Reservoir Systems, Inc. v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co., 335 S.W.3d 297

TGS sued Reservoir Systems, Inc. and Axel Sigmar for breach of contract and fraud arising from a failed Pemex-related venture.
TGS loaned Reservoir $5 million, secured by a promissory note, to obtain financing for Pemex negotiations and to secure a Pemex-related seismic project.
Sigmar allegedly misrepresented his Pemex and government connections and that Paulsson Geophysical Services would participate, inducing TGS to invest.
TGS showed that loan proceeds were diverted to related entities and to Sigmar personally, including about $735,000 to Sigmar's accounts, contrary to the loan’s stated purpose.
The trial court found in favor of TGS on both breach of contract ($5 million) and fraud against Sigmar ($735,000).
On appeal, Sigmar challenged the fraud verdict and the court’s handling of damages, while Reservoir challenged the exclusion of its counterclaim damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Sigmar’s fraud evidence legally and factually sufficient?	TGS contends Sigmar made material, false representations intending reliance and causing injury.	Sigmar argues the evidence fails to prove material misrepresentations, falsity, or causation.	Yes; the evidence supports material misrepresentations, intent, reliance, and injury.
May TGS recover both fraud and contract damages for the same transaction?	TGS argues fraud damages are separate from the contract breach and not barred by double recovery.	Sigmar/Reservoir contend recovery should be limited to contract damages, invoking one-satisfaction.	Yes; the court allowed separate fraud and breach damages due to distinct injuries and theories.
Was Reservoir’s exclusion of counterclaim damages proper?	TGS contends Reservoir failed to timely disclose damages and thus should be barred from presenting them.	Reservoir argues discovery disclosures were adequate and evidence should be admissible.	Yes; the trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding Reservoir’s damages due to late disclosure and lack of a damages model.

Formosa Plastics Corp., USA v. Presidio Eng'rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (fraudulent inducement allows tort damages even when related to contract; economic-loss rule is not absolute)
Spoljaric v. Percival Tours, Inc., 708 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1986) (intent and deception can be inferred and are jury questions)
Am. Med. Int'l v. Giurintano, 821 S.W.2d 331 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (material misrepresentation can be actionable in fraud claims)
O & B Farms, Inc. v. Black, 300 S.W.3d 418 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (damages need not be calculated with mathematical certainty; discretion of factfinder)
Buckner Constr. Co. v. State, 704 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985) (damages award framework and standards for contextual disputes)