pr oh i bi t ed b y l aw , see i

. e. i d § 17

. 46 (b)(12 ) (V ern on S up p. 2 00 7); (c ) m i s rep res en t i ng t he au t ho ri t y of a s al es m an , repre s en t ati ve o r a g e n t t o n e g o ti a te th e fi n a l te rm s o f a c o n s u m e r tra n s a c ti o n , see i d § 1 7.46 (b)(14 ) ( V ern on S up p. 20 07 ); and ( d) f ai l i ng t o di scl ose i nf or m at i on co ncer ni ng g oods or ser v i ces whi ch was known at t he t i m e of t he t r ansact i on i fsuch f ai l ur e t o di scl ose su ch i nf or m at i on was i nt ended t o i nduce t he consum er i nt o a t r ansact i on i n to w h i c h th e c o n s u m e r w o u l d n o t h a v e e n te re d h a d th e i n fo rm a ti o n b e e n d i s c l o s e d , see id § 17

. 46( b) ( 24) (V ern on 20 07 ). 2 and no-evidence partial sum ma ry judgme nt on Cell Com p’s tort and DTP A claims, w hich the t ri al court gra n te d . By se v en i ss ues, C ell C omp ch all eng es the s ummary j udg ment. W e aff ir m the jud g ment i n par t and rev erse and remand i n par t. I. B A CKGRO UND In J uly 2002, C ell C omp and Ci ng ula r entered int o an author iz ed ag ency ag re ement under w hic h C ell C omp ag re ed to mar ketand sel l Ci ng ula r w ireles s p hone s er v ic e and product s i n H ida lg o and Cameron C ounti es (t he “ mark et area” ). U n d e r the ter ms of the agreem ent , Cell Comp re ceived a one -time co mm ission for each new subscribe r that it
enroll ed w ho remaine d w it h C ing ula r for 180 day s. Cin g ula r w as als o to pay C ell C omp a per cent ag e of the re v enue t hat i t c oll ect ed from C ing ula r subs cr ibe rs w ho s ig ned up for
serv ice throu gh Cell Com p (the “sub scription fee”). Th e agreem entinclude d “charge back” prov is ion s w hereby

the commi ss ion pay ment c or re spond ing to a subsc ri ber w ho c ancel led Ci ng ula r ser

v ic e w it hin 180 day s w as debi ted from C ell C omp’s ac count

. On D ecember

23, 2003, Cel l Comp sued Cin gul ar for b re ach of contract , frau d, fr a u d ule nt i nduce ment, v iol ati ons of the D TPA, co nv ersi on, c onspi ra cy , and tor ti ous 1 int er ferenc e w it h a busi ness rela ti onshi p w it h ex is ti ng and future cus tomers. Ac cordin g to Cel l Comp’ s o ri gin al peti ti on, b efore t he ag re ement w as re ached , C ing ula r employ ees re present ed to C ell C omp thatH ida lg o and Cameron Cou nti es had l ow ca ncel lat ion rates and thatCing ular w ould treat Cell Comp fairly in its marketin g and pro m o t ion program s.3

Shor tl y after ex ecut ing the ag re ement, Ce ll Comp all eg ed th at i t ex per ien ced a hi g her
n u mb e r o f s e r

v i c e c a n c e l l a t i o n s t h a n C i n g u l a r re p re s e n t a t i v e s h a d re p re s e n t e d and thereby su ff ered unan ti ci pated financi al los ses
. Cel l Co m p a ls o al leg ed th at C ing ula r uni lat erall y

ch ang ed i ts compens ati on and pr ic ing al low ances
. Ci ng ula r answ ered Cel l Comp’ s sui t w it h a g eneral deni al and as ser ted n umero us defenses, i ncl udi ng w aiv er and es toppel

. After some d is cov er y , C ing ula r mov ed for both tradi ti onal and no- ev ide nce par ti al summar

y j udg ment on all of Cel l Comp’ s c lai ms ex cept the b re ach of contractacti on. Cel l Comp re spond ed to C ing ula r’ s mot ion s b y arg uin g that fact issue s ex isted a nd a ttach ed d epo sition t estim ony from four individuals w ho were fam iliar w ith the agreeme nt’s forma tion. The trial court g rante d Cingular a partial sum ma ry j ud g me ntw i th ou t prov i di ng a rat i on al e an d s ev ered C el l C om p’ s b rea c h of co nt rac t c l ai m. This appeal ens ued. II. D I S CUS S I ON By se v en i ss ues, C ell C omp co mplai ns th a t th e tr ial co urt er re d i n render ing
summar y j udg ment on it s cl aims for fraud, fraudul ent ind ucement , v iol ati ons of the D TPA,
conv ersi on, c onspi ra cy , and torti ous int er ferenc e w it h a busi ness rel ati onshi p w it h ex is ti ng and future c ust omers
. A . St and ard s o f Rev iew Und er a t ra dit ion al moti on for summar y judg ment, the mov ant mus t es tabl is h tha t no mater ial fact i ss ue ex is ts and t hat i t i s e nti tl ed to judg ment as a matter of l aw
. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( c) ; Sw. Elec. Power C o. v . G ra nt , 73 S.W .3d 211, 21 5 ( Tex . 200 2) ; Alan iz v. Hoyt , 105 S.W .3d 3 30, 3 45 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ; Mow bray v. Avery , 76 S.W .3d 663, 690 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet. deni ed)

