Teal Construction tells Aransas County it will not indefinitely extend builder’s‑risk insurance on courthouse

Michael Miller, representing Teal Construction, and Justin McComb, also with Teal, used the county’s citizen comment period to press Aransas County to accept the new courthouse and obtain owner’s property insurance, saying Teal cannot keep extending its builder’s‑risk policy.

Miller said Teal provided a builder’s‑risk policy during construction and, after substantially completing its contractual scope of work, the county “is required to take possession of the building and provide its own property insurance.” He said the county has “wrongfully refused to do that” and accused the county’s architectural team of delays that prevented certification of substantial completion.

Why it matters: If the county does not accept and insure the building, Teal said it will be exposed to risk and continue to incur extended general‑condition costs, including insurance. Teal urged mediation and put the county on notice that it may seek contract and statutory remedies for owner‑caused delay or nonpayment.

Key points from Teal’s remarks: - Teal said it provided contractually required builder’s‑risk coverage during construction and notified the county more than once that its policy was expiring; Teal asked the county to place owner’s property insurance on the courthouse. - Teal said portions of its original contract were unilaterally removed by the county months earlier, that it had substantially completed the remaining scope, and that delays were caused by the architect’s failure to timely inspect and certify punch items. - Teal said it extended its builder’s‑risk policy twice while the county and architect failed to accept the building and that the county had refused to reimburse or assume those insurance costs. - Teal requested mediation within 10 days and warned it has contractual and statutory rights, including rights under the contract (AIA A201 provisions cited by the speaker) and Texas law, and noted Texas Local Government Code 262.007 as relevant to recovery for owner‑caused delays.

What the court did: The statements were made during the public comment portion; no formal motion or directive from the Commissioners Court on this dispute was recorded in the meeting minutes. Court members did not take immediate action on the request during the session.

Context and next steps: Teal asked for mediation and gave the county 10 days to respond. Teal’s representatives said they believe insurer coverage will not, in practice, extend to the property once Teal has ceased physical work. The county’s next steps were not specified during the meeting; any formal response or action (acceptance of the building, placement of owner’s insurance, payment for extensions, or mediation) would be a separate administrative or legal step by the county.

Ending: The county did not act during the meeting; Teal’s public admonition and its request for mediation put the dispute on record and may prompt follow‑up from the county attorney’s office or by formal agenda items at a future court session.