GONZALEZ, Justice,
delivered the opinion of the Court,
in which PHILLIPS, C.J., and HECHT, CORNYN, ENOCH and OWEN, JJ., join.
In this case, we decide whether there is any evidence of an actionable violation of the Texas Insurance Code, the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), or common-law duties in connection with an insurer’s negotiation of a settlement with a minor. Paula Trippel Faireloth sued Transport Insurance Company, Lindsey & New-som Claim Services, and Janet Jones (collectively, Transport) for their alleged misconduct in procuring the settlement of her claim against Allied Van Lines. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment for Fair-cloth based upon violations of Article 21.21 of the Insurance Code. The court of appeals affirmed. 861 S.W.2d 926. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment [272]*272that Faircloth take nothing from these petitioners.
On May 18, 1984, Marvin and Judith Ker-vin were killed when an Allied Van Lines tractor-trailer crossed the center line and struck their pickup truck. Facing almost certain liability and potentially large damages, Allied’s insurer, Transport, desired to settle any potential claims arising from this accident as quickly and cheaply as possible.1 Within hours of the accident, Jones, an adjustor for Lindsey & Newsom Claim Services acting on instructions from Transport, was investigating potential claims. Acting under the belief that 16-year-old Faircloth (then Paula Trippel) was the daughter of Judith Kervin and the step-daughter of Marvin Ker-vin, representatives of Transport sought to settle her claim against Allied.
Almost immediately after the accident, a family Mend of the Kervins, Reverend Troy Caldwell, took steps to be appointed Fair-cloth’s guardian.2 He hired Mike Askins, an attorney, to open the guardianship. On May 22,1984, Askins opened the guardianship for Faircloth, and Caldwell was named as her guardian. Within one month of the collision, they settled Faircloth’s claim against Transport’s insured for $250,000. The probate court approved the settlement and awarded one-third of the settlement to Askins for his fee, and two-thirds to Caldwell as Faircloth’s guardian.
Upon reaching majority, Faircloth sued Transport, Lindsey & Newsom, Jones, and Caldwell alleging that they had, individually and in conspiracy with each other, defrauded her of the true value of her claim. Transport responded that Faircloth defrauded it by leading its representatives to believe that she was Judith Kervin’s daughter, when in reality she was not her natural or adopted child, and as such, she had no right to collect for the woman’s death. Transport concluded that since Faircloth had no standing to sue its insured the settlement was actually a windfall for her, and that Faircloth suffered no compensable injury as a result of Judith Kervin’s death or of Transport’s actions.
The trial court submitted the case to the jury on multiple theories, including breach of a “duty of good faith,”3 breach of fiduciary duty, common-law fraud, civil conspiracy, and Insurance Code and DTPA violations.4 Fair-cloth elected to recover under the Insurance Code and the DTPA. The trial court’s judgment calculated the damages recoverable under all of her theories, but rendered judg[273]*273ment based solely under the Insurance Code and DTPA.5 The judgment included $602,-625 to Faircloth for actual and “additional damages” and attorneys’ fees, and also almost $75,000 in prejudgment interest.6
On appeal, the court of appeals reformed the calculation of prejudgment interest and affirmed the judgment. The court of appeals determined that the jury findings constituted a determination “pursuant to law” that the defendants had committed a deceptive act or practice which was actionable under the Insurance Code and the DTPA. It also held that there was evidence that the defendants had engaged in a civil conspiracy, committed fraud, and breached a duty to deal in good faith with Faircloth. We first consider the basis of the trial court’s judgment, the alleged violations of the Insurance Code and the DTPA.
I. Statutory Duty
Transport argues that there is no evidence of an actionable violation of the Insurance Code and the DTPA. Faircloth contends that she pleaded and proved a violation of Section 17.46(b)(23) of the DTPA, and that such a violation is actionable under the Insurance Code by any person suffering damage.7 Tex. Bus. & Com.Code § 17.46(b)(23); Tex.Ins.Code art. 21.21. We agree with Transport.
