Justices at oral argument split on whether TxDOT-specific immunity covers contractors on county tollway project

May it please the court — petitioners and respondents argued Tuesday over whether a provision in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code protects subcontractors who worked on a Montgomery County segment of State Highway 249. Petitioners said the statute was intended to protect contractors who construct or repair parts of the state highway system; respondents said the statute applies only to contractors who contract for TxDOT itself.

The dispute arose in a wrongful-death and negligence suit tied to traffic-signal work performed on frontage roads alongside the SH 249 toll project. Counsel for petitioners, Mr. Goles, asked the justices to apply what he described as “a very simple straightforward answer,” saying the statute “protect[s] those contractors who construct or repair part of the state highway system.” He pointed to the Transportation Code and, in particular, the duties listed in section 224.031 to argue that a contractor whose work is on the state highway system qualifies for the statute’s protection.

Why it matters: The parties framed the case as a statutory-interpretation dispute that could narrow or expand immunity for contractors on large multi-jurisdictional projects. If the court reads the statute to require privity (a direct contract with TxDOT), more plaintiffs may be able to sue subcontractors; if the court reads it more broadly, more contractors may defend claims by invoking the statutory protection.

Arguments and key evidence: Petitioners pointed to project documents and an e‑mail cited in the summary-judgment record in which a TxDOT official told an electrical subcontractor that the lights “were going to be controlled by TxDOT after the project was complete” and so the subcontractor’s work “needs their work to comply with TxDOT standards,” which petitioners said shows the work was performed “for TxDOT.” Petitioners also emphasized the physical scope of the signal work — large signal foundations and poles anchored beneath the roadway — and argued that traffic signals are “necessary” structures tied to the highway definition in the Transportation Code.

Respondents, represented by Ms. Gibson, countered that the Legislature chose the term “TxDOT” in the statute deliberately and that separate statutory language already exists for contractors who comply with general governmental specifications. Gibson argued the Montgomery County contract explicitly allocates design, construction and control of the frontage roads to the county, and that the contract even disclaims an agency or principal–agent relationship with TxDOT. "The statute does not use the language for the benefit of," Gibson told the court, arguing that for the immunity to apply petitioners must show they were contracting "for TxDOT." The respondent highlighted record testimony and contract provisions stating Montgomery County had responsibility for design and construction of frontage roads and the traffic-control plan.

Justices' concerns and limits: Several justices pressed petitioners on where to draw a limiting principle — whether things like landscaping, parking signage or bus stops could be swept into a highway construction definition — and whether compliance with TxDOT specifications should be the test for immunity. The court also explored whether the relevant contract for compliance purposes should be the contract between TxDOT and the county or the contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor, and whether a vertical privity/third‑party‑beneficiary analysis could bring a subcontractor within the statute if TxDOT contracted with the general contractor.

Procedural posture and record items: The argument addressed summary‑judgment evidence, including affidavits, deposition testimony and an email exhibit relied on by petitioners. Justices asked whether petitioners had presented “conclusive” summary‑judgment proof that their work complied with the contract documents and TxDOT specifications.

What the court must decide next: The justices must construe the statute's scope — whether liability protection attaches to contractors contracting directly for TxDOT or extends to contractors whose work, by contract or practice, was for the benefit of TxDOT because it involved part of the state highway system. The court did not announce a decision at argument.

Ending note: Counsel agreed the question implicates common construction issues for large, mixed-jurisdiction highway projects: how to parcel responsibility for design, construction and operation among state and local actors and which contract or specification controls for purposes of statutory defenses such as contractor immunity.