Heather Tenini Kuentz, Individually, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Michael Kuentz, and as Next Friend of XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX, a Minor, Larry Michael "Robert" Kuentz and Sandra Kuentz v. Cole Systems Group, Inc. D/B/A the Cole Group, 541 S.W.3d 208

In 2012 Mac Haik rehired salesman Keith Grimmett after Cole Systems Group (Cole), a pre-employment screening vendor, performed its standard $85 screening (interview, county criminal checks for counties where applicant lived/worked, drug test, SSN verification) and reported no criminal convictions.
Three months after rehiring, Grimmett shot and killed sales manager Robert Kuentz; Grimmett later pleaded guilty to first-degree murder.
Cole’s reports noted certain inconsistencies in Grimmett’s employment history and some prior terminations, but did not search Missouri family/civil court records or obtain employer records because Mac Haik did not request/pay for those expanded services.
Mac Haik witnesses testified Cole’s contracted scope was limited to public criminal records, drug testing, SSN verification, and an interview; Mac Haik retained responsibility to verify/application inconsistencies and to request additional searches.
Appellants (Kuentz’s family) sued Cole for negligence based on negligent undertaking theories and an asserted duty to disclose facts Cole actually knew; the trial court granted Cole traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cole assumed Mac Haik’s duty to screen (Restatement §324A(b))	Cole undertook the employer’s duty by contract/promotional promises and thus owed a duty to perform a thorough background check (including civil/family records, employer contacts).	Cole’s duty was limited to the specific, paid-for services (county criminal checks, interview, drug test, SSN verification); it did not agree to broader investigation.	No duty beyond contracted scope; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether Cole induced Mac Haik’s reliance (Restatement §324A(c))	Cole’s marketing and website statements and Mac Haik staff testimony show Mac Haik relied on Cole to perform broader background investigation.	Mac Haik did not request/pay for extra services; reliance on broader services is unsupported and contradicted by the face of the report and Mac Haik testimony.	No evidence of reliance to expand duty; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether Cole owed a duty to disclose facts it actually knew (Golden Spread theory)	Even if Coleman’s scope was limited, Cole had a duty to disclose known facts suggesting danger (e.g., family-court protective orders, allegations of threats).	Cole reported criminal public records as agreed; it did not recommend hiring and had no duty to investigate or disclose family/civil records not within the contracted search.	Cole had no additional disclosure duty under Golden Spread here; no genuine fact issue.

Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (negligent undertaking rule and limits of duty)
Fort Bend County Drainage Dist. v. Sbrusch, 818 S.W.2d 392 (Tex. 1991) (adopting Restatement §324A negligent undertaking framework)
Nabors Drilling U.S.A. v. Escoto, 288 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. 2009) (duty is a question of law; elements of negligence)
Golden Spread Council, Inc. v. Akins, 926 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. 1996) (limited duty not to recommend when the recommender knows facts making candidate unfit)
Wise v. Complete Staffing Servs., 56 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (negligent undertaking may present fact issue when scope of agreed services is disputed)
Guillory v. Seaton, 470 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (promotional materials do not expand expressly agreed scope of services)
Banzhaf v. ADT Sec. Sys. Southwest, Inc., 28 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2000) (business identity does not impose duties beyond contracted services)
Lowe’s Home Ctrs., Inc. v. GSW Marketing, Inc., 293 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (section 324A does not expand the scope of an undertaking)