Daniel Hux v. Southern Methodist University
819 F.3d 776
5th Cir.2016Background
- Daniel Hux was an SMU undergraduate and resident advisor (community advisor) during 2010–2011 and was terminated from his CA position after faculty/staff complained about his conduct toward a staff member and a dispute with another CA.
- SMU administrators met with Hux multiple times, urged him to seek mental-health evaluation, and after an appeal hearing accompanied by SMU police, denied his appeal and restricted his campus access while allowing continued enrollment.
- SMU police later detained and searched Hux, found a handgun in a relative’s car, and shortly thereafter administratively withdrew him from the university; SMU circulated notices regarding Hux to the community.
- Hux sued raising many claims; the district court dismissed most under Rule 12(b)(6) and later granted summary judgment on others; the only issue on appeal was dismissal of his tort claim that SMU breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, accepting Hux’s allegations as true, and considered whether Texas law recognizes a tort duty of good faith and fair dealing in the student–university relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas law imposes a tort duty of good faith and fair dealing in the student–university relationship | Hux: SMU personnel encouraged him to confide, sought to help, recommended mental-health services, and therefore a special/confidential relationship existed giving rise to the duty | SMU: Texas law restricts the duty to narrow contexts (primarily insurer–insured); student–university is an ordinary relationship without preexisting special characteristics | Court: No. Texas law does not recognize such a duty in the student–university context; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether alleged facts (post-dispute counseling/contacts) show a special relationship predating the dispute | Hux: Meetings, chaplain conferrals, and administrators’ concern demonstrate ongoing trust and reliance | SMU: Contacts were routine administrative responses occurring after misconduct; they do not create a preexisting special relationship | Court: Allegations arose after the events that triggered the dispute and show only unilateral trust; insufficient to establish a preexisting special relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- English v. Fischer, 660 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. 1983) (Texas rejects a generalized tort duty of good faith and fair dealing except in narrow special-relationship contexts)
- Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 823 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1992) (describes contexts where quasi-fiduciary duty can arise and distinguishes fiduciary relationships)
- Transp. Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. 1995) (special relationship must exist before and apart from the contract/dispute)
- Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. 1997) (party’s unilateral, subjective trust is insufficient to create a special relationship)
- Arnold v. Nat’l Cty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 725 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. 1987) (recognizes limited contexts in which a tort duty of good faith may arise, forming the narrow special-relationship doctrine)