Green International, Inc. v. Solis
951 S.W.2d 384 | Texas Supreme Court | 1997
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A subcontractor (Solis) sued a general contractor (Green International) for unpaid work and delays on Texas prison projects. The general contractor had a no-damages-for-delay clause in the contract. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that no-damages-for-delay clauses are enforceable and do not need to be written in extra-large or bold text to be valid. This means subcontractors cannot easily recover money for project delays if the contract contains this clause, even if the general contractor caused the delays.
Key Takeaways
- •No-damages-for-delay clauses in Texas construction contracts are enforceable even if they are not highlighted or made conspicuous in the contract language.
- •Before signing a subcontract, carefully review whether it contains a no-damages-for-delay clause and understand that you may not be able to recover delay costs if the GC causes the delay.
- •If a contract has a no-damages-for-delay clause, focus on documenting all change orders and extra work in writing to protect your right to payment for those items, since delay damages will likely be barred.
No-damages-for-delay clauses do not require conspicuousness under Dresser.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I recover money for delays if my subcontract has a no-damages-for-delay clause?
In Texas, no-damages-for-delay clauses are enforceable and will bar you from recovering delay costs, even if the general contractor caused the delay. The clause does not need to be printed in bold or large text to be valid. Your best protection is to document all change orders and extra work separately, as those may still be recoverable.
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.
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
A standard merger clause without clear and unequivocal language expressly disclaiming reliance does not bar a fraud claim, even in a commercial lease agreement between parties.
Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi
A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.
Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.
Sovereign immunity bars subcontractors from enforcing equitable liens against the United States Government, as the APA's waiver of immunity does not extend to claims for money damages.