Posts By: Chris Wielinski

Dallas attorneys Travis Brown and Sam Crecelius authored an article for the December edition of Construction News examining how Texas courts are clarifying the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act’s impact on an additional insurer’s duty to defend. Recent cases show a consistent approach emerging: courts first determine whether indemnity and insurance provisions comply with the TAIA, and when they do, insurers cannot avoid their duty to defend simply because the allegations may implicate the additional insured’s own negligence. Travis and Sam conclude by encouraging contractors to review their indemnity and insurance provisions, as well as their additional insured endorsements, to ensure TAIA compliance.

The Texas Legislature passed Subchapter C of Chapter 151 of the Texas Insurance Code, the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act (the “TAIA”), effective January 1, 2012, which applies exclusively to “construction contracts,” as that term is defined in the statute. Broadly speaking, Section 151.102 of the TAIA voids indemnity provisions to the extent they require an indemnitor to defend or indemnify an indemnitee for the indemnitee’s own negligence or fault. Unlike previous anti-indemnity statutes, such as the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act, the TAIA also expressly prohibits additional insured coverage, “the scope of which is prohibited under [Section 151.102].”

Before the TAIA, a carrier’s duty to defend a party seeking additional insured coverage was determined by two questions: (1) is the party an additional insured under the policy based on the additional insured requirements in the construction contract and the provisions in the insurance policy addressing additional insured status; and (2) if so, is there even a single allegation in the pleading that potentially states a claim covered under the policy? If the answer to both questions was ‘yes,’ the CGL carrier owed the additional insured a defense against the entire lawsuit.

However, following the passage of the TAIA, with its prohibition on “additional insured” coverage for the additional insured/indemnitee’s own fault, many insurers argued that rather than having to defend the entire lawsuit if there was a single covered allegation, they were now entirely relieved of their duty to defend (even covered allegations) if there was a single allegation for which providing a defense or indemnity would violate the TAIA.

Until recently, there was little guiding case law to resolve this recurring dispute. However, a recent series of Texas federal district court cases has clarified the issue.  A uniform approach emerges from these cases, in which courts first evaluate whether the contractual-indemnity and additional insured provisions comply with the TAIA. If they do, courts readily find a duty to defend the entire suit, irrespective of any allegations of the additional insured’s own fault for which, standing alone, a defense would be prohibited under the TAIA.

The first of these cases, BNSF Railway Co. v. Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc. (N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2022), was not an additional insurance case. But the Court expressly rejected the indemnitor’s more moderate argument that, because of the TAIA, rather than a defense to the entire lawsuit, the indemnitor could only owe a defense to those claims involving the indemnitor’s own negligence. The court disagreed, noting that if the underlying complaint “includes even one covered claim, the insurer must defend the entire suit.”

In Knife River Corp. – S. v. Zurich American Insurance Co. (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2022), decided a few weeks later, the court did not specifically address the issue of whether the duty to defend applied to the “entire lawsuit,” but the court did establish the proper order of the analysis, evaluating the issue of compliance with the TAIA before turning to an “eight corners” analysis of the allegations in the pleadings.

In Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Knife River Corp. S. (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2023 & Sept. 11, 2023), the court adopted this same order of the analysis. Id. (citing Knife River and following that court’s approach of “assessing whether insurance policy violated TAIA prior to conducting the duty to defend analysis.”). That case tied the concepts from BNSF and Knife River together, first evaluating whether the contract provisions complied with the TAIA and, finding that they did, holding that there was a duty to defend the entire lawsuit in the face of mixed allegations of both the indemnitor’s and indemnitee’s negligence.

At first glance, the most recent case, Allied World Assurance Co. (U.S.) Inc. v. Acadia Insurance Co. (E.D. Tex. Sept 9, 2024) would seem to contradict the cases above and revive the argument that a single allegation of the indemnitee’s negligence excuses the additional insurer from its defense obligation. The court appeared to reference an insurer’s duty to defend “the entire suit” as a basis for holding that there could be no duty to defend when there were allegations of the additional insured’s fault. But in fact, the court analyzed in the same order as the cases above, first finding the additional insured provision invalid because it provided coverage for bodily injury “caused, in whole or in part, by” the indemnitor’s negligence—meaning it expressly provided coverage for bodily injury that was also caused in part by the indemnitee’s negligence, violating the TAIA.