In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 876 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.1994), we determined the extent to which the Insurance Code gives standing to third parties having no contractual privity with an insurer. The Insurance Code provides standing to “any person who has sustained actual damages” as a result of conduct prohibited by Section 17.46 of the DTPA. See Tex.Ins.Code art. 21.21, § 16. To be actionable under Section 17.46 of the DTPA, the insurer’s wrongful conduct must appear as an unfair or deceptive act or practice in either Section 4 of Article 21.21 or in the rules and regulations of the State Board of Insurance adopted under Article 21.21. See Watson, 876 S.W.2d at 147.
Article 21.21 expressly makes actionable those acts or practices defined in Section 17.46 of the DTPA as unlawful deceptive practices. Watson, 876 S.W.2d at 149. Section 17.46(b)(23) makes unlawful “the failure to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed.” Tex.Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46(b)(23) (emphasis added). In this case, the trial court substituted the words “ordinary person” for “consumer” and omitted the terms “goods and services” in the jury charge. These substitutions were material, and Transport specifically objected to them.
An action pursuant to Section 17.46(b)(23) of the DTPA was not available to Faircloth because an insurer negotiating with a third party is neither inducing a “consumer” into a transaction nor withholding information concerning “goods and services.” [274]*274The DTPA defines a consumer as “an individual ... who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services.” Id. § 17.45(4). The DTPA also defines the terms “goods and services.” Section 17.45(1) defines “goods” as “tangible chattels or real property purchased or leased for use,” and “services” as “work, labor, or service purchased or leased for use. ” Id. § 17.45(l)-(2) (emphasis added). We are bound to construe these terms in accordance with their statutory definitions. Tex.Gov’t Code § 811.011.
Third parties negotiating a settlement with an insurer do not seek to purchase or lease any of the services of the insurer. They seek the proceeds of the policy. A party whose only relation to an insurance policy is to seek policy proceeds is not a “consumer.” English v. Fischer, 660 S.W.2d 521, 524 (Tex.1983). Because there is no evidence that Faircloth is a consumer or that the information Transport allegedly withheld concerned goods or services as those terms are defined by the DTPA, we hold that there is no evidence of an actionable violation of the Insurance Code.
Transport next argues that there is no evidence that Faircloth had standing to recover for any “unconscionable course of conduct.”8 We agree. Faircloth’s lack of consumer status disposes of this issue. Un-conscionability is made actionable solely by Section 17.50(a)(3) of the DTPA. Tex.Bus. & CoM.Code § 17.50(a)(3). DTPA violations under Section 17.50, as opposed to Section 17.46, are not grounds for liability under the Insurance Code. Watson, 876 S.W.2d at 149. In addition, actions under Section 17.50 are only available to consumers. Compare to Tex.Ins.Code art. 21.21, § 16 (providing standing to “any person” who suffers injury resulting from acts or practices prohibited by Section 17.46 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code). Because Faircloth was not a consumer, she lacked standing to pursue an unconscionability claim under Section 17.50(a)(3) of the DTPA.
The jury’s finding that Transport acted “knowingly,” for which the trial court assessed “additional damages,” was conditioned on affirmative responses to the questions about Faircloth’s Insurance Code and DTPA claims. Since she did not prove any actionable violation, the jury’s answers to the questions concerning additional damages must be disregarded. In addition, the jury’s award of attorneys’ fees must be disregarded because the Insurance Code and DTPA grounds of recovery supporting the award fail. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s judgment erroneously premised on the Insurance Code and the DTPA.
