Termination of as needed contract did not result in any damages under chapter 271, so no waiver of immunity exists
Special contributing author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs
City of Heath v. Robert Williamson d/b/a PCNETSYS, No. 05-20-00685-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas, May 3, 2021) (mem. op.).
In this interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s holding denying a city’s plea to the jurisdiction on a contract claim, the Fifth Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the case because damages falling under Chapter 271 of the Local Government Code were not part of the claim as an as-needed services contract.
The plaintiff sued the city after his contract with the city for IT services was terminated early. The agreement provided that the plaintiff would be paid a monthly retainer for IT services “as may be required by the City.” The agreement was set to terminate in October 2021, but the city terminated the agreement effective April 30, 2019. Both parties agreed that the plaintiff had been paid for all services already provided. The plaintiff sued the city for breach of contract arguing that he was owed lost profits and “loss of the benefit/expectation of the contract.” The city argued that the contract was not properly executed and created an unconstitutional debt. The trial court denied the city’s plea to the jurisdiction related to the claim and the city appealed.
Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code waives a city’s immunity when there is a claim for certain types of damages related to a written contract including the “balance due and owed”. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §A271.153. Immunity is not waived for consequential damages. The court of appeals held that there was no claim for recoverable damages because there was no balance due and owing as the plaintiff had already been paid for all services rendered. Thus, immunity had not been waived. The court also held there was no reason to allow further discovery or allow repleading because the parties were in agreement that all services had been paid for and it was only future payments that the plaintiff was seeking.
The court of appeals vacated the trial court’s denial of the city’s plea to the jurisdiction because no damages that waive contractual immunity had been pled or existed.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Reichek, Schenck, and Carlyle. Opinion by Justice Amanda L. Reichek.