Considering these recent opinions, general contractors building in Texas should evaluate the indemnity and insurance provisions of their subcontracts to ensure compliance with the TAIA. They might also consider adding language to those insurance provisions requiring additional insured endorsements, which the Insurance Services Office has recently explicitly promulgated to comply with various state anti-indemnity acts, such as the TAIA.

About the Authors

Travis Brown leads the firm’s Insurance Coverage and Risk Management practice group and serves as Managing Principal of the Dallas office. With more than a decade of experience, he helps clients ensure carriers meet their obligations. Travis represents contractors, owners, subcontractors, and energy-sector clients in complex coverage disputes and has secured significant multi-million-dollar recoveries across a wide range of claims. If you have any questions regarding the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act or a related legal inquiry, Travis can be contacted via email at TBrown@CokinosLaw.com.

Sam Crecelius is a key member of Cokinos | Young’s Dallas office whose practice includes coverage, construction defect, commercial, and premises liability litigation. A decorated U.S. Army combat veteran, Sam brings discipline, perseverance, and real-world experience to every stage of litigation, from mediation to trial and appeal, and works diligently to achieve favorable outcomes for his clients. If you have any questions regarding the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act or a related legal inquiry, Sam can be contacted via email at SCrecelius@CokinosLaw.com.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Austin Principal, Shelly Masters, wrote an article for the November edition of Construction News magazine. In this article, Shelly covers how tariff volatility creates sudden cost and schedule shocks for construction, and explains why the best defense is prompt notice, disciplined risk allocation, and contracts with clear escalation, tariff, delay, and dispute-resolution clauses backed by practical bidding and documentation habits.

Tariffs have flipped on, off, and sideways; construction leaders feel it first. Steel, aluminum, specialty components, delivery calendars, and even bid validity dates all move with the headlines. It is not a replay of the pandemic, but it rhymes: sudden shocks, thin margins, and contracts that often say little about price spikes. The solution is not guesswork. Disciplined notice, clear risk allocation, and day-to-day habits match what your contract says.

Start with notice and triage. Most private contracts require written notice of cost or schedule impacts within days. Miss that window, and you can waive relief. On live jobs, issue prompt written notices reserving rights, even if you do not yet know the full impact, then audit the agreement: does it allow schedule extensions, price adjustments, or both? Force majeure typically buys time, not money, so plan on additional tools if you need dollars as well as days.

Five contract levers do the heavy lifting:

1. Change in Law or After Imposed Tax. If tariffs are enacted after execution, some contracts treat them as a change order event. That can unlock time and price relief, provided you meet strict notice and proof requirements. Confirm whether your form includes this clause and how it defines “law,” “duty,” or “tax.”
2. Material Price Escalation. Post 2020, many owners accept calibrated escalation language tied to objective triggers; for example, a 5 to 10 percent move in a published index or documented vendor quotes. This reduces the need to pad bids just in case, keeps both sides whole during swings, and limits disputes when the trigger is clear and the adjustment math is pre-agreed.
3. Tariff Specific Riders. A narrower option: if particular imported components are hit with new duties, pricing adjusts by a formula, often the actual duty percentage applied to the affected material cost. Contracts can add thresholds to ignore minor blips and optional caps or cost sharing so owners see a bounded exposure.
4. Delay Language. Tariffs create time loss, shipment holds, repricing pauses, and sourcing changes. Standard “no damage for delay” clauses convert those impacts into time only. Seek a carve-out making tariff-driven delays compensable, or pair force majeure with an express cost mechanism for extended general conditions, demobilization/remobilization, or re-procurement.
5. Swift and practical dispute resolution. Build a realistic, cost-effective path that delivers decisions while the project continues. Use a tiered ladder that starts with prompt project-level negotiation on a short fuse, then executive escalation, then a standing neutral or dispute review board empowered to issue interim binding decisions within a defined period, such as 14 to 30 days. Provide for emergency or expedited arbitration for stop-the-job issues with tight timelines, limited discovery, remote hearings, and time-limited awards, and include a continuation of work clause so the field does not grind to a halt. Allow court carve-outs only for liens and truly urgent injunctions. For smaller disputes, consider document-only decisions with page limits and reasonable fee shifting against clearly unreasonable positions.