. Afte r th e m ov ant produce s e v ide nce suffici ent t o s how i t is enti tl ed to summar y jud g ment, the n on- mov ant4

must then pre sentev ide nce ra is ing a facti ss ue. See W alker v. Harris , 924 S.W .2d 3 75, 377 (Tex. 1996 ). Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 166a( i) prov ide s t hat "a par ty w it hout present ing
sum ma ry

judgmen t evi den ce ma y move for sum ma ry

judgmen t on th e ground th at th ere is no e v ide nce o f

o n e o r m o re es sent ial el ements of a c lai m or defense on w hic h an adv erse par

ty w oul d hav e the burden of proof." T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 6a(i)

. T he trial cou rt
mu st grant the mo tion if the non -movant d oes n ot prod uce su mm aryjudgmen t evi den ce ra is ing a g enui ne i ss ue of m ater ial f acton each el ement chal len g ed. Id .; Mack Trucks v. Tam ez , 206 S.W .3d 5 72, 5 82 (T e x. 2006)

. The non- mov ant mus t produce more tha n a
sc int il la of proba ti v e ev ide nce to rais e an is sue of materi al fact. Oasis Oil Corp. v. Koch Ref . C o. , 60 S.W .3d 2 48, 2 52 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, pet. deni ed) . M ore tha n a scintilla of

ev iden ce exists w hen the evidence "rises to a level that w ould ena ble
re asona ble and fair-mi nded pe opl e to diffe r in their co ncl usi ons. " Me rr

ell D ow Phar

m s., Inc . v . Havner , 953 S.W .2d 7 06, 7 11 ( Tex . 199 7)

. W e "mustex amine the e nti re record i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to t he non- mov ant, ind ulg ing ev er

y re asona ble inference and re sol v ing any doubts ag ain st the mot ion ." Sudan
v. Sudan , 199 S.W .3d 291, 292 (Tex . 2006) (p er cu ri am); see City of Kel ler v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 802 , 824 (Tex. 2005 ). M o re o ve r, "w hen a trial court's order grant ing summ ary jud g ment doe s n ot s peci fy the g ro und or g ro unds reli ed on for i ts ru li ng , s ummary j udg ment
w il l be affirmed on appe al if any of the t heor ies ad van ce d are mer it or iou s." Do w Ch e m. Co. v. Francis , 4 6 S. W .3 d 23 7 , 2 4 2 (T e x. 20 0 1 ) (qu o ti n g Car r v. Br asher , 776 S. W .2d 5 67, 569 (Tex. 1989 )). B. Fraud , F rau du len t In du cemen t, an d DT PA C laim s By i ts firs t, sec ond, and t hird is sues , Cel l Comp chal len g es the s ummary j udg mentC i n g u l a r ra i s e d o n l y a re l i a n c e a rg u m e n t a g a i n s t C e l l C o m p ’ s D T P A c l a i m s
. S e e P e l tie r E n te rs ., 2 I nc. v. H i

l t on , 51 S. W

. 3d 616, 624 (T ex. A pp. –T y l er 200 0, pet

. den i ed) ( not i ng t hat sect i on 1 7. 50( a) ( 1) ( B) of t he busi n e s s a n d c o m m e r c e c o d e r e q u i r e s a p l a i n t i fft o p r o v e t h a t s h e r e a s o n a b l y r e l i e d o n a f a l s e, m i s l e a d i n g , o r d e c e p ti v e a c t o r p ra c ti c e i n o rd e r to o b ta i n re l i e f th ro u g h th e D T P A ). W e w i l l , t h e re fo re , a n a l y ze C e ll C o m p ’s D T P A c l a i m s o n l y w i th re g a rd to C i n g u l a r’s re l i a n c e a rg u m e n t. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ( “ I ssues n ot expr essl y pr esent ed t o t he t r i al cour t b y w ri t t en m ot i on, answerorot her r esponse shal l not be c on s i de red on ap pe al as grou nd s for r eve rsa l