However, our inquiry does not stop there. Faircloth also received favorable responses from the jury on several common-law theories: fraud, civil conspiracy, breach of a fiduciary duty, and breach of the common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing. When a jury returns favorable findings on alternative theories, the prevailing party may seek recovery under an alternative theory if the judgment based on one theory is reversed on appeal. Boyce Iron Works v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 747 S.W.2d 785, 787 (Tex.1988). Therefore, we must consider whether the evidence is legally insufficient to support liability under any theory submitted to the jury. We review the record to determine if there is evidence to sustain the jury findings on any common-law theory.
II. Common-Law Theories
A. Injury
Transport first argues that it cannot be liable under any theory because it conclusively established that Faircloth suffered no injury as a result of the settlement. Trans[275]*275port contends that it proved as a matter of law that Faireloth is not the biological or adopted child of Judith Kervin. Under the wrongful death statute, Faireloth would not have a claim arising from Judith Kervin’s wrongful death because only biological or legally-adopted children of the decedent have standing. See Goss v. Franz, 287 S.W.2d 289, 290 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1956, writ ref d). Transport concludes that not only did she suffer no injury, but Faireloth settled a claim to which she had no right, thereby receiving a windfall. While this issue was properly one for the jury, we cannot set aside the jury’s verdict for the reason urged by Transport, lack of legally sufficient evidence.
Transport learned for the first time during discovery that Faireloth was not the biological child of Judith Kervin, and that there was no record of any adoption proceeding. It attempted to prove Faireloth had no standing under the wrongful death statute, but the trial court granted a motion in limine excluding all evidence that Faireloth was not Judith Kervin’s biological or adopted child. The court excluded the evidence because of the so-called “picture frame” theory, according to which only the facts known to Transport at the time of the settlement were relevant. Consequently, Transport developed by bill of exception an extensive record to show that Faireloth did not have standing to make a claim against Allied Van Lines, Transport’s insured. The bill of exceptions included a birth certificate which reflects that Faireloth was born to a woman other than Judith Kervin. Faireloth admitted on the record outside the presence of the jury that she had known since she was very young that she was not Judith Kervin’s biological child. She testified that she had always believed that she was adopted. Askins and Caldwell were also examined outside the jury’s presence. Both testified that they were concerned that if Transport learned Faireloth could not establish her relation to Judith Kervin, Transport might withdraw its settlement offer.9
The excluded evidence was unquestionably relevant to the issue of injury. Transport assigned no error to the exclusion of the evidence, however. Its only complaint is that the evidence in the bill of exceptions conclusively established Faircloth’s lack of injury. For two reasons, we cannot adopt Transport’s argument as grounds for vacating the jury’s findings on the common-law claims.
First, an appellate court generally may not reverse and render a different judgment based on excluded evidence. J.M. Abott Oil Co. v. San Antonio Brewing Ass’n, 104 Tex. 574, 141 S.W. 517, 517 (1911); see Martin v. Allman, 668 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1984, no writ) (holding that a party is entitled to rely on a favorable ruling and need not rebut evidence tendered by an opposing party in a bill of exceptions). Evidence is not conclusive unless it was admitted into evidence, and the opposing party failed to rebut it. Abott, 141 S.W. at 517. If this Court sets aside a verdict based on evidence the jury did not hear, we may not render a contrary judgment. Instead, we must remand for trial in order to give the opposing party an opportunity to impeach the evidence or to respond with rebuttal evidence.10
Second, even if Transport’s evidence about Faireloth had been properly admitted, the standard of review for Transport’s legal sufficiency complaint precludes us from considering the evidence. Because Faireloth had the burden to prove injury, the standard of review is whether there was no evidence to support the jury’s findings. Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55, 58 (Tex.1983). In considering a “no evidence” point, we may consider only the evidence [276]*276supporting the finding and disregard evidence and inferences to the contrary. Wei-rich v. Weirich, 833 S.W.2d 942, 945 (Tex. 1992). Considering only the evidence which supports the verdict in this ease, and disregarding the excluded evidence, we must overrule this legal sufficiency point of error. We turn to consider whether Faircloth established that Transport had a duty and breached it under any theory on which the jury made findings.
