# Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. DeLanney

> Texas Supreme Court · June 19, 1991 · 809 S.W.2d 493

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770183

## Case

- **Full name:** SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Eugene C. DeLANNEY, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 19, 1991
- **Citations:** 809 S.W.2d 493; 1991 WL 27765
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Doggett
- **Judges:** Phillips, Gonzalez, Doggett, Mauzy
- **Cited by:** 642 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow in part by American Nat. Ins. v. Intern. Bus. MacH., 933 S.W.2d 685 (1996).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770183

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that customer could not bring tort action against telephone company for failure to publish advertisement when telephone company’s duty to publish advertisement arose solely from contract and damages were only from economic loss created by failure of telephone company t…
- finding that action was in contract and not in tort, because plaintiff’s claims against telephone company for failure to publish yellow pages advertisement arose solely from the contract, and the damages were only for economic loss
- applying economic-loss doctrine where defendant inadvertently omitted plaintiff’s advertisement from Yellow Pages and plaintiff sued for negligence, noting that economic loss rule applied because the “duty to publish [plaintiff’s] advertisement arose solely from the contract” …
- holding claimant could not recover in tort when only damage resulting from defendant = s breach of contract was to the subject of the contract
- recognizing that tort obligations are imposed by law independent of contractual obligations, but the acts of a party may simultaneously breach duties in tort and contract

## Opinion text

DOGGETT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the court’s judgment but write separately because it should, and could, be based solely upon our holding in Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1986). Today’s brief writing concerning the nature of torts and contracts unnecessarily adds more confusion than clarity.
*500 The court does recognize that in some as yet unspecified instances a tort action may lie between contracting parties. It appropriately observes that a tort action may arise based upon a number of relationships that could be created by contract. Although the court offers only one example of a contractual relationship creating duties the breach of which gives rise to actions both in tort and contract, at 497 n. 1 (the relationship between a professional and client), our developing jurisprudence recognizes others. See, e.g., Viles v. Security Nat’l Ins. Co., 788 S.W.2d 566, 567 (Tex.1990) (relationship between insured and insurer). In addition, the court correctly recognizes that the breach of certain common-law duties creates liability in tort; the existence of a contract does not alter those duties.
It is thus incumbent upon the trial courts not to begin and end their inquiry with the contract but to examine the circumstances surrounding the parties’ relationship, including any duties imposed by law, in determining whether a tort action may be maintained.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9770183. Public record. Not legal advice.