What is the legal standard for a civil conspiracy claim?
Under Texas law, a civil conspiracy claim requires proof of: (1) two or more persons; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful overt acts; and (5) damages proximately caused by the conspirators’ conduct.[1][2] It is a derivative tort, so liability depends on an underlying tort or other unlawful act; without a viable underlying wrong, the conspiracy claim fails.[1]
Texas Civil Conspiracy Standard
Core Elements
Texas Supreme Court authority states the elements as follows:
(1) two or more persons;
(2) an object to be accomplished;
(3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action;
(4) one or more unlawful, overt acts; and
(5) damages as the proximate result.[2]
Specific Intent Requirement
Texas also requires specific intent to agree to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Mere participation in conduct that results in injury is not enough.[2]
“Civil conspiracy requires specific intent” to agree “to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means.”[2]
And the parties must be aware of the wrongful conduct at the inception of the agreement.[2]
Derivative Nature
A civil conspiracy claim does not stand alone. The Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly described it as a derivative tort that “survives or fails alongside” the underlying tort.[1] The injury that matters is the injury from the underlying wrong, not the agreement itself.[1]
Practical Summary
| Element | Texas Requirement |
|---|---|
| Parties | At least two persons |
| Agreement | Meeting of the minds / tacit or express agreement |
| Purpose | Unlawful object or lawful object by unlawful means |
| Intent | Specific intent to further the unlawful purpose or means |
| Act | One or more unlawful overt acts |
| Causation | Damages proximately caused by the wrongful conduct |
| Dependency | Must be tied to an underlying tort or unlawful act |
Key Cases
- Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932 (Tex. 1983) — states the five elements.[2]
- Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley, 900 S.W.2d 716 (Tex. 1995) — emphasizes specific intent and rejects liability based merely on intent to engage in the conduct that caused injury.[2]
- Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. v. Nortex Oil & Gas Corp., 435 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. 1968) — explains that the gist of the claim is the injury caused by the underlying wrong.[1]
- Juhl v. Airington, 936 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) — reiterates the relationship between conspiracy and underlying tortious conduct.[1][2]