. ”)

. 5 re ndered on it s fraud, fraudul ent i nduce ment, and D TPA cl aims

. Ci ng ula r mov ed for sum ma ry

judgmen t on th ose claim s on the g roun ds tha t (1) there w as no ev iden ce tha t Cell Comp re asona bly

relied on C ing ula r’ s a ll eg ed represent ati ons, or , ( 2) as a mat ter of law Cell Comp co uld no t have relied on Cingular’s alleg ed rep resen tatio ns be cause reliance
w as w aiv ed by

the ag re em e n t. In the alt er nati v e, C ing ula r arg ued t hat C ell C omp w as 2
e s t o p p e d fro m c l a i mi n g re l i a n c e o n i t s re p re s e n t a t i o n s b y t h e t e r ms o f t h e a g re e me n t. Cingular filed the agreem entas its o nly piece of summ aryjudgmen t evi den ce, an d it argued th at two of

t he agreem ent ’s p rov isions esta blish Cell Com p’s w aiver of its reliance of anyrepresent ati ons made by C ing ula r employ ees. T he f irst prov ision (h ereina f ter referred to as “acknowledgmen t provisi on”), cont aine d in para graph 2 of the agreem ent , reads: AGEN T [C ell C omp] ac kn o wled ges that ithas co nduct ed an ind ependent inv est ig ati on of the busi ness of sell ing CRS [cel lul ar

radi o s er

v ic e] an d any oth e r Serv ices tha t it w ill cond uct pu rsuan t to this Agreem ent . AGENT re cog niz es that entr

y i nto b usi ness a s a n AG EN T of CIN GU LARi nv olv es busi ness r isks a nd th e AG EN T’S s ucc ess i n s uch busi ness w il l depend pr imar il y upon it s a bil it ies and efforts. C IN GU L AR e xpressl y di sc lai ms t he maki ng of, and AGEN T ack now led g es that ithas not re cei v ed or reli ed upon , any g uaranty , ex press or

i mpli ed, a s t o the amount of commis si ons or othe r re v en u e t h a ti tm a y

e a r n a s a re s u l to f i t s a g e n c y re l a t i o n s h i p w it h CI NG ULA R and ac know led g es that ithas no k now led g e of any re present ation s re latin g to it s a g ency rela ti onshi p w it h C IN GU LARby an offi c e r , e m p l o y e e o r a g e n t o f C I N G U L A R t h a t a re c o n t ra r y t o t h e t er ms herein

. AGEN T re present s t o C IN GU LAR , as an i nduce ment t o i ts entr y i nto the A g re ement, that AGEN T has made no mis re present ati on to C IN GU LAR in it s a ppl ic ati on for appoi ntment a s a n onex cl usi v e, A uthor iz ed Ag ent o f CINGULAR or in any other ma nne r. The sec ond prov is ion of the a g re ement ( h e re ina fter referred to as “ int er pretati on6

provisi on”), con taine d in para graph 26, sta tes: The preamble s a nd ex hib it s t o thi s Ag re ement are a par t of thi s A g re ement, w hic h cons ti tute the enti re ag re ement of the par ti es, and there are no other oral or w ri tten unde rst andi ng s o r ag re ements betw een C IN GU LARand A G E N T r e l a t i n g t o t h e s u bj e c tm a t t e r h e re o f. In i ts re spons e to Ci ng ula r’ s summar y jud g ment moti on, Cel l Comp arg ued t hat t he ag reement c oul d notw aiv e an int enti onal tor t s uch as fraud be caus e al low ing a pa rty to
w aiv e an int enti onal tor t i s u ncons ci onabl e and ag ain st publ icpol icy . See S oli s v . Ev ins , 951 S.W .2d 44, 50 (Tex. App .–Corp us Christi 199 7, orig . procee ding) ( f inding tha t it w ould be "c ontrar

y to publ icpoli cy " for

a par ty to "prospecti v ely

contract ual ly

ex cul pate it sel f w it h
re spec t t o i ntent ion al tor ts") ; see a lso Atl. Richfield C o. v. Pet roleum Person nel, In c. , 768 S.W .2d 7 24, 7 26 n. 2 ( Tex

. 1989) (n oti ng that ind emnity ag ain st one' s ow n int enti onal tor ts
ra is es publ icpol icy

co ncer ns, but decl ini ng to ru le on the is sue)

