Cox Paving of Texas, Inc. v. H.O. Salinas & Sons Paving, Inc.

Summary

The Texas Eighth Court of Appeals reviewed a dispute between a general contractor and a paving subcontractor arising from road construction work for Blanco County. The court affirmed the subcontractor’s breach-of-contract and Prompt Pay Act recovery, reversed its quantum meruit recovery because the written subcontract governed the extra work, and remanded for redetermination of attorney’s fees, costs, expenses, and related awards.

Holdings

1. A party generally cannot recover in quantum meruit for services or materials covered by a valid express contract. The subcontract incorporated the general contract and covered H.O. Salinas's work of processing and incorporating caliche into the roadbeds; therefore, the quantum meruit award was precluded as a matter of law.
2. H.O. Salinas waived reliance on the partial-performance exception because it neither requested nor obtained jury findings on whether it partially performed its contractual duties.
3. Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings that Cox breached the subcontract, that Cox's breach was not excused by a prior material breach by H.O. Salinas, and that H.O. Salinas did not materially breach the subcontract.
4. The Prompt Pay Act interest award was affirmed because it depended on the breach-of-contract claim, and the court affirmed the jury's finding that Cox breached the subcontract.
5. The trial court's awards of attorney's fees, costs, expenses, and charges had to be reversed and remanded for a new determination because the reversal of the quantum meruit award changed the claims supporting those awards.

Questions Presented

1. Whether H.O. Salinas could recover quantum meruit damages for extra caliche-related work when the written subcontract and incorporated general contract covered that work.
2. Whether H.O. Salinas could invoke the partial-performance exception to the rule barring quantum meruit recovery when an express contract governs the services.
3. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings that Cox breached the subcontract, that Cox's breach was not excused by a prior material breach by H.O. Salinas, and that H.O. Salinas did not materially breach the subcontract.
4. Whether the Prompt Pay Act interest award should be reversed based on Cox's contention that H.O. Salinas's alleged breach excused payment.
5. Whether the trial court's awards of attorney's fees, costs, expenses, and charges had to be reversed and remanded after reversal of the quantum meruit award.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded