Zachry Construction Corporation v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas
449 S.W.3d 98 | Texas Supreme Court | 2014
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Zachry Construction sued the Port of Houston for delays on a wharf project. The Port had a no-damages-for-delay clause in the contract, but the Texas Supreme Court ruled that such clauses cannot protect an owner who deliberately and wrongfully interferes with the contractor's work. This means even broad delay waiver language won't shield owners from liability when they actively sabotage or wrongfully obstruct your work.
Key Takeaways
- •No-damages-for-delay clauses have limits: they protect owners from negligent delays but not from deliberate, wrongful interference with your work
- •Document owner interference carefully: if the owner actively blocks your work or deliberately causes delays, you may have a claim even with a delay waiver in your contract
- •General payment waivers don't automatically release specific claims you've already asserted—make sure any settlement language specifically addresses the claim you're releasing
A no-damages-for-delay provision cannot shield the owner from liability for deliberately and wrongfully interfering.
Frequently Asked Question
If my contract has a no-damages-for-delay clause, can the owner still be liable for delays they cause on purpose?
Yes. While no-damages-for-delay clauses protect owners from liability for negligent or accidental delays, they do not shield owners who deliberately and wrongfully interfere with your work. If you can prove the owner intentionally obstructed or sabotaged your work, you can still recover delay damages despite the clause.
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.
United States v. Winstar Corp.
The Government's contractual promises regarding supervisory goodwill accounting treatment are enforceable despite subsequent regulatory changes, and the Government is liable for breach when Congress eliminated those accounting benefits.
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.