Williamson County owned the River Ranch County Park project and hired Ritter Botkin as general contractor under a public work contract signed November 9, 2018, and Great American Insurance Company of New York issued a standard-form performance bond whose Section 3 makes the owner's declaring default and "terminat[ing]" the construction contract a condition precedent to the surety's obligations.¹ After a May 3, 2021 notice of default, the County on June 2, 2021 sent Ritter Botkin a "Notice of Termination" and the same day told Great American it had "declared [Ritter Botkin] in default" and "terminated the contract" and demanded performance under the bond.² Great American responded with a reservation of rights and investigated; the County says the surety held meetings on June 17, August 4 and October 27, 2021 and looked for a replacement contractor, and on December 23, 2021 elected to waive its completion options and offered the County $375,647 while asking it to release $600,000.³ The County hired a completion contractor in 2022, and the project was finished in July 2023.⁴

The County sued Ritter Botkin and Great American on August 17, 2022, 14 months after the termination notice, and Great American moved for summary judgment on limitations under section 2253.078(a).¹ The trial court denied the motion, found that the contract includes the bond and that limitations did not begin to run until at least December 23, 2021, and granted permission for a permissive interlocutory appeal on a controlling question of law.² The Third Court of Appeals (Austin), in a July 24, 2025 opinion, affirmed 2-1, holding that the contract included the bond and that terminating the contractor did not terminate the contract in its entirety, over Justice Theofanis's dissent, and denied rehearing and en banc reconsideration although three of six justices would have granted it.³ The Supreme Court granted review on September 4, 2026, and merits briefs have been ordered.

Petition for review from the Third Court of Appeals (Austin) in a permissive interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment; granted September 4, 2026. Oral argument: February 9, 2027.

• Great American:¹ (1) what constitutes "termination of the public work contract" under section 2253.078(a), and whether terminating the contractor's right to proceed terminates the contract; (2) whether the court of appeals erred by replacing the statute's event-based trigger with an inquiry driven by post-termination surety conduct; (3) whether the County terminated the contract on June 2, 2021, so that suit 14 months later is barred; and (4) if the contract was not terminated, whether the condition precedent in the bond means the surety's obligations never arose.
• The County:² whether termination of a bonded contractor's right to continued performance constitutes termination of the public work contract, triggering limitations, when the bond is part of that contract and the evidence shows the surety performed from June 2 to December 23, 2021.

The Court reviews a summary judgment de novo in light of all the summary-judgment evidence, crediting evidence favorable to the nonmovant.¹

What counts as "termination of the public work contract."

Great American (Petitioner): The statute, the contract and bond documents and long-standing surety law show the contract is terminated when the owner terminates the contractor's right to proceed, and the County's same-day letters saying it had "terminated the contract" confirm that reading.¹ The court of appeals' holding that the contract "survives" until the surety stops performing severs termination of the contractor from termination of the contract and turns a bright-line rule into a fact-intensive accrual inquiry.² In reply, Great American says the decision below gives the County a unilateral switch over when limitations begins and takes Texas out of step with other states' "Little Miller Act" statutes.³

Williamson County (Respondent): The bond is expressly part of the public work contract, which contemplates post-termination completion and so survives termination of the prime contractor, and the summary-judgment evidence shows Great American performed under the bond until December 23, 2021.⁴ A right to sue for breach does not arise until the breach, Great American did not breach the bond until December 23, 2021, and chapter 2253 does not clearly displace the common-law rule.⁵

Whether the condition precedent defeats the County's claim, and whether review is proper.

Great American (Petitioner): The bond makes termination of the contract a condition precedent to the surety's obligations, so if the contract was never terminated the County has no claim at all, a paradox that only this Court can resolve.⁶

Williamson County (Respondent): The permissive appeal is limited to the trial court's controlling question of law and the facts of this case, and Great American's petition improperly treats it as a certified question and asks the Court to reach every ground in its summary-judgment motion.⁷

Great American argued that the court of appeals replaced the Legislature's bright-line limitations trigger with an open-ended accrual inquiry, that its rule distorts performance-bond litigation and creates a nonjusticiable paradox, and that it will have serious negative consequences for the public construction industry in Texas.¹ It also noted that the trial court granted permission to appeal so this Court could "give counties and cities guidance," and that the County did not dispute that the issue is important and recurring.²

An industry amicus brief was filed in support of the petition,¹ and the docket shows an amicus curiae brief received February 20, 2026; it is not summarized here.