Opinion ID: 1224651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Plaintiffs Are Entitled To Be Considered Individually As Hohfeldian Plaintiffs [26] In A Direct Suit

Text: The plaintiffs' claim against TEWCA is founded on theories of breach of contract, constructive fraud and actual fraud. They seek (a) recovery of all deposits or credits seized by TEWCA in partial satisfaction of the assessment, (b) a declaration that they have no liability to TEWCA for the initial assessment or any future assessments and (c) TEWCA's indemnification for any future loss or liability to third persons ( i.e., injured employees of current or former TEWCA members) arising out of their participation in TEWCA. The plaintiffs' alternative claim against the Agents and the Agents Group is grounded on negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud and actual fraud by the agents, which induced the plaintiffs to join the organization and renew annually their TEWCA membership. [27] Because of alleged misrepresentations and omissions, the plaintiffs urge, the true nature and extent of their TEWCA participation risk was concealed from them. As a result, the plaintiffs contend, they were induced to continue their TEWCA membership and to stand exposed to further liability for that association's accumulating deficits. Not all current and former TEWCA members, the plaintiffs contend, have a similar claim against their insurance agent. Some members were adequately informed by their agent or obtained independent knowledge of the true facts about TEWCA. Others either left TEWCA before the adverse material developments occurred or joined it after that period. The claim against all the defendants  except for each plaintiff's claim against its own insurance agent  is founded upon the vicarious liability of the Agents Group and its members for the torts of each member committed in furtherance of the Group's business. Although the trial court's earlier rulings were rested upon the plaintiffs' lack of standing to bring a derivative action, the dismissal orders in contest here are silent on this issue. [28] Measuring this claim by the narrow Conley v. Gibson [29] test, we cannot conclude from the face of the third amended petition that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts entitling them to relief on their selected theory.