If your contract is silent, relief is still possible. Many parties now pre-agree that if tariffs change before purchase, a change order will equitably adjust the price based on documented vendor quotes. When owners resist open-ended exposure, propose guardrails: caps, share the first percent thresholds, or allowances for specific materials. Clear, bounded mechanisms beat inflated bids and mid-project standoffs.

Align operations with the paper: shorten bid validity, lock supplier quotes through acceptance with contemporaneous backup, and match quote windows to your bid validity. Explore approved substitutes or domestic sourcing that meet the spec to avoid tariffed items, engage the design team and owner early to pre-approve alternates. Memorialize any substitutions by change order to prevent scope ambiguity.

Pick delivery methods that share risk. Cost plus with a Guaranteed Maximum Price, paired with contingency and allowances for volatile items, rides price swings better than a bare lump sum. Unit pricing for materials can also help. If you must sign a fixed price, bake in escalation or tariff riders, targeted allowances, and realistic lead time assumptions so the schedule is not a hostage to procurement.

Owners and lenders rarely sign what they do not understand. Bring project math, not just principles. Show how a 25 percent duty on steel would move the GMP or consume contingency. Offer calibrated options: an index-based escalation clause, a tariff rider with a cap, or a split threshold cost share. When stakeholders see a bounded, data-tied solution, they are more likely to adopt it and less likely to demand worst-case pricing.

Finally, treat tariff announcements like any other claim event. Issue a written notice to every required party within the contract window. Track the but-for delta: retain pre and post tariff quotes, index printouts, supplier letters on lead times, and schedule fragnets tying material unavailability or repricing to specific activities. Follow claim procedures exactly.

Tariff policy will move, and uncertainty is the constant. Leaders who pair vigilant notice with smart clauses and disciplined bidding keep projects on track without turning every headline into a crisis. Expect the unexpected, and write contracts as dynamic as the markets you build in. Make it standard practice to review and update your templates and project-specific terms on a regular cadence, with a strong focus on reducing risks unique to your business, your supply chain, and your delivery model. Remember that change orders are contracts, and they should clearly document the compromise, scope, time, price, and conditions that the parties have agreed to.

About the Author

Shelly Masters is a Principal in the Austin office of Cokinos Young, a firm with over 30 years of experience representing the construction industry. A Texas-based trial lawyer, she litigates high-stakes construction, commercial, and product liability disputes, including complex delay, defect, and breach claims. She advises clients nationwide and trains teams on liens, bonds, and contracts. For inquiries regarding tariffs or related challenges, Shelly can be reached at (512) 615-1139 or smasters@cokinoslaw.com.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Pat Wielinski has published an article in the October edition of Construction News magazine. In this article, Pat covers how modifications to commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies, including Controlled Insurance Programs (CIPs), especially the deletion of limited property damage exclusions and replacement with broad course-of-construction exclusions, can create significant coverage gaps. He also examines recent case law and offers strategies to help mitigate these risks through careful policy and contract review.

Controlled Insurance Programs (“CIPs,” “wrap-ups” or simply “wraps”) are promoted as particularly well-suited for large construction projects where all eligible participants are insured under a single program. Theoretically, a wrap eliminates multiple carriers and duplicated coverages. For successful wrap treatment, the project must be of sufficient dollar value to be eligible, the sponsor must be capable of administering the wrap, and coverages must be adequate to apply to claims for the wrap to be effective. However, depending on the entity sponsoring the owner-controlled insurance program (“OCIP”) or a contractor in a contractor-controlled insurance program (“CCIP”), it is the insurer that effectively maintains ultimate control of the claims. But the potential for gaps in coverage has emerged as a disadvantage where property damage occurs during construction operations.

While most wrap-up CGL policies utilize similar exclusions to those found in standard CGL forms, they are endorsed to add provisions to adapt the policy to the wrap-up platform, such as by extending the completed operations coverage to the length of the statute of repose, including all tiers on the project as named insureds, limiting the insured location to a specific project or projects, and revising certain exclusions in the policy. Often, standard property damage exclusions may also be deleted altogether, but are usually then replaced with another or others.

One of the most troublesome CIP modifications to the customary CGL property damage exclusions is an endorsement that deletes Exclusions j(5) and j(6), the operations and incorrect work exclusions. Those standard exclusions apply to operations in progress, stating that the insurance does not apply to property damage to “that particular part” of real property on which the named insured or its subcontractors are performing operations, if the property damage arises out of those operations, or if the property must be restored, repaired, or replaced because the named insured’s work was incorrectly performed on it. The “that particular part” formulation is intended to preserve coverage for other property damaged by the excluded particular part.

