Howard Michael Lauderback, Individually, and D/ B/A New Era Contract Services v. FMWB Inc., 02-16-00057-CV

Lauderback contracted with TxDOT to provide mowing services; the contract required subcontractors to provide a Certificate of Insurance showing workers’ compensation coverage "Statutory."
On June 4, 2013, Lauderback subcontracted the Cooke County mowing work to FMWB for $100,159.26; FMWB was to complete in 57 working days and did so.
Lauderback’s insurer reviewed FMWB’s certificate and told Lauderback it was "inadequate" and did not show the minimum workers’ compensation coverage; Lauderback withheld the final payment of $42,951.64.
FMWB demanded payment, then sued asserting breach of contract, suit on a sworn account, and alternatively quantum meruit; FMWB moved for traditional summary judgment on the breach claim (and sought attorney’s fees).
The trial court granted summary judgment for FMWB for $42,951.64 plus interest, fees, and costs; on appeal the court affirmed, concluding FMWB proved all elements of breach and that Lauderback failed to raise a fact issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (FMWB)	Defendant's Argument (Lauderback)	Held
Whether FMWB conclusively proved breach of contract by performance and Lauderback’s nonpayment	FMWB: subcontract existed, FMWB timely performed, Lauderback breached by withholding final payment; damages $42,951.64	Lauderback: FMWB failed to perform because its insurance certificate was inadequate under the subcontract’s incorporated TDOT provision	Court: Held for FMWB — statute governing subcontractor WC (Tex. Lab. Code §505.013) did not require FMWB to provide the certificate; FMWB established performance and damages, summary judgment affirmed
Whether Lauderback raised a viable offset/affirmative defense based on alleged inadequate insurance	FMWB: offset not shown; Lauderback still owes contract balance	Lauderback: entitled to withhold payment as offset for costs he may incur to obtain workers’ comp coverage because FMWB’s certificate was inadequate	Court: Held for FMWB — Lauderback failed to produce conclusive evidence of actual damages from the alleged deficiency (speculative future costs), so offset defense failed

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (viewing summary-judgment evidence in favor of nonmovant)
20801, Inc. v. Parker, 249 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2008) (every reasonable inference indulged for nonmovant)
MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. 1986) (plaintiff must conclusively prove all elements for summary judgment)
Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2014) (burden shift after movant produces summary-judgment evidence)
Triton 88, L.P. v. Star Elec., L.L.C., 411 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (elements required for breach-of-contract judgment)
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (affirmance appropriate if any ground presented to trial court is meritorious)
Rizk v. Fin. Guardian Ins. Agency, Inc., 584 S.W.2d 860 (Tex. 1979) (suit on a sworn account is a procedural device for certain contractual claims)
Bellair, Inc. v. Aviall of Tex., Inc., 819 S.W.2d 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (party asserting offset must prove amount of damages)