B. Fraud
Transport argues that there was no evidence of fraud or of Faircloth’s reliance on fraudulent representations. Transport hired Lindsey & Newsom to investigate the accident and to manage potential liability claims. Lindsey & Newsom assigned Jones to handle the case. During the investigation, Jones concluded that Faircloth and two adult sons were Judith Kervin’s children. Jones began the settlement process, as authorized by Transport. During the process, Transport obtained opinions concerning the possible amount of a hypothetical jury award for Judith Kervin’s wrongful death.
Faircloth’s fraud claim primarily arose from the events at a meeting on May 21, 1984, three days after the accident which killed the Kervins. Faircloth recalls that Caldwell, Askins, Jones, Dell Jackson (who was Judith Kervin’s 37-year-old son), and others were at the Caldwell home discussing the need to employ Askins to open a guardianship.11 They also discussed Transport’s offer of $250,000 to settle the wrongful death claim and told Faircloth it was a good deal. Jackson testified:
Q Okay. And what did they tell Paula about the $250,000?
A They said that was the great deal, that was — that was really top — or top dollar, said that was real good for a minor, she was a minor, if she hadn’t been a minor, that she wouldn’t come out with anything....
An actionable representation is one concerning a material fact; a pure expression of opinion will not support an action for fraud. Trenholm v. Ratcliff, 646 S.W.2d 927, 930 (Tex.1983). In particular, an expression of opinion about monetary value is not a representation of fact which gives rise to an action for fraud. See McCollum v. P/S Invs., Ltd,., 764 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Tex.App.— Dallas 1988, writ denied); Cravens v. Skinner, 626 S.W.2d 173, 177 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1981, no writ); Morris v. Leonard, 441 S.W.2d 877, 881 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1969, writ ref d n.r.e.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 974, 91 S.Ct. 1667, 29 L.Ed.2d 139 (1971). Whether a statement is an actionable statement of “fact” or merely one of “opinion” often depends on the circumstances in which a statement is made. Among the relevant circumstances are the statement’s specificity, the speaker’s knowledge, the comparative levels of the speaker’s and the hearer’s knowledge, and whether the statement relates to the present or the future. See Trenholm, 646 S.W.2d at 930; Safety Cas. Co. v. McGee, 133 Tex. 233, 127 S.W.2d 176, 178 (1939); Angelo Broadcasting, Inc. v. Satellite Music Network, Inc., 836 S.W.2d 726, 733 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1992, writ denied), disapproved on other grounds by Hines v. Hash, 843 S.W.2d 464, 469-70 (Tex.1992). A statement of value may be actionable if the speaker knows it is false. Texas Indus. Trust v. Lusk, 312 S.W.2d 324, 326 (Tex.Civ.App.— San Antonio 1958, writ ref d). Faircloth contends that Transport’s representative, Jones, gave a false statement of fact about the value of her claim, since Transport had obtained estimates at a higher amount than it offered in settlement.
The most specific statement any witness to the May 21st meeting recalled was that the settlement offer was “top dollar.” No evidence pinpoints the identity of the speaker who may have made that statement. Assuming the speaker was one of Transport’s agents, there is no evidence that the statement was a false statement of fact, or that the agent knew it was false when made. When Transport investigated the claim aris-[277]*277mg from Judith Kervin’s death, it sought expert opinions about its potential value. The record contains a note by Transport’s claims branch manager, Mike Roggen, dated almost three weeks after the May 21st meeting, reflecting the estimates made by two attorneys assigned to value Faircloth’s claim. One expert from Beaumont estimated the case was worth “up to” $500,000 or more, while another expert from Houston estimated its value at $350,000 to $400,000. Rog-gen’s note also stated that $250,000 was the most realistic estimate of Transport’s exposure, based on the opinions of these attorneys, the opinion of the claimant’s attorney, and “our own thinking.” The mere fact that Transport was aware of opinions giving a higher value to Faircloth’s claim than it offered to settle with her is no evidence that an opinion by any Transport agent about $250,-000 being “top dollar” was false. Transport could disagree with its consultants about the value of the claim without being guilty of fraud.
