quantum meruit claim in Texas

2019See Pepi Corp. v. Galliford, 254 S.W.3d 457, 460 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (concluding that “language used in the pleading indicates [subcontractor]’s claim against [owner] is a quantum meruit claim founded on unjust enrichment, rather than an independent cause of action for unjust enrichment”). 10 remedy “because it ‘might appear expedient or generally fair that some recompense be afforded for an unfortunate loss’ to the claimant” (quoting Heldenfels Bros., 832 S.W.2d at 42 )).

2017Cf. Hoover Slovacek, 206 S.W.3d at 561 (allowing discharged attorney to seek compensation in quantum meruit or in a suit to enforce the contract from former client); Dow Chem., 57 S.W.2d at 567-68 (explaining that a “lawyer’s rights, based on the contingent fee contract, are wholly derivative from those of his client[]” and that an attorney working on a contingent fee “elects to litigate his interest simultaneously with his client’s interest [and] in his client’s name[]”); see also generally Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. 1992) (To recover under the d

2025“A party generally cannot recover under a quantum-meruit claim when there is a valid contract covering the services or materials furnished.” Id. at 733 (citing In re Kellogg 11 Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 740 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding)).

2019Land Bank Ass’n v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1991) (noting the elements for proving a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation); Vortt Exploration Co., Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex. 1990) (explaining the elements of a quantum-meruit claim founded on unjust enrichment); Beck v. Law Offices of Edwin J.

2026Servs., Inc., 59 S.W.3d 764, 770 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, no pet.) (“When a court holds a contract void, not merely voidable, a party may seek recovery for amounts paid under the common law theory of quantum valebant for money had and received.” (citation omitted)); see also Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP, 544 S.W.3d 724, 732-33 (Tex. 2018) (discussing circumstances under which a party may recover under common law doctrine of quantum meruit).

2026Where there exists a valid express contract covering the 7 The instruction submitted to the jury on the quantum meruit claim substantially tracked this language. 6 subject matter, there can be no implied contract.”). 8 “However, the existence of an express contract does not preclude recovery in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of work performed and accepted which is not covered by an express contract.” Hill, 544 S.W.3d at 737 (emphasis added).

2023Tex. 2010). 93 See Bashara, 685 S.W.2d at 310 . 23 called a benefit.” 94 We hold that the Doctors cannot satisfy the second element of a quantum meruit claim as a matter of law. 95 B The remaining claim is for unfair settlement practices under Chapter 541 of the Insurance Code.

1998In Bashara v. Baptist Memorial Hospital System, 685 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex.1985), the court explicated the elements of a quantum meruit claim: 1) valuable services rendered or materials furnished; 2) for the person to be charged; 3) which services and materials were accepted by the person sought to be charged, used and enjoyed by him; 4) under such circumstances as reasonably notified the person sought to be charged that the plaintiff in performing such services was expecting to be paid by the person sought to be charged.

2025Id. at 732–33 (citing Vortt, 787 S.W.2d at 944 ).

2010Truly, 744 S.W.2d at 936 . *859 The measure of damages for a quantum meruit claim is the reasonable value of the work performed.

2025“A party generally cannot recover under a quantum-meruit claim when there is a valid contract covering the services or materials furnished.” Id. at 733 (citing In re Kellogg 11 Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 740 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding)).

2023In addition, it is well settled that “[a] party generally cannot recover under a quantum meruit claim when there is a valid contract covering the services or materials furnished.” Id. at 733 .

2018Lamajak, Inc. v. Frazin, 230 S.W.3d 786, 796 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).

2016Lamajak, Inc. v. Frazin, 230 S.W.3d 786, 796 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.).

2022Id. at 578 (emphasis added); see also D & R Constructors, Inc. v. Tex. Gulf Energy, Inc., No. 01-15-00604-CV, 2016 WL 4536959 , at *14 (Tex. App—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding that services performed in expectation of future benefit cannot form the basis of a quantum meruit claim); Harris Fiberglass Materials, Inc., v. Vought Aircraft Indus., Inc., No. 2-06-437-CV, 2007 WL 3317655 , at *4 (Tex. App—Fort Worth Nov. 8, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that services performed in anticipation of future business opportunity cannot form the basis of a quantum m

2013In Richter, an entrepreneur and his company brought a quantum meruit claim for information they had provided to the defendant oil 12 courts held that “an expectation of a future business advantage or opportunity cannot form the basis of a quantum meruit claim.” Richter, 90 S.W.3d at 895 ; Evans, 800 S.W.2d at 576 .

2023LTS Grp., Inc. v. Woodcrest Capital, L.L.C., 222 S.W.3d 918, 920-21 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).

2022See id.

2013See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 819–20; Johnston, 261 S.W.3d at 902 (“The measure of damages for a quantum meruit claim is the reasonable value of the work performed. . . .

2012See Johnston v. Kruse, 261 S.W.3d 895, 902 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (“The measure of damages for a quantum meruit claim is the reasonable value of the work performed. . . .

2025“Construction contracts are an exception to this rule.” Murray v. Crest Const., Inc., 900 S.W.2d 342, 345 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that a subcontractor could recover under quantum meruit even though there was an express contract between the parties covering the work to be performed).

2011Dobbins v. Redden, 785 S.W.2d 377, 378 (Tex.1990); see also Murray v. Crest Constr., Inc., 900 S.W.2d 342, 345 (Tex.1995) (holding that because contractor had not substantially performed, it could not recover under contract but could bring cause of action in quantum meruit).

