Taylor Pipeline Construction, Inc. v. Directional Road Boring, Inc.

438 F. Supp. 2d 696 | District Court, E.D. Texas | 2006

enforcedCited 28 timesBATTLE_TESTEDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Summary judgment for defendants P.D.G. and Hypower is proper because Taylor failed to establish privity of contract with them and cannot recover on conversion, negligence, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or statutory claims.

Taylor had no contractual relationship with P.D.G. or Hypower.

District Court, E.D. Texas, 2006

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.

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.

Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

2002modified

An insured may assert an article 21.21 claim against its excess liability carrier for unfair claim settlement practices, but liability requires proof of a proper settlement demand within policy limits that an ordinarily prudent insurer would accept.

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.