. Cel l Comp prov ide d the trial cou rt with ex cerpts f rom th e de positio n test imo ny of : (1) Daniel Sh epp ard, Cell Comp’ s mana g er ; ( 2) Ker ry Sheppard, the Cel l Comp off ic er w ho ex ecut ed the a g re ement; and (3) Adrian Hackett , a forme r Ci ngular accou nt m ana ger. 1. W aiver of Relian ce The el ements of fraud are: ( 1) the defendant made a mater ial represent ati on; ( 2) t h e d e fe n d a n tkn e w th e re p re s e n t a t io n wa s fa ls e , o r m a d e itre c k le s s ly a s a p o s it ive
ass erti on w it hout any

kn ow led g e of it s t ru th; (3 ) the defendant int ended to i nduce the other pa rt y t o a c t u p o n i t ; a n d ( 4 ) t h e o t h e r p a r t y a c t u a l l y a n d j u s t i fi a b l y reli ed upon the
re present ati on, a nd ( 5) thereby su ff ered i nju ry
. Ernst & You ng, L.L. P. v. Pac. Mut. Life In s. Co. , 51 S.W .3d 5 73, 5 77 ( Te x. 2 0 0 1 ). F ra udul ent i nduce ment c lai ms i ncl ude frau d ele ments in additi on to proof that one ent ered i nto a bi ndi ng ag re ement as a resul t of the mis re present ati on. See Haas e v. Gl az ner , 62 S.W .3d 7 95, 7 98- 99 ( Tex . 200 1) ( prov idi ng7

that “w it h a fraudul ent i nduce ment c lai m, the el ements of f ra ud mus t be est abl is hed as they
re lat e to an ag re ement be tw een t he par ti es” ). Ci n g u l a r c h a l l e n g e s t h e re l i a n c e e l e me n to f C e l l C o mp ’ s fra u d , fra u d u l ent ind ucement , and DTPA cl aims by arg uin g that the ag re ement’ s ter ms w aiv e reli ance. The inclusion of

a me rg er clause o r a disclaimer of reliance in an agreeme nt m ay, unde r certain
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , n e g a t e t h e e l e m e n to f re l i a n c e a n d t h u s p re c l u d e a n y f ra u d
- l i k e c l a i m. See, e.g., Schlu m ber

ger T ech. C or p. v . Swans on , 959 S.W .2d 1 71, 1 81 ( Tex . 19 9 7) (h old ing di sc lai mer prov is ion i n s ettl ement ag re ement de feated fraudu le n t induc ement cl aim by neg ati ng reli ance on pre- cont ra ctu al re present ati ons)

. The factors t o c o nsi der
w hen as ses si ng w hether there i s s uff ic ien t ev ide nce of re li ance in cl ude ( 1) the ter ms of the cont ract, (2) the circum stan ces surroun ding its fo rma t io n, (3) w het her the parties w ere re present ed by

co unsel , and ( 4) w hether the par ti es neg oti ated at arm' s le n gth

. See id

. at 17 9- 80. The Schlum ber

ger ca se has been us ed to find w aiv er o f r eli ance prov is ion s in e f fe ct ive a gai n stf ra u d cla im s whe n th e w a iv er provis io n s co n st it u te bo ile r-p la te la n gua ge in an ag re ement t hat i s n ot t he productof a n a rm ’s l eng th t ra nsac ti on. See W oodl ands Land Dev

. C o. v . Jenki ns , 48 S.W .3d 415, 422 (Tex . App.–Beau mont 2001, no pet. ). I n Jenk ins , a home buy er

su ed her

home bu il der

for, among othe r th in gs, s tatut or y and common law

f ra ud, brea ch of cont ra ct, and DTPA v iol ati ons. Id

. at 41 8. Af ter a jury trial, the trial court rende red judgm entin the ho me buyer’s favor and award e d comp ensa tory
a n d e xem p lary

damag es. Id

. Th e ho me b ui l de r a pp ea l ed , arg ui ng t ha t th e ex press lan g uag e of the cont ra ct precl uded t he home buy er ’s reli ance on anyal leg ed mis re present ation b y t he home bui lde r as a matt er of law

. Id

. The BeaumontC our t of App eals, a f

ter examinin g the natu re of the tran saction and tota lity of circumsta nces, held8

that the a g re ement di d notw aiv e the home bu y er ’s reli ance becau se the w aiv er prov is ion s cons ti tuted “ boi ler-p lat e” l ang uag e and the a g re ement w as not t he resul t of an a rm’ s- len g th transacti on. Id . at422; see als o Johnso n v . Pe rr y Hom es , 199 8 Tex . Ap p. L EXI S 6749 , at * 28 ( Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 1998, pet. deni ed) (“ The dis cl aimers o f rel ian ce on re present ati ons in thi s c ase are par t of th e ‘ boi ler-p lat e’ prov is ion s i n the co ntract s, and there i s n o ev ide nce they w ere par

t of the basi s o f the bargai n betw een app ell ants and [appel lee .]” ). Th e a gre e m ent’ s t er ms are pr imar il y “ boi ler pl ate” prov is ion s t hat fav or C ing ula r becau se they

al low i t t o uni lat erall y

ch ang e s ubst anti v e por ti ons of the ag re ement. F or ex ample, parag ra ph 9 prov ide s t hat t he “ commi ss ion sc hedul e may be rev is ed or
re str uct ured by