One might be tempted to believe that the deletion of the standard j(5) and(6) exclusions is a win for the insured participants and that coverage would be increased by the deletion of exclusions. Not so fast! While these two provisions are framed as exclusions, many courts have relied on the “that particular part” formulation to narrowly interpret the exclusion scope and uphold coverage.

Unfortunately, the deletion of these property damage exclusions from the CGL form is usually accompanied by attachment of a considerably more onerous and absolute endorsement to the CIP CGL policy, stating that the insurance does not apply to property damage at or to the insured project during the course of construction or operations (i.e., before the substantial completion of the project). Gone is the “that particular part” limitation, and the modification is often made through a stand-alone endorsement that may be labeled in various ways, such as “Property Damage to Work in Progress,” “Course of Construction Endorsement,” “Property Damage to Contract Works,” or “Exclusion  Damage to the Project During the Course of Construction.”

Insurance underwriters often refer to this type of provision as the “builder’s risk exclusion,” apparently on the assumption that builder’s risk insurance, rather than liability insurance, should provide coverage for property damage to the work that occurs during the course of construction. This overly simplistic approach ignores the fact that builder’s risk policies contain many gaps in coverage versus a standard CGL policy, particularly as to defective construction. The exclusion can thus create a significant gap for participants in a wrap-up project for property damage occurring during the course of operations, depending on their ability to coordinate and rely upon coverage within their own insurance policies. First and foremost, a builder’s risk policy is a first-party property policy that does not include a defense obligation for the insurer. Therefore, when the insured looks to the wrap-up CGL policy for defense of a claim involving property damage during construction, it may be excluded, and no defense is available under the CIP. In addition, builder’s risk coverage may not provide coverage for certain types of risks, such as consequential damages, certain soft costs, and faulty workmanship/design (absent an ensuing loss clause that preserves coverage for damage to other non-defective work caused by the defective work). Coverage for such damages may otherwise be covered under a CGL policy, but for a course of construction exclusion attached to a wrap-up.

The course of construction exclusion and its deletion of the broader j.(5) and j.(6) exclusions was touched on by the court in the recent case of Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Kaufman Lynn Construction, Inc., 130 F.4th 903 (11th Cir. 2025).  Though decided under Florida law, the opinion is one of the first to do so and is of potential country-wide impact. The AGC and NAHB filed an amici curiae brief in that case in support of the insured contractor, calling the court’s attention to the incongruity of denying course of operations coverage under a wrap-up program. Their efforts caught the court’s attention in what it hinted to be an unfair “sleight of hand” by attaching a more onerous course of conduct endorsement to a wrap-up policy intended to provide coverage for everyone on the project. Unfortunately, the court decided not to address that issue because the builder’s risk policy was not included in the court record. The result in the Liberty Surplus v. Kaufman case seems somewhat less than ringing, but the court’s observations moved the needle slightly away from the inclusion of course of construction exclusions in wrap-up policies.

Negotiation to remove or limit course of conduct exclusions in CIP CGL policies​ is not usually a viable option, as underwriters are hesitant to do so. Of course, all terms of an insurance policy, particularly manuscripted provisions, should be carefully reviewed at issuance because departures from standard policy language can create more opportunity for possible denial by insurers in the claims stage. Nevertheless, the following might mitigate the negative effects of an absolute course of conduct exclusion (or prevent other gaps):

• During underwriting, submit a specification of the insured project that closely tracks the contract, particularly for completion.
• Link or incorporate the definition of “complete” or “completion” in the course of construction exclusion with the standard definition of the “products-completed operations hazard” in the CGL policy that deems completion to occur when the owner occupies a portion of the project.
• Negotiate a provision in the contract specifying that standard unendorsed CGL coverage must be included in the wrap-up and that failure to provide those coverages allows the contractor to purchase it at the owner’s expense or reimbursement by the owner for a denied claim, similar to AIA Document A201, Section 11.2.2, as to builder’s risk coverage.
• Amend the participant’s practice CGL policies to include difference in conditions (DIC) coverage to fill in the gaps in a wrap-up program.

