504 S.W.3d 922
Tex. App.2016Background
- El Paso County contracted with Sunlight Enterprises on a fixed-price renovation; County later assessed liquidated damages and terminated the contract; Sunlight sued for breach including claims for additional compensation and time.
- Contract Paragraph 13 required written submission of contractor claims to Owner and Architect "no later than seven (7) calendar days" after the event; Subparagraphs 13(D) and 13(F) made strict compliance a condition precedent and provided that failure to comply waived the claim.
- Sunlight moved for partial summary judgment arguing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.071(a) (statutory rule invalidating contract notice requirements shorter than 90 days for "notice of a claim for damages") voided the seven-day provisions.
- County moved for partial summary judgment arguing § 16.071(a) does not apply because the contract requires notice of events or claims for time/price adjustments, not "notice of a claim for damages."
- Trial court held § 16.071(a) applied and voided the seven-day notice provisions; the court of appeals granted permissive appeal and reversed, holding § 16.071(a) is inapplicable and the seven-day provisions are enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.071(a) applies to invalidate the contract's 7‑day notice provisions | § 16.071(a) voids notice provisions shorter than 90 days because the seven‑day submission operates to bar Sunlight's right to sue for damages | § 16.071(a) applies only to stipulations requiring "notice of a claim for damages" (i.e., notice of a cause of action); these provisions notify of events/requests for adjustment, not a damages claim | Held: § 16.071(a) does not apply; the seven‑day notice provisions are not "notice of a claim for damages" and are therefore not void |
Key Cases Cited
- Greene v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 446 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. 2014) (historical background on notice statute)
- Taber v. Western Union Tel. Co., 137 S.W. 106 (Tex. 1911) (statute construed to compute 90‑day period from accrual of cause of action)
- American Airlines Employees Federal Credit Union v. Martin, 29 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. 2000) (statute does not apply when notice required is of an event, not a claim for damages)
- St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Tri‑State Cattle Feeders, Inc., 638 S.W.2d 868 (Tex. 1982) (theft‑policy notice of loss is notice of an event antecedent to a claim and not covered by the statute)
- Komatsu v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 806 S.W.2d 603 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, writ denied) (interpreting "claim for damages" to mean "cause of action")