CIN GU LAR [,] in i ts sol e di sc re ti on, u pon t hir ty ( 30) day s a dv ance w ri tten noti ce to AGEN T or by mutual ag re ement of t he par ti es at any ti me.” Th e agre ement cont ain s a ck now led g ment and i nter pretati on prov is ion s w hereby C ell C omp di sc lai ms any rep re sentati on made by C ing ula r and t he ex is tenc e of any othe r ag re ement. The ack now led g ment prov is ion al so prov ide s t hat C ell C omp “ has made n o m i s re present ati ons to” C ing ula r. O ddl y , how ev er , t here i s n o claus e g uaranteei ng C ing ula r’ s represent ati ons in the same fashio n as the agreeme nt guaran tee s Cell C om p’s represe nta tions. W e find, how ev er , t hat t he s econd , t hird, an d fourt h Schlum ber ger factors do not poi nt t o a meaning ful rel ian ce dis cl aimer

. Ker ry , a Cel l Comp off ic er , t est ified by depos it ion that she si g ned numerous copi es of the ag re ement atC ing ula r’s o f f ices in H ar li ng en, Tex as. Ke rr

y als o tes ti fied that she had notrecei v ed prev iou s d ra fts of the ag re ement an d did no t read th e agreem entbefore signing it. T here is no ev iden ce tha t an at torne y for Cell Comp re v iew ed th e ag re ement or thatdrafts w ere s h u tt led betw een C ell C omp and Ci ng ula r for rev iew , edi ts, and neg oti ati on. See Jenki ns , 48 S.W .3d a t 422 ( noti ng thatthe9

home buil der

asser ted that the d is cl aimer

of re li ance prov is ion s w ere not“ boi ler-p lat e,” but did not prov ide a record referenc e i n s uppor t of i ts arg ument)

. The re cord, t herefore,
re v eal s t hat K er ry , w it hout the a id of c o u n se l, ex ecut ed an ag re ement t hat C ing ula r had drafted, and that the a g re ement w aiv es re lia n ce o n any othe r re present ati on or mis re present ati on. Hav ing anal yz e d the record under the Schlu m berg er tes t, w e c oncl ude t hat t he agreem entdoe s not ef fectively w aive C ell Comp ’s allegation th a ti trelied on Cingular’s
re present ati ons w hen ent er ing i nto the agreement. Schlum ber ger T ech. C or p. , 959 S.W .2d a t 181 ; Jenk

ins , 48 S.W .3d a t 422 ; see a lso Solis , 951 S.W .2d at 50. W e now turn to C ell C omp’s su mmary j udg ment ev ide nce to de ter mine w hether i t rais ed a g enui ne i ss ue of materi al fact reg ardin g reli ance. 2. Evide nce o f Reliance Dan iel , C ell C omp’s manag er , t est ified by depos it ion thatKen Lee and Pete Ren te ria, C ing ula r’ s represent ati v es, t old hi m thatca ncel lat ion rates i n the mar ketarea
w ere three percent

. Acc ordin g to Dan iel , C ell C omp ex per ien ced a c ancellat ion rate o f
sev en to se v en- and- a- hal f perc ent. D ani el b la m e d the hi g h c ancel lat ion rates on Ci ng ula r’ s roaming pol icy , w hic h he cont ends drov e c ust omers aw ay from C ing ula r s e r

v ic e. Daniel te stif ied th at Cingular’s represen tatio ns cau sed Cell Com p to ent er into th e con tract
w hen it could ha v e pu rsued othe r business ventu res. Hac ket t, a Ci ng ula r acc ount manag er si nce Nov ember

1999, tes ti fied by

depos it ion and affidav itabouthow C ing ula r’ s p ra cti ces coul d re sul t in ag ent “ charg e bac k” fees and
a reduct ion i n s ubsc ri pti on fees. Ac cordin g to Hac ket t’ s a ff ida v it :

Shor tl y after sta rt ing w it h [C ing ula r] , I c ame to understa nd th at ag ents w ere no t bein g com pen sate d correctly. E v erymon th, a gents w ould comp lain to me about charg e bac ks and thei r commi ss ion st atement detai ls

