Opinion ID: 1579057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pacific's Other Claims

Text: The court of appeals held that Pacific's conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims were sufficiently pleaded, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on these claims. 10 S.W.3d at 809-10. But assuming that Pacific sufficiently pleaded these claims, as the court of appeals held, summary judgment was nonetheless proper given the nature of Pacific's pleadings and our disposition of the fraud claim. A civil conspiracy involves a combination of two or more persons with an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose to be accomplished by unlawful means. See Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Morris, 981 S.W.2d 667, 675 (Tex.1998). Fraud is the unlawful purpose or means that forms the basis of Pacific's conspiracy and aiding and abetting [7] allegations; as the court of appeals noted, these allegations do not relate to any other theory of recovery pleaded in the trial court. 10 S.W.3d at 810. Ernst & Young's motion asserted that the undisputed facts entitled it to summary judgment on the fraud claim and on any other `claims' that Pacific Mutual has asserted; thus, its motion encompassed these dependent claims. We have already held that the trial court did not err in granting Ernst & Young summary judgment on Pacific's fraud claim. Because Pacific's conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims are premised on Ernst & Young's alleged fraud, our conclusion on the fraud issue necessarily disposes of these other claims. Cf. Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Tex.2000) (holding that failure of a claim for breach of contract necessarily defeated claim for breach of fiduciary duty that depended on breach of contract). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting Ernst & Young a final summary judgment.