About the Author

Pat Wielinski is a principal in the Dallas/Fort Worth office of Cokinos | Young, having founded the firm’s insurance coverage and risk management group. With over 40 years of experience, he advises clients on insurance coverage, contractual risk transfer, and complex construction-related claims, while serving as a leading voice in the industry through his publications, national presentations, and amicus work on behalf of major construction trade organizations such as the Associated General Contractors of America. For inquiries regarding Controlled Insurance Programs or related coverage challenges, Pat can be reached at (817) 635-3620 or pwielinski@cokinoslaw.com.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

The 89^th legislative session of the Texas Legislature ran from January 14, 2025, to June 2, 2025. During that time, approximately 6,500 bills were filed, with over 300 ultimately passed into law. While these bills dealt with a variety of topics, construction-related issues, including the always vital “lien” and “trust fund” laws, were no exception. Key bills pertaining to the construction industry are detailed below, along with the current legislative status of the bill.

Senate Bill, “SB” 929, implemented a practical change to the Texas mechanic’s lien statute.

As many readers of this article will know, Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code imposes strict deadlines for sending lien notices and recording lien affidavits. Prior to this session, if a statutory lien notice or filing deadline (under Chapter 53) fell on a weekend or holiday, ambiguity existed regarding whether that deadline was extended to the next business day. Thus, a diligent lien claimant needed to act before the weekend to avoid potentially losing its perfected lien rights. SB 929 addresses this issue. Any such deadline automatically extends to the first business day following the weekend or holiday. This clarification benefits general contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers alike, because it gives the mechanic’s lien statute uniformity with traditional calculations of deadlines under Texas law. The bill passed and was signed into law by Governor Abbott on May 21, 2025 (effective immediately).

SB 841 amended the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act to allow a “qualified assignee” to also be a beneficiary of the construction trust.

Before this legislative session, under the Texas Construction Trust Fund Act, a beneficiary was defined as an artisan, laborer, contractor, subcontractor, or materialman who labors or furnishes labor or material for the construction or repair of an improvement on specific real property.  In some cases, general contractors were not allowed to pursue subcontractors who had accepted payment but failed to pay their own subcontractors or suppliers, as only unpaid parties had a legal remedy. SB 841 sought to make this remedy available to any assignee of the party who did not receive payment by classifying an assignee as a beneficiary of the trust funds paid or received. Under the bill, an assignment of interest in unpaid trust funds is only enforceable if made in writing, not earlier than the date the assignee has paid the beneficiary in good and sufficient funds for the assignment, and is not made part of the beneficiary’s construction contract. Further, the assignee must be a beneficiary, trustee, or property owner on the contract, and written notice of the assignment must be provided to the property owner and contractor no later than the seventh day after the assignment is made. The bill seeks to restore the ability of contractors and suppliers to recover unpaid funds by providing for a qualified assignee of a trust fund claim. The bill passed and became effective September 1, 2025.

House Bill, “HB” 2960, voids venue selection clauses calling for out of state venue in disputes arising from construction projects in Texas. 

Introduced in response to In re MVP Terminalling, LLC, a 2024 case out of the 14^th Court of Appeals which held that because out of state venue provisions were “voidable” under existing law, prohibitions on such clauses could be waived by the parties, HB 2960 amended the Texas Business and Commerce Code to make such provisions void (as opposed to voidable). This adds the necessary clarity to the Texas law prohibiting out-of-state venue selection clauses for Texas contractors. Accordingly, once an out-of-state venue selection clause is determined void under the statute, an action must be brought in the county in Texas where the property subject to the litigation is located, absent an agreement between the parties after the dispute arises. HB 2960 went into effect on September 1, 2025.

SB 783 was introduced in an effort to update regulations for the construction and alteration of residential and commercial buildings.

Specifically, the bill amends Chapter 3000 of the Texas Government Code, which limits governmental actions affecting residential and commercial construction by adding additional exceptions to prohibitions on local ordinances imposing building standards. The additional exemptions include an energy code adopted by the State Energy Conservation Office (SECO) or the Health and Safety Code, an energy and water conservation design standard established by the SECO, and a high-performance building standard approved by the Board of Regents under the Education Code. The bill further clarifies that a new version of the IRC may not be amended or adopted more than once every six years, and requires SECO to first conduct an analysis calculating the impact on housing attainability and the incremental construction cost, including the payback period for any requirements that are more stringent than are in effect immediately before the change takes effect. The bill was introduced with the intention of allowing the SECO to adopt the 2021 IECC and the energy chapter of the 2021 IRC. The bill passed and became effective as of September 1, 2025.

