In a fraud case, proving liability is only half the battle. The damages phase is where cases are won, lost, or left on the table. Yet many practitioners approach fraud damages as an afterthought—something to be figured out after the liability case is built. This is a mistake. Building a winning damages model in fraud litigation must begin at case inception, inform discovery, and drive trial presentation.
This paper addresses three critical issues that separate sophisticated fraud practitioners from everyone else. First, when fraud and contract claims arise from the same transaction, how should counsel structure claims and damages for maximum recovery? Second, what threshold requirements must be satisfied before benefit-of-the-bargain damages become available? Third, what evidentiary standards apply to proving fraud damages, and why do so many otherwise meritorious cases fail at this stage?
This paper will not address punitive or exemplary damages, complex valuation methodology, expert witness requirements, or consequential damages—each of which warrants separate and detailed treatment. The focus here is on the direct compensatory damages available for fraud claims in Texas state court.
Click here to read the full article.