PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. Partnership
146 S.W.3d 79 | Texas Supreme Court | 2004
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A building owner (JMB) bought a skyscraper with defective windows and sued the window manufacturer (PPG) using warranty claims it had received from the previous owner. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that DTPA (consumer protection) claims cannot be assigned or transferred from one party to another. This means you cannot buy someone else's legal claim against a supplier or manufacturer—only the original injured party can sue. The decision protects the statute's purpose of encouraging individual consumers to pursue their own claims rather than treating legal claims like tradeable property.
Key Takeaways
- •Do not attempt to purchase or accept assignment of DTPA claims from previous owners, contractors, or other parties—Texas courts will void them
- •If you suffer defects from a supplier or manufacturer, you must bring your own claim; you cannot rely on claims assigned to you by predecessors
- •Warranty claims tied to DTPA protections are personal to the injured party and cannot be transferred as part of a property or contract sale
DTPA claims generally cannot be assigned by an aggrieved consumer to someone else.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I buy or accept a defective product claim from the previous owner or contractor?
No. Texas law prohibits assignment of DTPA (consumer protection) claims. Only the party who directly suffered the injury can sue. If you inherit a building or project with defects, you must file your own claim based on your own damages—you cannot use claims the previous owner had against the supplier.
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.
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
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.