Unlike the value of tangible property, such as automobiles or real estate, the value of a wrongful death claim is not susceptible to precise calculation. The value of such an unliquidated claim is inherently a matter of opinion. Whether the amount of a settlement offer approximates what a jury would award at trial depends on unpredictable factors such as favorable rulings from the trial court on venue and other legal issues, the jury, the availability and credibility of witnesses, the ability of the attorneys, and so forth. Experts can sincerely disagree about the value of a claim. For example, in the trial of this case, Faircloth’s experts testified that the wrongful death claim was worth at least one million dollars, but the jury proved them wrong by returning a verdict valuing Faircloth’s claim at about $160,000. Her experts were mistaken in their opinion of the value of the claim, not knowingly deceptive or guilty of false statements. Likewise, the views expressed about the adequacy of Transport’s $250,000 settlement offer were opinions only, and there is no evidence Transport knew that they were false.
An opinion also may be treated as an actionable statement of fact when the opinion is based on or buttressed with false facts. Trenholm, 646 S.W.2d at 930-31. In Tren-holm, a developer induced homebuilders to purchase property next to a trailer park that had a depressing effect on the value of the neighborhood. The developer falsely stated that the trailer park had been sold and that the tenants had been given notice their leases would not be renewed. The developer opined that the trailer park would be gone in a matter of months. The court held that the misstatements of fact were so intertwined with the developer’s statement of opinion that the entire statement amounted to a false representation of fact. Id. at 931. In the present case, there are no comparable representations. There is no evidence that Transport buttressed its opinion about the value of Faircloth’s settlement offer with false facts. There is no allegation that, for example, Transport falsely stated that it had settled similar claims for comparable amounts or that it misrepresented facts concerning the Kervins’ accident.
Superior knowledge by one party may also provide the occasion for fraud. A court may consider a false opinion of value as an actionable statement of fact if it is made by one who should know another party is justifiably relying on the speaker’s superior knowledge. See Safety Cas. Co. v. McGee, 133 Tex. 233, 127 S.W.2d 176, 178 (1939). Missing in this case is evidence that Transport knew Fair-cloth was relying on its supposedly superior knowledge. Faircloth may have been unsophisticated in financial matters, but any settlement had to be accepted on her behalf by Caldwell, her guardian, on the advice of Asians, Faireloth’s attorney, and upon approval by the probate court. Thus, in this case Faircloth was not justifiably relying on Transport’s superior knowledge. The theory of superior knowledge will not support the jury’s finding of fraud.
We conclude that there is no evidence supporting the jury’s finding of fraud. Before leaving the issue, however, we address some arguments made in Justice Hightower’s concurring and dissenting opinion.
The concurring and dissenting opinion’s reliance on McGee, to conclude that representations of value are actionable, is not war[278]*278ranted. McGee is clearly distinguishable from this case. In McGee, an insurer offered to settle an injured worker’s compensation claim for an amount the insurer had calculated on the basis of partial disability. The insurer represented that the settlement offer was the best the worker could receive. However, the insurer knew that the employee was totally disabled, and “knew the law relating to total disability and partial disability and the method of determining and computing the amount of compensation to be paid.” Id. at 179. Thus, the insurer’s statement was shown to be a knowing misrepresentation of the actual value of the claim, which was a precisely ascertainable amount. By contrast, the opinion that Transport’s $250,-000 offer was “top dollar” related to an unliq-uidated claim, the value of which was not subject to exact calculation.
