339 S.W.3d 235
Tex. App.2011Background
- Hurricane Rita damaged OISD facilities in Sept. 2005 and Board authorized repairs under Education Code §44.031 alternatives.
- ICI performed hurricane repairs and received over $1,000,000 from OISD.
- ICI sued seeking an additional $278,096 for repairs.
- OISD pleaded lack of a written contract, challenging jurisdiction; ICI urged that multiple documents formed a contract.
- Trial court granted OISD’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed ICI’s claims with prejudice.
- Court concluded no written contract with essential terms existed, so immunity defense barred suit; dismissal affirmed, including Prompt Pay Act and attorney’s fees claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether immunity waives under §271.152 without a written contract | ICI argues waiver via §271.152 applies. | OISD contends no written contract exists to waive immunity. | No written contract with essential terms; immunity remains; dismissal proper. |
| Whether multiple documents can create a written contract with essential terms | ICI relies on documents to form essential terms. | OISD argues essential terms missing; no enforceable contract. | Documents did not define payment basis or property scope; no enforceable contract. |
| Whether the putative contract failed to define basis of payment and properties to be repaired | ICI contends documents show agreed repairs. | OISD disputes lack of payment basis and specific properties. | Putative terms insufficient to determine OISD's payment obligation; jurisdictional facts fail. |
| Whether dismissal of Prompt Pay Act and attorney's fees claims was proper | ICI challenged only some aspects; not pursued on appeal. | Trial court dismissed all claims; immunity defense applies to these too. | Finality affirmed; claims disposed without challenge on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. 2000) (whether multiple documents can comprise a written contract; essential terms required)
- Kirby Lake Dev., Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 320 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2010) (essential terms of contract must be definite to enforce obligations)
- Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality of dismissal when no jurisdiction exists under sovereign immunity)
- Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 1999) (distinction between immunity from liability and immunity from suit; consent to sue required for jurisdiction)
- Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (governmental immunity framework and consent to sue)