Natex Corp. v. Paris Independent School District
326 S.W.3d 728
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- PISD and Natex entered eight separate AIA design contracts for renovations and a stadium with budgets and schedules but no fixed time frames.
- PISD terminated Natex for alleged delays, failure to provide timely schematic designs, and disputed payments after investigations and invoices.
- PISD filed suit seeking declaration of contractual rights, damages, and fees; Natex answered asserting district delays and over-billing.
- PISD later amended to add negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and money had and received, supported by Bruce Weir's affidavit.
- Natex moved to dismiss under Section 150.002, arguing the original petition required a certificate of merit; the trial court denied the motion.
- The court ultimately held that Section 150.002 does not apply to PISD's original contract-based petition and that the amended petition’s Weir affidavit satisfied the statute's requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 150.002 apply to PISD's original petition? | Natex: original petition arises from professional services; certificate required. | Natex: contract-based claims implicate negligence; must have merit certificate. | Original petition does not fall under 150.002; contract claims not requiring certificate. |
| Did PISD's amended petition trigger Section 150.002 for the Weir affidavit? | Weir’s affidavit cures any deficiency for amended claims. | Affidavit must meet statutory specifics; insufficient if not properly framed. | Weir’s affidavit met the requirements andvalidated the amended petition under 150.002. |
| Is Weir's affidavit sufficient to show practice in the same area of architecture as Natex? | Weir practices architecture with design and construction expertise relevant to the case. | Weir may not explicitly state same area of practice as Natex. | Affidavit sufficient; Weir's experience supports same-area practice. |
| Are the original contract-based damages and declaratory relief properly characterized as contract claims rather than tort? | Original petition sought contract-based damages and rights under the contracts. | Possible tort-like negligent misrepresentation claims embedded in the pleadings. | Original claims arose from contract; Section 150.002 not triggered for the original petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Benchmark Eng'g Corp. v. Sam Houston Race Park, 316 S.W.3d 41 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for 150.002 ruling; defines review scope)
- Parker County Veterinary Clinic, Inc. v. GSBS Batenhorst, Inc., No. 2-08-380-CV (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009) (certificate of merit not required when asserting contract-based claims)
- Curtis & Windham Architects, Inc. v. Williams, 315 S.W.3d 102 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (section 150.002 applicability limited to negligence claims)
- Parker County v. GSBS Batenhorst, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 887 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008-2009) (contract-based relief not dependent on 150.002; duties arise from contract)
- Landreth v. Las Brisas Council of Co-Owners, Inc., 285 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. 2010) (negligence claims require merit certificate; contract claims generally do not)
- Ashkar Eng'g v. Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corp., 2010 WL 376076 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (an original petition grounded in contract may not require 150.002; focus on duties and remedies)