The concurring and dissenting opinion also contends that Transport discouraged Fair-cloth from seeking competent counsel to preserve her ignorance about the “true” value of her claim. Contrary to this assertion, there is no evidence that Transport ever said that it was unnecessary or inadvisable for Fair-cloth to consult a lawyer, that it had a desire to settle before Faircloth obtained legal counsel, or that it discouraged a “friendly suit.” The argument is that Transport encouraged Faircloth to retain Askins to represent her even though Transport considered him an incompetent attorney, thereby exacerbating Faircloth’s vulnerability to deception. However, the evidence does not support these inferences. Although Transport’s claims branch manager, Roggen, testified that he did not consider Askins a “top gun,” his testimony indicated no more than a belief that Askins was not the Tom Cruise of Texas trial attorneys. This is not evidence that Roggen or anyone else at Transport considered Askins incompetent. Moreover, Rog-gen also stated that he thought Askins was a capable lawyer whose foremost objective was to serve Faircloth’s best interests.
The concurring and dissenting opinion’s position, taken to its logical conclusion, would lead to absurd results. The necessary implication from its reasoning is that a party must refuse to settle with unsophisticated claimants if their lawyer is not a “top gun” to avoid later claims of fraud. We will not embrace a holding that disqualifies the vast majority of well-qualified lawyers from handling settlements.
C. Civil Conspiracy
Faircloth’s final argument is that Transport took advantage of her naivete by conspiring with Caldwell, a guardian it thought disloyal to his charge, and Askins, an attorney it thought corrupt. Faircloth’s conspiracy theory is that Transport colluded with Caldwell and Askins to get her to settle for less than her claim was worth. Civil conspiracy requires a meeting of the minds between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex. 1983). When viewing meager circumstantial evidence, if “circumstances are consistent with either of two facts and nothing shows that one is more probable than the other, neither fact can be inferred.” $56,700 in U.S. Currency v. State, 730 S.W.2d 659, 662 (Tex.1987). Circumstantial evidence may be used to establish any material fact, but it must constitute more than mere suspicion. Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex.1993). As we said in Browning-Ferris, “some suspicion linked to other suspicion produces only more suspicion, which is not the same as some evidence.” Id. at 927.
It was incumbent on Faircloth to establish the elements of civil conspiracy. Having applied the principles of $56,700 and Browning-Ferris to the record in this ease, we conclude that she did not as a matter of law. The evidence shows:
1) Jones met Caldwell and Faircloth the day of the accident or the next day. Jones recommended attorneys to Caldwell to represent Faircloth, but Askins was not among those she recommended.
2) Caldwell initially contacted Askins as a referral from one of his acquaintances. Caldwell hired Askins because he was willing to petition the probate court for a temporary guardianship which could be accomplished within a few days.
[279]*2793) Once Caldwell was appointed guardian, he drew on the amounts invested for Fair-cloth at a rate of $750 per month for her support.
4) Askins acknowledged that he had never handled a wrongful death claim such as Faircloth’s claim, that he did not independently investigate the accident, and that he needed money.
5) On one occasion, Caldwell telephoned Jones to ask her to explain the difference between a structured settlement and payment in a lump sum.
6) The only other evidence of contact between Jones and Caldwell or Askins was the May 21st meeting at Caldwell’s home. Roggen then took over negotiations for the settlement, which the probate court approved within three weeks of the accident.
The deficiency in Faircloth’s conspiracy argument is the lack of evidence to connect Transport with Caldwell’s or Askins’ conduct in any legally cognizable way. On these facts alone, no inference can arise that Transport was a conspirator with Caldwell or Askins. No evidence shows that Transport was aware of Askins’ financial situation, or that Caldwell may have planned to profit improperly from Faircloth’s guardianship by charging her for her support. There is no evidence that Transport committed, or was aware of, any unlawful act. In short, no evidence or any inference from it makes a conspiracy conclusion more probable than not. We conclude that there is no evidence of civil conspiracy that would justify attributing to Transport the misconduct, if any, of Caldwell or Askins.