. TheC i ngul ar execu t ed t he a gr eem ent i n Jul y 200 2. 3 W e di st i ngui sh t he i nst ant case f r om ourhol di ng i n I n re I nt ' l Bank of C om m erce. , No. 1 3- 07
- 69 3- C V, 4 2008 T ex. App. LEX I S 519, at * 46- 48 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hr i st i Jan. 18, 2008, or i g. pr oceedi ng)

. I n t hat case th e p l a i n ti ff s b ro u g h t a b re a c h o f c o n tra c t s u i t a n d re q u e s t fo r i n ju n c ti v e re l i e f a g a i n s t th e i r b a n k

. Id

. at * 13- 15. T he b ank so ught ar bi t r at i on pur suant t o t he cont r act s, but i t s r equest t o com pel ar bi t r at i on was deni ed b y t he tri a l c o u rt. Id . T h e p la in tif f s a r g u e d t h a t th e y c o u ld n o t b e c o m p e lle d t o a r b itr a tio n b e c a u s e th e b a n k a lle g e d ly o ra l l y re p re s e n te d th a t th e c o n tra c ts d i d n o t c o n ta i n a n y a rb i tra ti o n p ro v i s i o n s
. Id

. a t * 7. W e no t ed t hat t he pl ai nt i ff s had execu t ed f i f t y docu m ent s t hat cont ai ned ar bi t r at i on p r ov i si ons and hel d as a m at t er of l aw t hat t hey coul d no t r easona bl y r el y on pr i or ora l r epr esent at i ons t hat wer e con t r ar y t o t he d i r ect , cl ear , and u n a m b i g u o u s l a n g u a g e c o n ta i n e d i n th e fifty d o c u m e n ts th e y s i g n e d

. Id

. at * 48. T he d i sput e i n t he i nst ant case cent er s on a si ngl e cont r act , and t he i ssue i s not w het her t he di sput e m ust pr oceed bef or e an ar bi t r at or r at her t han a cou r t , but whet her a cl ai m exi st s at al l

. T he ca ses, t her ef or e, ar e di st i ngui shabl e. 10 agents d id nothave access to th e cus t o me r accoun ts and main ten ance sy stem thatCing ular kept . W hen the agen t s c o mp lained to me , I w ould re search the act iv ity on the commi ss ion sta tements

. A larg e percent ag e of the time, the agen ts’ paymen t w as incorrect an d the agents w ere incorrectly charg ed bac k. A maj or ity of the ti me, th e i ncor re ct charg e bac ks w ere due t o a c u s tomer

g o i n g t o a c o mp a n y - o w n e d s t o re fo r m a i n t e n a n c e
. I f a cus tomer

w ent t o a company -o w ned sto re for acc ount maint enanc e, s uch as a number

ch ang e, rate p lan ch ang e, or othe r ser

v ic es, the c ompany -o w ned store would chan ge the de aler code a t the sa me t ime t hatt he m ainte nan ce w as per formed, w hic h c re ated a c harg e bac k for the ag ent.

. . . . Ci ng ula r knew that thes e probl ems ex is ted a nd di d nottak e s teps to co rrect t hem. Ci ng ula r act ual ly took st eps to hi de th ese probl ems fro m ag ents

. Ci ng ula r re str ic ted i nformati on th at I co uld g iv e to ag ents [,] tel li ng me thati t w as confide nti al orp ropri etar y , ev en th oug h the su bsc ri ber w as enroll ed th ro ug h the ag ent. Hackett ’s af

f idavit testimo ny dem ostrat es tha t Cingula r wa s a w are of the cha rg e ba ck situat i on an d i ts fi na nc i al i mp ac t on an ag en t s i nc e s ho rtl y aft er N ov em be r 19 99. Cell Comp ex ecut ed C ing ula r’ s a g re ement in May 2002, after

recei v ing represent ati ons about 3 all eg edl y l ow ca ncel lat ion rates from Lee and Ren ter ia. Cel l Comp produc ed s ummary j udg ment ev ide nce that, w hen t aken as tr ue and
v iew ed i n the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to Cel l Comp, rai ses a g enui ne iss ue of m ater ial fact o n re li ance. W e c an poi nt s pecif ically to Dan iel ’s tes ti mony thatC ing ula r made 4
re present ati ons at the same time that Ci ng ula r, ac cordin g to Hac ket t, knew of canc ell ati on11

and subscription fee p roblem s. 3. Estoppel Ci ng ula r’ s onl y other chal len g e to the re li ance ele ment of C ell Com p ’s f ra u d, fraudul ent i nduce ment, and D TPA cl aims i s t hat C ell Comp is es topped, by the ter ms of the ag re ement, from using Cing ula r’ s represent ati ons as ev ide nce of the reli ance ele ment. W e, ho w ev er , hav e prev iou sl y hel d tha t i t w oul d be cont ra ry to publ ic pol icy to al low a pa rty to prospecti v ely

