Conestoga Trust Services, LLC, Trustee of Conestoga Trust v. Focus Medical Underwriters, LLC, Matthew L. Rios, M.D., Syed Fateh Hyder, M.D., Clarity Evaluations, LLC, Timothy A. Beste, M.D., Barry Cook, M.D., Convergence Medical Underwriting, LLC, 14-20-00302-CV

Conestoga Trust bought life‑settlement investments (life insurance policies sold to third‑party investors) whose value depends on insureds’ life expectancies and ongoing premium payments.
Appellees (medical underwriters, physicians, and evaluation companies) prepared life‑expectancy reports used to price and sell the settlements.
Conestoga alleged appellees knowingly reported purposefully and materially shorter life expectancies—using improper data/methods and withholding facts—to make policies appear more valuable and induce purchases.
Conestoga sued for fraud and negligent misrepresentation; the trial court granted defendants’ Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a motion to dismiss.
The court of appeals reviewed the pleadings de novo, held Conestoga’s allegations (special/one‑sided knowledge and knowingly false projections) could make purported opinions actionable, reversed the 91a dismissal, and remanded.
The opinion also addresses Rule 91a attorney‑fee issues: defendants are not prevailing parties on the dismissed motion (so not entitled to fees); the trial court may, but is not required to, award fees to Conestoga as the prevailing party on the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are life‑expectancy reports actionable as fraud/negligent misrepresentation (opinion vs fact)?	Reports were knowingly false, based on improper data/methods, and premised on appellees’ superior/one‑sided knowledge, so not mere opinions.	Life‑expectancy projections are estimates/opinions and cannot support fraud or negligent‑misrep claims.	Conestoga pleaded sufficient facts that the projections could be actionable (special knowledge/pretended opinion); dismissal reversed.
Who may recover attorney’s fees under Rule 91a?	Conestoga seeks fees as prevailing party after reversal.	Defendants sought fees as prevailing parties on the motion to dismiss.	Defendants are not prevailing parties and cannot recover fees on the 91a motion; trial court may, in its discretion, award fees to Conestoga under amended Rule 91a.

City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. 2016) (de novo review of rule 91a dismissal)
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011) (distinguishing opinion from actionable misrepresentation; special knowledge can make opinion a fact)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Orca Assets G.P., L.L.C., 546 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. 2018) (negligent‑misrepresentation requires false information)
Transp. Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. 1995) (statement of value may be actionable if the speaker knows it is false)
Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 854 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 2017) (evidence that life expectancies were systematically understated supported fraud finding under securities law)
HMT Tank Serv. LLC v. Am. Tank & Vessel, Inc., 565 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018) (defendant not entitled to 91a fees if not prevailing party)