Pavecon, Inc. v. R-Com, Inc.

159 S.W.3d 219 | Court of Appeals of Texas | 2005

enforcedCited 30 timesBATTLE_TESTEDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

A subcontractor's failure to provide timely notice to a surety as required by Texas Property Code section 53.056(b) bars recovery on a payment bond, even when the surety failed to file the bond as required by statute.

Pavecon was required to give IFIC written notice by the 15th day of the third month following services.

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005

Related Cases

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

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.

Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

2011remanded

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

1992enforced

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.

1999voided

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.

Weize Co. v. Colorado Regional Construction, Inc.

2010affirmed

A general contractor violated Colorado's construction trust fund statute by failing to hold funds in trust for subcontractors and suppliers, and a lien release bond does not exempt contractors from trust fund obligations or excuse failure to record a lis pendens.

Rice v. Pinney

2001enforced

A county court has jurisdiction to determine immediate possession in a forcible detainer action even when a concurrent district court suit challenges title, provided the possession determination does not necessarily require resolving the title dispute.