ex cul pate it sel f f ro m in tenti onal tor ts by co ntract

. See Solis , 951 S.W .2d at 50

. And, in thi s c ase, w e hav e c oncl uded t hat t he reli ance dis cl aimer does not pass the Schlu m berg er tes t. It, therefore, makes no sens e to bin d a par ty by es toppel pr inc ipl es to a di sc lai mer that is not re cog niz ed by the facts of this ca se. W e hol d tha t t he ag re ement di d not effect iv ely w aiv e C ell C omp’s reli ance on Cingular’s repre sent ation s, and thatCell C om p prod uced summ aryjudgmen t evi den ce c r ea ti ng a fac t i s s ue w i th reg ard to its relian ce. Ad di ti on al l y , w e ho l d th atC el l C om p canno t be est opped from cl aimi ng reli ance on C ing ula r’ s represent ati ons. The tr ial co urt, therefore, er re d in g ra nti ng Ci ng ula r a s ummary j udg ment on Cel l Comp’ s fraud, fraudul ent indu cem ent , and DTPAclaims. W e susta in Cell Comp’s f irst, second , and third issues. C. Conv ers ion Byits fo u rt h i s s u e , C e l l C o mp c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r re d i n a w a rd ing
summar y j udg ment to C ing ula r on C ell C omp’s co nv ersi on c lai m. I n i ts or ig ina l peti ti on, Cel l Comp all eg ed th at C ing ula r commi tted conv ersi on by “ int enti onal ly

co nv ert[i ng ] funds to w hic h [C ell C omp w as] j ust ly enti tl ed.” C ing ula r arg ued t hat there w as no ev ide nce to suppo rtC ell C omp’s co nv ersi on c lai m beca use Cel l Comp canno t speci fy any proper ty that has been c onv erted. Conversion consists o f

the wrongf ul exercise of d om inion or co ntrol over anoth er's12

proper ty in deni al of or inc onsi ste nt w it h the other 's ri g hts in th a t p roperty

. W aisath v. Lack 's Sto re s, Inc ., 47 4 S.W .2d 444 , 446 (Tex. 1971 ). M one y can be converted only if it is spec ific all y ide nti fied and hel d in tr ust

. Chu v. Hong , 249 S.W .3d 4 41, _ __, N o. 06 -0 127, 2008 Tex

. LEX IS 225, at * 4 (Tex . M ar . 28, 2008) ; Eck m an v . C entenni

al Sav. Bank , 757 S.W .2d 39 2 , 3 98 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1988, w ri t den ied ) (p ro v idi ng thatan a cti on for the
conv ersi on of money

w il l li e i f the money

ca n be ide nti fied as a s peci fic c hatte l)

. Cel l Co m p ’s conv ersi on c lai m is for p ay ment of fees t hat i t i s o w ed by C ing ula r under the ter ms of t he cont ra ct. The fees that Cel l Comp all eg es it is owed are not ide nti fiabl e, s peci fic c hatte ls ca pabl e of bei ng co n verted ; rather , t hey are al leg ed ind ebtedne ss that may be dis charg ed bythe pay ment of m oney generall y . S e e Ne w

s o me
v. Cha rter

Bank C olo nia l , 940 S.W .2d 1 57, 1 61- 64 ( Tex . App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1996,
w rit denied ). The trial court, the refore, did not err in grant ing sum ma ry judgmen t on Cell Comp’ s c onv ersi on c lai m. C ell C omp’s fourt h i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. D. Tortious Interferenc e w ith a Cont rac t and Pro sp ec t ive B u si n es s R elationships The tr ial co urt g ra nted Ci ng ula r’ s s ummary j udg ment on Cel l Comp’ s c lai ms of tortiou s interferen ce wit h a c ont ract, an d tortiou s interferen ce w ith prosp ective busine ss relation ships on the ground s thatthe agreem ent provided tha t custo me rs enrolled by Cell Co m p b e c a m e Ci n gu la r c u s t o m e rs a n d t h a tCi n gu la r c a n n o t t o rt io u s ly in t e rf e re wit h it s o wn cont ra ct. By

i ts fifth and s ixth i ss ues, Cel l Comp arg ues that the s ubsc ri ber ag re ements tha t retail cu s t o me rs ex ecut ed a re contra cts tha t Cingular i nte rfered w ith by eff ectively
c a n c e l i n g C e l l C o m p ’ s p a rt i c i p a t i o n t h ro u g h C i n g u l a r ’ s c a n c e l l a t i o n p ro c e d u re s
. W e dis ag re e. Th e e l e me n t s o f t o rt i o u s i n t e r fe re n c e w i t h a c o n t ra c ta re : ( 1 ) t h e e x i ste nce of a cont ra ct subj ectto int er ferenc e; ( 2) w il lful and i ntent ion al int er ferenc e; ( 3) i nter

ferenc e tha t13

prox imat ely c a used damag e; an d ( 4) ac tual damag e or l oss
. ACS Inve stors, Inc. v. McLau ghlin , 943 S.W .2d 4 26, 430 (Tex . 1997). Addi ti onal ly , a suc ces sful cl aim of torti ous int er ferenc e mustbe based on the act s of an int er feri ng thi rd par

ty —i n other

w ords, a pa rty to a cont ra ct canno t t orti ousl y inter fere w it h its ow n c ontract

. See Four Bros. Boa t W orks, Inc . v . T esor o Petr ole umC os. , Inc ., 217 S. W .3d 6 53, 6 68 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2006, p e t. de n ie d ); Cen t. Sav. & L oan As s' n v . Stem m ons Nw. Bank

, N.A. , 848 S.W .2d 232, 241 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1992, no pet .)

. As w e unders tand Cel l Comp’ s t orti ous int er ferenc e c lai ms, Cel l Comp all eg es that Cingular’s cancellation rates, alleged ly due to roam ing problem s, inte rf ered w ith Cell Com p’s relation ship w ith its current and fu ture custom ers. T he custom e rs , h o wever, s ub s c r i be d to Cingula r ’ s s er v i c e. B y t he t er ms o f t he a g ree me nt , C el l C om p be c am e Cingular’s nonexclusiv e agent , and it w as Cingular’s respo nsibility to provide sub scribers
w it h w irele ss se rv ic e. Cel l Comp’ s respon si bil ity , as C ing ula r’ s a g ent, w as to mar ket Ci ng ula r’ s s er

v ice. See First Valley Bank o f Los Fresno s v. Martin , 55 S.W .3d 1 72, 1 83 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, no pet.) (“ An ‘ag ent’ is one w ho i s a uthor iz ed by a pe rs on or entity to transa ct busin ess o r m a n a ge so me af fair fo r that pe rson or ent ity .”). C ell Com p’s allegation s of

high cancellatio n rates a nd roam ing problem s touch on Cingular’s cont ractua l obligations regarding w ireless serv ice quality and subscription fees, and in this case d o no t const itute evidence of cont ractua l interferen ce. Beca use a party to a con tract
canno t t orti ousl y

i nterf e re w it h i ts ow n c ontract , and bec ause there i s n o ev ide nce of tor ti ous int er

ferenc e, C ell Comp’s torti ous int er ferenc e clai ms must fail

. Cel l Comp’ s fifth and s ixth i ss ues are ov er ru led

. E . C o n s p i r a c y In its seventh issue , Cell Comp argues th at th e trial court erred in granting summ ary14

j ud g me nto n i ts c on s pi racy c l ai m. B efo re th e tr i al c ou rt, Ci ng ul ar arg ue d th atC el l C om p coul d notmai ntai n a c onspi ra cy cl aim becau se Cel l Comp, as a mat ter of law , c oul d not maint ain any

i ndependen t t ort ac ti on. See Tilton v. Marshall , 9 2 5 S

. W

. 2 d 6 7 2 , 6 8 1 (T e x. 19 96 ) ( prov i di ng t ha t a de fen da nt ' s l i ab i l i ty for c on s pi racy

d ep en ds o n pa rti c i pa ti on in s om e under ly ing tor

t for w hic h the pla int iff s eeks to hol d at lea st one of the named defendants liable). W e h a v e a l r e a d y h e l d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d b y g ra n t i n g s u mm a r y j u d g me n ton Cell Comp’s f raud , f raud ulen t indu cem ent , and DTPAclaims. T hus, Cing ular’s sole
a rg u m e n ti n s u p p o rto f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n to n C e l l C o m p ’ s c o n s p i ra c y c l a i m fa i l s
. W e sus tai n C ell C omp’s se v enth is sue. III . C ONCL US I ON The tr ial co urt’ s jud g ment ag ain st Cel l Comp on i ts cl aims of conv ersi on and tor ti ous int er ferenc e w it h a c ontract and prospecti v e busi ness re lat ion shi ps is aff ir med. The tr ial
cour t’ s j udg ment ag ain st Cel l Comp for it s fraud, fraudul ent i nduce ment, cons piracy , and DTPA cl aims are rev ersed and t hose clai m s a re r emanded t o the tr ial co urt for further proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.

_________ _________

_____ ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 19t h_day

of June, 2008.