Gerry M. Griggs v. State Farm Lloyds Lark P. Blum

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a plaintiffs DTPA and Article 21.21 misrepresentation claims failed because plaintiff did not identify any particular misrepresentations made by the defendant
• holding that mere conclusory allegations are insufficient to support causes of action for violations of the DTPA, breach of contract, or breach of fiduciary duty
• finding an agent’s statements that she would handle claims \professionally” and that she would \monitor the progress of Griggs’ claim” were non-actionable
• affirming district court’s finding that plaintiff fraudulently joined defendant because pleadings and affidavit failed to establish implied or express contract
• undifferentiated liability averments against diverse and non-diverse defendants together do not satisfy the requirement to state specific actionable conduct against the non-diverse defendant
• “While the burden of demonstrating fraudulent joinder is a heavy one, we have never held that a particular plaintiff might possibly establish liability by the mere hypothetical possibility that such an action could exist”.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).