Texas Southern University v. State Street Bank & Trust Co.

212 S.W.3d 893 | Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) | 2007

remandedCited 133 timesFLAGSHIPTexas
View on Court Website

What This Case Means for Subcontractors

Texas Southern University (a state agency) contracted with Virón for energy conservation services and equipment. When disputes arose, Virón sued TSU for breach of contract. TSU claimed sovereign immunity—a legal shield that protects government entities from lawsuits. The court ruled that TSU retains sovereign immunity even though it accepted equipment benefits, unless the state legislature explicitly waives that immunity. The case was sent back to the trial court to determine if TSU waived immunity through its own conduct.

Key Takeaways

  • Government entities like universities can claim sovereign immunity from contract breach lawsuits unless state law explicitly allows suits against them—check your client's legal status before contracting
  • Simply accepting benefits under a contract does not automatically waive a government entity's immunity; you need clear legislative permission or evidence the entity intentionally gave up its immunity
  • When contracting with state agencies, require explicit written waivers of sovereign immunity and dispute resolution clauses in the contract itself, as courts won't assume immunity was waived

State does not waive immunity merely by accepting benefits under contract.

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston), 2007

Frequently Asked Question

Can I sue a state university for breach of contract if they don't pay me?

Not easily. State universities and agencies have sovereign immunity, which shields them from lawsuits unless the state legislature has explicitly allowed suits or the agency waived immunity in writing. Simply accepting your work or equipment doesn't waive their immunity. Always require a written waiver and clear dispute resolution terms before contracting with government entities.

Related Cases

Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.

2013reversed

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

2002voided

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

2004enforced

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.

General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.

2001voided

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

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.

Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase

1992enforced

An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.