Alamo Community College District v. Browning Construction Co.
131 S.W.3d 146 | Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) | 2004
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Browning Construction sued Alamo Community College District for breach of contract after project delays. The jury awarded Browning over $3 million in damages despite a no-damages-for-delay clause in the contract. The court ruled that the college district is not immune from suit under Texas law, and that a contractor can recover delay damages when the owner actively interferes with the work, even if the contract says otherwise.
Key Takeaways
- •No-damages-for-delay clauses are not absolute—if the owner actively interferes with your work, you may still recover delay costs in Texas
- •Government entities like community colleges cannot hide behind sovereign immunity to avoid paying contractors for breach of contract
- •Document all owner-caused delays and interference in writing; this evidence is critical to overcoming a no-damages-for-delay clause
- •Active interference by the owner (design errors, unreasonable delays, bad faith) can trigger waiver or estoppel of the no-damages-for-delay clause
The Legislature clearly and unambiguously waived immunity for community college districts.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I recover delay damages if my contract has a no-damages-for-delay clause?
Yes, if the owner actively interferes with your work or acts in bad faith. Texas courts will not enforce a no-damages-for-delay clause when the owner causes unreasonable delays or prevents you from performing. Keep detailed records of all owner-caused delays and interference to prove your case.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.