Consumer Law keword: deception, warranty, unconscionabily , prohibited threats, unfair settlement practices

The garden variety DTPA claim involves

1 *a consumer
2 *a false deceptive or misleading act or practice in violation of the laundry list or breach of express of implied warranty or unconscionability (a word I will surely mispell)
3 * deterimental reliance ("in connection with")
Excludes
1 Professional services
2 PI
3 Large transactions

DPTA Damages = Economic/Pecuniary. Knowing = mental anguish and up to 3x economic damages. Intentional= treble economic and mental anguish

Texas Debt collection act is a DTPA tie-in that technically doesn't replace common law tort of "wrongful debt collection"
*Debt collectors includes original creditor
*Consumer debt
*Prohibited threat
*Misrepresentations
*Unconscionable is narrowly tied to attempting to collect debts not owed

DPTA tie-in damages = actual (economic + mental anguish). Knowingly = up to 3x actual

Federal debt collection is NOT a tie-in
*3p debt collectors only
*Consumer debts
*Misrepresentations
*if disputed MUST stop collection


Consumer claim against insurer

*1st try the garden variety DPTA
*2nd a violation of the insurance code is "enforceable under the DTPA" meaning, use the DTPA remedies
*3rd try the Insurance Code. Big one is "unfair settlement practice"
--proper plaintiff is any "person"; not a consumer.
--Remedy for unfair settlement = actual (economic + mental anguish). Knowingly = up to 3x actual
--Remedy for unfair delay is the insured claim plus 18% per annum as LDs
*4th try stowers only if the injured third party has offered to settle with insurer for insurance limits