Atkins North America v. CCE, Inc.

Texas Supreme Court

Atkins North America v. CCE, Inc.

481 S.W.3d 214, 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1075, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 543, 2015 WL 3759707

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 2015

DocketNo. 11-0481

StatusPublished

This text of 481 S.W.3d 214 (Atkins North America v. CCE, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkins North America v. CCE, Inc., 481 S.W.3d 214, 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1075, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 543, 2015 WL 3759707 (Tex. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioners, referred to collectively as Atkins, move for rehearing of the Court’s dénial of their petition for review. We overrule the motion for rehearing with the following opinion.

The Texas Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”) hired CCE, Inc. as general contractor on a road construction project to be built according to plans and specifications furnished to TxDOT by Atkins North America, Inc. During the course of construction, silt escaped from the job site and accumulated on nearby private property. TxDOT directed CCE to remove the silt, and when CCE failed to comply, TxDOT declared CCE in default, ordered it to stop work, and informed CCE’s surety it was obliged to arrange- for completion of the project. CCE hired a third party to complete the road project, then sued Atkins for'the additional costs, alleging that Atkins’s, plans were faulty and led to the release of-silt.; GCE asserted claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of warranty.

Atkins moved for summary judgment, contending that the economic loss rule barred recovery of negligence damages, but not making the same argument with respect to CCE’s claim.for negligent misrepresentation. The trial -court granted summary judgment for Atkins. The court of appeals affirmed except for CCE’s negligent, misrepresentation' claim and remanded the case to the trial court. 461 S.W.3d 542.

While Atkins’s petition for review was pending in this Court, we held in LAN/ STV v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., 435 S.W.3d 234 (Tex.2014), that the economic loss rule barred a general contractor from recovering delay damages from a project architect with which it did not con[215]*215tract. Atkins argues that the court of appeals’ decision hr the present case is inconsistent with- LAN/STV. We think this argument is best addressed- -by the trial court on remand.

Accordingly, Atkins’s motion for. rehearing is overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Petitioners, referred to collectively as Atkins, move for rehearing of the Court’s dénial of their petition for review. We overrule the motion for rehearing with the following opinion.

The Texas Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”) hired CCE, Inc. as general contractor on a road construction project to be built according to plans and specifications furnished to TxDOT by Atkins North America, Inc. During the course of construction, silt escaped from the job site and accumulated on nearby private property. TxDOT directed CCE to remove the silt, and when CCE failed to comply, TxDOT declared CCE in default, ordered it to stop work, and informed CCE’s surety it was obliged to arrange- for completion of the project. CCE hired a third party to complete the road project, then sued Atkins for'the additional costs, alleging that Atkins’s, plans were faulty and led to the release of-silt.; GCE asserted claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of warranty.

Atkins moved for summary judgment, contending that the economic loss rule barred recovery of negligence damages, but not making the same argument with respect to CCE’s claim.for negligent misrepresentation. The trial -court granted summary judgment for Atkins. The court of appeals affirmed except for CCE’s negligent, misrepresentation' claim and remanded the case to the trial court. 461 S.W.3d 542.

While Atkins’s petition for review was pending in this Court, we held in LAN/ STV v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., 435 S.W.3d 234 (Tex.2014), that the economic loss rule barred a general contractor from recovering delay damages from a project architect with which it did not con[215]*215tract. Atkins argues that the court of appeals’ decision hr the present case is inconsistent with- LAN/STV. We think this argument is best addressed- -by the trial court on remand.

Accordingly, Atkins’s motion for. rehearing is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 S.W.3d 214, 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1075, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 543, 2015 WL 3759707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-north-america-v-cce-inc-tex-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack