Opinion ID: 38988
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the harm is suffered because of the

Text: other’s reliance upon the undertaking. See, e.g., Colonial Sav. Ass’n v. Taylor, 544 S.W.2d 116, 120 19 (Tex. 1976) (affirming Texas’ adoption of section 323); Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 838 (Tex. 2000) (same). Wentwood contends that GMAC assumed a duty to it when, in September 2000, it sent separate letters to Wentwood Hartford and to Wentwood St. James notifying those two partnerships that their properties were affected as a result of the April 2000 changes to the Houston-area FEMA maps. This contention is not, however, consistent with the plain language of section 323. That section clearly states that where one “undertakes . . . to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other’s . . . things” he may be “subject to liability to the other” (emphasis added). Plainly, the only potential liability addressed is liability to the party the defendant undertook to render services to. Yet it is undisputed in this case that GMAC did not render or undertake any notification services to Wentwood. Torrington, 46 S.W.3d at 837 (“Texas law generally imposes no duty to take action to prevent harm to others absent special relationships or circumstances.”); Fort Bend County Drainage Dist. v. Sbrusch, 818 S.W.2d 392, 396 (Tex. 1991); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314. GMAC only notified the affiliated but nevertheless legally separate and distinct independent partnerships, Wentwood Hartford and Wentwood St. James. Indeed, the letters GMAC sent were addressed specifically 20 to these two partnerships.7 The only grantor and the only debtor in the deed of trust is Wentwood Woodside I, L.P. The only property covered by the deed of trust is Woodside Village. The only indebtedness secured thereby is the $5,950,000 debt for the Woodside Village acquisition. The deed of trust does not mention any other indebtedness, nor any property other than Woodside Village, nor does it mention Wentwood Hartford or Wentwood St. James or give any indication that Wentwood Woodside I, L.P., is a party of any affiliated group of entities; neither Wentwood Hartford nor Wentwood St. James has any interest in Woodside Village (so far as this record shows) or any liability on the indebtedness secured by the deed of trust thereon; nor (so far as this record shows) does Wentwood Westside have any interest in any of the properties owned by Wentwood Hartford or by Wentwood St. James or any liability on any indebtedness secured by any such property. GMAC’s notification to Wentwood Hartford concerning its property and to Wentwood St. James concerning its property does not constitute GMAC’s having undertaken the 7 Wentwood implies in its brief that GMAC’s letters were sent to Pinnacle, not Wentwood Hartford and Wentwood St. James. Wentwood considers this significant because, in sending letters to Pinnacle about two properties in Houston owned by affiliated partnerships, GMAC was obligated to notify Pinnacle about all of the Houston properties owned by any affiliated partnership that were affected by the FEMA map changes. GMAC sent two letters addressed specifically to Wentwood Hartford and Wentwood St. James, respectively. These letters were sent in care of Pinnacle at Pinnacle’s address in Tacoma, but this does not negate that the letters were addressed to two specific recipients. The deed of trust does not mention Pinnacle or any address in Tacoma. 21 rendition of any services to Wentwood Woodside. Cf. Turlington at 839 (“a person’s duty [under § 323] to exercise reasonable care in performing a voluntarily assumed undertaking is limited to that undertaking”) (inside quotation marks and citation omitted).8 Thus, the law Wentwood cites is unavailing on its face. Wentwood tries to salvage its section 323 claim against GMAC by recasting it as a section 324A claim, arguing that Wentwood is somehow a third-party injured by GMAC’s correspondence sent to Wentwood Hartford and Wentwood St. James.9 Wentwood cites 8 We also note that there is no basis for concluding that GMAC should have realized that notification of Wentwood Westside was “necessary for the protection of” Wentwood Westside’s property, namely Woodside Village. Under the deed of trust, it was plainly the obligation of Wentwood Westside to be so informed. The information had been publically knowable since April 2000, and published in the Federal Register since September 2000, the latter date being over two months before the Royal policy was issued and over six months before the flooding, and was never uniquely available to GMAC. Moreover, there is no indication that GMAC had ever informed Wentwood Woodside that Woodside Village (or any other property of Wentwood Woodside) was (or was not) within an SFHA or that GMAC would keep track of that for Wentwood Woodside. Finally, although in September 2000 GMAC did inform Wentwood Hartford that its property, and Wentwood St James that its property, was in an SFHA, only one of those two separate properties was listed as an exception to the Flood Peril exclusion in the November 2000 Royal policy. 9 Section 324A reads: “One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his 22 Brownsville Navigation District v. Izaguirre, 800 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi, 1990) rev’d in other respects, 829 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. 1992), for the proposition that GMAC is liable under section 324A. Brownsville, however, is completely inapposite. In that case, the defendant, a railroad and its truck line, treated by the court collectively as one entity, furnished a trailer to a trucking company to pick up some large steel coils at a warehouse and return them to the railroad for further shipment. The defendant furnished the warehouse with instructions on how the coils were to be loaded and tied down in the trailer; the instructions, however, were affirmatively unsafe and contrary to applicable federal regulations. In loading the coils, warehouse employees followed the faulty instructions the defendant negligently gave the warehouse for that purpose, and as a result, the plaintiff, one of the warehouse employees loading failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or