D. Duty from Special Relationship
Faircloth contends that Transport owed her a duty comparable to the common-law duty an insurance company owes its insured. See Arnold v. National County Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 725 S.W.2d 165 (Tex.1987). Alternatively, she asserts that Jones established a confidential relationship with Fair-cloth “by her attitude and representations.” Faircloth obtained findings that Transport did not act in good faith and that the defendants breached a fiduciary duty owed her. Both theories depend on whether a special relationship arose between Transport and Faircloth.
This Court has held that an insurer owes an insured a duty of good faith and fair dealing because of the special relationship arising out of the insurance contract. Aranda v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 748 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex.1988). However, the Court has not squarely ruled on whether an insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing extends to a third-party claimant. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 876 S.W.2d 145, 150 (Tex.1994) (holding that an insurer owes no duty of good faith to third-party claimants under the Insurance Code, without reaching the question of a possible common-law duty). Identifying a source of such a duty is problematic. As this Court stated in Watson:
A third party claimant has no contract with the insurer or the insured, has not paid any premiums, has no legal relationship with the insurer, and in short, has no basis upon which to expect or demand the benefit of ... extra-contractual obligations imposed on insurers.
Id. at 149.
An insured’s interests are adverse to third-party claimants. Id. In this case, Fair-cloth’s interests were adverse to Allied Van Lines, and Transport’s duty of good faith and fafr dealing ran to Allied, its insured. Transport owed a duty to its insured to defend the claim, and if warranted by the facts, to settle the claim consistent with the insured’s best interests. American Physicians Ins. Exchange v. Garcia, 876 S.W.2d 842, 846-47 (Tex.1994) (noting the insurer’s duty to settle); American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 843 S.W.2d 480, 482 (Tex.1992) (identifying an insurer’s duties to investigate claims, defend at trial, and negotiate settlement); Ranger County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Guin, 723 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex.1987) (stating the insurer’s duty to put the insured’s interests on par with its own). For policy reasons, we do not require insurance companies to perform duties for third-party claimants that are “coextensive and conflicting” with the duties they owe their insureds. Watson, 876 S.W.2d at 150. Owing such duties to third parties would “necessarily compromise the duties the insurer owes to its insured.” [280]*280Id. In the case before us, no compelling facts suggest a special relationship existed to warrant imposing on Transport a duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to the third-party claimant, Faircloth.
There was likewise no special relationship between Transport and Faircloth to justify imposing a fiduciary duty on Transport. A fiduciary or confidential relationship may arise from circumstances of the particular case, but it must exist prior to, and apart from, the agreement made the basis of the suit. Consolidated Gas & Equip. Co. v. Thompson, 405 S.W.2d 333, 336-37 (Tex. 1966). Faircloth had no dealings with Transport except as a claimant against Transport’s insured. Faircloth, Caldwell, or Askins had no reason to place a high degree of trust in Transport. Therefore, no special relationship arose before or during the settlement negotiations which could give rise to fiduciary duties. There was no relationship at all except for the settlement agreement made the basis of the present suit.
III. Conclusion
Public policy favors the amicable settlement of controversies. Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240, 250 (Tex.1992). Settlements are favored because they avoid the uncertainties regarding the outcome of litigation, and the often exorbitant amounts of time and money to prosecute or defend claims at trial. It would jeopardize settlement agreements involving minors if, upon reaching majority, a minor may disregard an agreement and claim that an insurer negotiated too good a deal for itself or that the minor was not adequately represented. There would be little incentive to settle if agreements are easily set aside, and the claims have to be tried years later, and even less, if large judgments may be awarded years later on a “second guess” in another trial. The law requires more than recollections of overstated opinions of value to set aside parties’ agreements. Because under this record the evidence does not support judgment for Faircloth under any theory of liability, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment that she take nothing from these petitioners. We remand the cause to the trial court to give Faircloth opportunity to elect under the verdict against the remaining defendant.