2022See TEX.CIV.PRAC.& REM.CODE ANN. § 38.001(1), (2), (3), (8) (providing for an award of attorney’s fees on claims for services and labor rendered and furnished material, and for oral or written contract); Cox’s Fiesta Supermarkets of San Antonio, Inc. v. WMS, L.L.C., No. 04-17-00699-CV, 2018 WL 2694780 , at *3 (Tex.App.--San Antonio June 6, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (a party who prevails on a quantum meruit claim may recover attorney’s fees); Gentry v. Squires Constr., Inc., 188 S.W.3d 396, 406 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2006, no pet.) (same).

2016Shamoun & Norman, 483 S.W.3d at 790 ; Gentry v. Squires Constr., Inc., 188 S.W.3d 396, 406 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.).

2014See Speck v. First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hous., 235 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) RML contends that “[Bossier Dodge] failed to provide sufficient evidence of elements 3 or 4 with respect to its quantum meruit claim.” However, there is `18 summary judgment evidence that, for a period of time, RML had two technicians working out of Bossier Dodge’s facilities.

2014See Speck v. First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hous., 235 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) RML contends that “[Bossier Dodge] failed to provide sufficient evidence of elements 3 or 4 with respect to its quantum meruit claim.” However, there is summary judgment evidence that, for a period of time, RML had two technicians working out of Bossier Dodge’s facilities.

2023See Fulgham, 349 S.W.3d at 159 .

2017See Bashara, 685 S.W.2d at 310 ; Fulgham, 349 S.W.3d at 159 .

2016See Richter v. Wagner Oil Co., 90 S.W.3d 890, 895 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (“An expectation of a future business advantage or opportunity cannot form the basis of a quantum meruit claim.”).

2013In Richter, an entrepreneur and his company brought a quantum meruit claim for information they had provided to the defendant oil 12 courts held that “an expectation of a future business advantage or opportunity cannot form the basis of a quantum meruit claim.” Richter, 90 S.W.3d at 895 ; Evans, 800 S.W.2d at 576 .

2024See 506 F. Supp. 3d at 431–32. 15 Meanwhile, in state court, the Dallas Court of Appeals also addressed this question.

2024See 506 F. Supp. 3d at 431–32. 15 Meanwhile, in state court, the Dallas Court of Appeals also addressed this question.

2021See Lufkin Indus., 573 S.W.3d at 236 .

2020See Lufkin Indus., 573 S.W.3d at 236 .

2021See Encompass Office Sols., 775 F. Supp. 2d at 966 & n.11.

2019See Encompass Office Solutions, 775 F. Supp. 2d at 966 & n.11.

2015See Weitzul Constr., Inc. v. Outdoor Environs, 849 S.W.2d 359, 366 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, writ denied).

2002See Weitzul Constr., Inc. v. Outdoor Environs, 849 S.W.2d 359, 366 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, writ denied).

2015See Green Int'l, Inc. v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384, 390 (Tex. 1997).

2009See Green Int’l, Inc. v. Solis , 951 S.W.2d 384, 390 (Tex. 1997).

2015See Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. 1992); Davidson v. Clearman, 391 S.W.2d 48, 49 (Tex. 1965).

1989Davidson v. Clearman, 391 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tex.1965); Woodard v. Southwest States, Inc., 384 S.W.2d 674, 675 (Tex.1964).

2014Evans v. First Nat’l Bank of Bellville, 946 S.W.2d 367, 378 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ denied); cf. General Agents Ins.

2014Evans v. First Nat’l Bank of Bellville, 946 S.W.2d 367, 378 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ denied); cf. General Agents Ins.

2011Dobbins v. Redden , 785 S.W.2d 377, 378 (Tex. 1990); see also Murray v. Crest Constr., Inc. , 900 S.W.2d 342, 345 (Tex. 1995) (holding that because contractor had not substantially performed, it could not recover under contract but could bring cause of action in quantum meruit).

2011Dobbins v. Redden, 785 S.W.2d 377, 378 (Tex.1990); see also Murray v. Crest Constr., Inc., 900 S.W.2d 342, 345 (Tex.1995) (holding that because contractor had not substantially performed, it could not recover under contract but could bring cause of action in quantum meruit).

2019The jury must determine any contested fact issues that would bear on a quantum meruit claim, but the ultimate question “of how much, if any, equitable relief should be awarded, must be determined by the trial court.” Hudson, 162 S.W.3d at 688 .

2013The jury must determine any contested fact issues that would bear on a quantum meruit claim, but the ultimate question “of how much, if any, equitable relief should be awarded, must be determined by the trial court.” Hudson, 162 S.W.3d at 688 .

2015The final case primarily relied upon by Ortiz, Simulis, L.L.C. v. General Electric Capital Corp., again involved a judgment rendered upon summary judgment, rather than final judgment rendered following a jury trial.42 The trial court had granted summary judgment on a promissory estoppel and quantum meruit counter-claim.43 The court of appeals reversed and remanded the quantum meruit counter-claim finding there was a fact issue.44 On remand, rather than pursue the quantum meruit claim, the defendant amended its pleading to add various new claims.45 The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the ne

2015The final case primarily relied upon by Ortiz, Simulis, L.L.C. v. General Electric Capital Corp., again involved a judgment rendered upon summary judgment, rather than final judgment rendered following a jury trial.42 The trial court had granted summary judgment on a promissory estoppel and quantum meruit counter-claim.43 The court of appeals reversed and remanded the quantum meruit counter-claim finding there was a fact issue.44 On remand, rather than pursue the quantum meruit claim, the defendant amended its pleading to add various new claims.45 The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the ne

2020See Richardson, 2010 WL 4817136 , at *5; Beverick, 186 S.W.3d at 154 .

2010S ee Beverick v. Koch Power, Inc. , 186 S.W.3d 145, 150 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (holding that plaintiff must establish valid contract existed between himself and defendant to recover on his claim for breach of agreement to pay for services).