SB 840 amended Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code to loosen zoning restrictions for the development of multi-family and mixed-use housing in commercial / office zones in certain cities.

The bill also restricts fees on new multi-family developments, allows the conversion of commercial spaces into residential use, and preempts certain municipal zoning regulations related to density, parking, height, and setbacks. This legislation benefits developers desiring to convert existing commercial buildings and those constructing new multifamily projects without zoning district limitations. This bill impacts approximately 20 cities across Texas, applying only to those with populations over 150,000 in counties with populations of 300,000. The bill was passed and went into effect on September 1, 2025.

SB 785 seeks to address a growing demand for affordable housing by removing regulatory barriers to the installation of HUD-code manufactured homes.

The bill limits a municipality’s ability to impose additional regulations on manufactured homes that are HUD-compliant. While passed, SB 785 does not take effect until September 1, 2026.

Like several bills this session, HB 1922 was introduced to clarify ambiguity in existing law relating to the accrual of claims under Texas’ “Right to Repair Statute” for government contractors.

The bill specifies that a cause of action accrues on the date the pre-claim report identifying the alleged defects is postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service. The date of the accrual of a cause of action for all other purposes is unaffected by the bill, including the date of an occurrence under applicable insurance policies, and whether the action is barred by limitations or repose. The bill is designed to protect contractors from disputes over technical filing dates. The bill passed and became effective September 1, 2025.

SB 687 extends existing protections for architects and engineers to registered professional land surveyors, as defined by the Occupations Code.

Construction contracts with land surveyors, like contracts with architects and engineers, can no longer contain certain duty-to-defend provisions. Further, the contractual duty of care is defined as services performed with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by competent land surveyors practicing under the same or similar circumstances and professional licenses. Thus, this bill extends existing protections to an additional class of professionals. SB 687 became effective September 1, 2025.

HB 3005 clarifies that a bona fide dispute for a public work construction contract does not include an audit that continues for more than 60 days after the date of substantial completion.

This bill seeks to prevent delays in agreed-upon payments and the release of retainage already earned by contractors in projects subject to audits (to bring public projects in line with the goals of the Texas Prompt Payment Act). This benefits contractors and will likely facilitate the prompt payment of monies owed. This bill passed and applies to contracts entered into after September 1, 2025.

HB 3228 strengthens protections for landowners by requiring wind and solar facility agreements to require the provider to recycle and dispose of all components should the project be decommissioned.

This bill passed and became effective September 1, 2025.

HB 14 creates the Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office to oversee nuclear energy initiatives, funding programs, and provide regulatory assistance.

This bill was introduced in response to ERCOT’s projection that energy demand could reach 150 gigawatts by 2030. In addition to requiring additional studies, it establishes a reimbursement grant of up to $12.5 million, or half of the total project amount, for qualifying projects. The bill’s emphasis on promoting nuclear energy in Texas could pave the way for new construction projects and create opportunities for securing government funding. HB 14 passed and went into effect on September 1, 2025.

SB 1555 establishes a program to make more funds available for construction in Texas.

This program is designed to administer and fund the construction of railroad and rail-pedestrian grade separation projects at the intersection and crossings of railroads that are not part of the state highway system. All grants awarded under this program must be approved by the Texas Transportation Commission and require at least 10 percent of the total project cost to be provided by a source other than the state. This bill passed and took immediate effect on May 24, 2025.

As you can see, 2025 was an active session for construction-related bills, and 2026 promises to be no different! Keep a close eye on legislative activity and updates from the Cokinos | Young team to ensure you are informed of the latest developments.

About the Authors

James Richards is one of a small group of attorneys in the State of Texas to be Board Certified in Construction Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. James serves as a trusted advocate and advisor for his clients and maintains a practice focused on construction, business, real estate, and related legal matters. If you have questions about the new legislative changes, or a related legal inquiry, James can be contacted via email at JRichards@CokinosLaw.com.

Allison Miller a trial attorney with extensive experience in construction, business, personal injury, and related disputes across Texas. Allison takes a practical, results-oriented approach to litigation, exploring creative settlements, mediation, arbitration, and trial strategies to achieve the best outcomes for her clients. If you have any questions about the new legislative updates, or a related legal inquiry, Allison can be contacted via email at AMiller@CokinosLaw.com.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.