# Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Williamson County Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-1045 **Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Williamson County, No. 25-1045, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Under Government Code section 2253.078(a), does a public work contract terminate, and the one-year limitations period on a performance-bond claim begin, when the owner terminates the contractor's right to proceed and demands performance from the surety?** Practice areas: construction law, insurance, civil procedure, breach of contract ## Key issues - Under Government Code section 2253.078(a), does a public work contract terminate, and the one-year limitations period on a performance-bond claim begin, when the owner terminates the contractor's right to proceed and demands performance from the surety? - Or does the contract, which the court of appeals held includes the bond, survive until the surety's own conduct under the bond ends, so that a suit filed 14 months after the county's termination notice is timely? ## Factual History 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 (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 16-19). 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 (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 20-22). 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 (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 17). The County hired a completion contractor in 2022, and the project was finished in July 2023 (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 18). ## Procedural History 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) (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 23-24). 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 (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 25). 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 (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 26-27). The Supreme Court granted review on September 4, 2026, and merits briefs have been ordered. ## Issues Presented - Great American (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 15): (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 (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 13): 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. ## Standard(s) of Review The Court reviews a summary judgment de novo in light of all the summary-judgment evidence, crediting evidence favorable to the nonmovant (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 21). ## Legal Arguments **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 (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 27-28, 32-36). 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 (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 27-28). 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 (Reply to Response (Petitioner), PDF pp. 8-9, 16-19). **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 (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 19-20). 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 (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 20). **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 (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 27; Reply to Response (Petitioner), PDF p. 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 (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF pp. 13, 20). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case 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 (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 27, 45). 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 (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 24-25; Reply to Response (Petitioner), PDF p. 7). ## Practice Area Tags construction-law, insurance, civil-procedure, breach-of-contract ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle 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. ## Amicus Involvement An industry amicus brief was filed in support of the petition (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 18; Reply to Response (Petitioner), PDF p. 7), and the docket shows an amicus curiae brief received February 20, 2026; it is not summarized here. --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-1045. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.