Tamimi Global Company, LTD v. Kellogg Brown & Root, L.L.C., Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc., and Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.
483 S.W.3d 678 | Court of Appeals of Texas | 2015
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Tamimi Global, a subcontractor, sued KBR for refusing to pay invoices for dining and utility services provided during Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq. The trial court dismissed Tamimi's claims, but the appeals court reversed and sent the case back for trial. The key ruling: when a contractor denies a payment claim, that's when the breach happens—not when the termination notice is issued or the invoice is submitted. This timing matters for determining whether claims are valid.
Key Takeaways
- •Document when the contractor explicitly denies your payment claim in writing. This date is critical for proving when a breach occurred and for statute of limitations purposes.
- •Don't assume a breach happens automatically when a contract ends or when you submit an invoice. You must show the contractor actively refused to pay to have a valid claim.
- •Keep detailed records of all payment demands, denials, and communications. The court will look at the specific moment the contractor said 'no' to your claim.
Each action accrued when KBR affirmatively denied the claim.
Frequently Asked Question
When does a contractor's failure to pay me actually become a legal breach I can sue over?
According to this Texas case, the breach occurs when the contractor affirmatively denies your payment claim—not when they terminate the contract or when you submit the invoice. You need written evidence that they said 'no' to your claim. This timing is important for filing your lawsuit within the legal deadline.
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.
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.
Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.