Driver Pipeline Co. v. Mustang Pipeline Co.
69 S.W.3d 779 | Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) | 2002
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Driver Pipeline agreed to dig trenches and lay pipe for a 100-mile gas pipeline project on a tight 14-week schedule. Heavy rains slowed work significantly, and Driver fell behind and asked for extra time and money. The court found Driver did breach the contract by not meeting the deadline, but ruled that Mustang could not terminate the contract or recover damages because the breach wasn't material enough to justify those actions, and Mustang failed to prove its claimed damages were reasonable.
Key Takeaways
- •Just because you miss a deadline doesn't mean the owner can terminate your contract—the breach has to be 'material' (serious enough to defeat the purpose of the contract). A partial delay may not qualify.
- •Weather delays are a major risk. If your bid assumes no rain days, get that in writing and clarify whether the owner must grant extensions. Don't rely on vague contract language that says the owner 'may' give extra time.
- •The owner must prove damages are reasonable and necessary with actual evidence. Simply showing what they paid or charged is not enough to recover money from you.
Mere proof of amounts charged or paid does not raise an issue of reasonableness.
Frequently Asked Question
If I miss a deadline on a construction contract, can the owner automatically terminate me and sue for damages?
Not automatically. The court must find your breach was 'material'—meaning it seriously undermined the purpose of the contract. A partial delay or missed deadline alone may not be enough. The owner also has to prove any damages with solid evidence, not just show what they spent. Get weather delay language in your contract upfront to avoid disputes.
Related Cases
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.
United States v. Winstar Corp.
The Government's contractual promises regarding supervisory goodwill accounting treatment are enforceable despite subsequent regulatory changes, and the Government is liable for breach when Congress eliminated those accounting benefits.
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.