Dallas Austin

What is the impact of granting a license to a property owner to use a set a schematic drawings?  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently answered this question in Loeb-Defever v. Mako, LLC. In Mako, Pauda Realty requested Loeb Architects, LLC to prepare a design for an assisted living facility in Conroe, Texas.  Pauda and Loeb subsequently entered into two separate service contracts each of which contained a limitation that schematics could not be used on other projects except by agreement in writing and with subsequent compensation to Loeb. After Loeb partially com

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes all of Texas, recently broadened the types of employment discrimination claims that may be brought under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In so doing, it overturned nearly 50 years of precedent. In Hamilton v Dallas County, nine female detention officers filed suit against Dallas County Sherriff’s Office for violations of Title VII and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). Relying on Title VII’s anti-discrimination provision, the female officers claimed that the county had “engaged

Is a roofing contractor absolved of liability if the property owner allegedly fails to procure a proper builder’s risk insurance policy? The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently answered the question, no. In Taccoa, Ltd., v. North American Roofing Services, LLC, a warehouse owner, Taccoa, Ltd. filed suit against a number of defendants following damages its warehouse sustained in an August 2020 thunderstorm. Toccoa first entered a contract with North American Roofing Services (NAR) in January 2020 for the construction of a new roof on an existing warehouse.

Are property owners allowed to testify about the cost of repairing their own property without other evidence?  The Dallas Court of Appeals recently placed some limitations in the so-called Property Owner Rule. In William Lisle and Smith-Lisle Holdings, Ltd. v. Do-Mo Joint Venture, a dispute arose between two commercial property owners when Lisle and SLH, a landscaping company, purchased the property next door to Do-Mo’s property which housed medical offices. After SLH bought the property, it removed the house from the property and began work to make improvements. The improvements consisted

Texas state agencies are immune from liability and suit with respect to most causes of action against it under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, including for construction contracts. This immunity applies unless expressly waived by Texas statute. The Texas Supreme Court recently addressed one of these waivers in Pepper Lawson Horizon International Group, LLC v. Texas Southern University involving a contractor asserting a state agency failed to make payment per their construction contract. The Court’s ruling in Pepper Lawson has major implications for Texas contractors doing work with Texas

Nevada recently joined two other states in banning insurance policies that erode with defense costs.  However, the Nevada law is both broader and more ambiguous than the others.  How will this law and the seemingly growing movement to outlaw eroding limits policies affect you?  Potentially, in many ways.  The Nevada statute, Nevada Revised Statute 679A, is very short and states as follows. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an insurer, including, without limitation, an insurer listed in NRS 679A.160, shall not issue or renew a policy of liability insurance that contains a provisio

Does the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) liability for the catastrophic effects of Winter Storm Uri in 2021? More than two years after the storm, the Texas Supreme Court has answered the question, no. On June 23, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court in a divided 5-4 opinion held that ERCOT is entitled to sovereign immunity, concluding that ERCOT is an “arm of the state” because it is under the complete purview of the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC), the Legislature, and the statutory requirements of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). The two cases the Court conside