PARKLAND HOSPITAL IMMUNE FROM QUANTUM MERUIT CLAIM, BUT NOT CONTRACT CLAIM

Dallas County Hospital District v. Hospira Worldwide, Inc.
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-12-00902-CV (April 30, 2013)
Evans (opinion), Francis, and Murphy
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order denying Parkland Hospital System’s plea to the jurisdiction, in which Parkland asserted it is immune from suit. The Court concluded Parkland is not immune from suit for breach of contract, but is immune from extra-contractual claims like quantum meruit.

Dallas County Hospital District (“Parkland”) entered into a written lease and purchase contract with Hospira for certain medical equipment and supplies. After the end of the lease term, Hospira sued Parkland for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Hospira alleged Parkland’s governmental immunity was waived by section 271.152 of the Local Government Code. Parkland filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied.

On appeal, Parkland contended it is a “unit of state government,” and therefore not subject to section 271.152, which waives only the immunity of “local government entities.” The Court disagreed, noting that Parkland admitted it is a “special purpose district,” and the statutory definition of “local government entity” expressly includes such districts. The Court rejected Parkland’s argument that the statutory definition of “local government entities” includes special purpose districts only if they are specifically enumerated in the statute. The Court pointed out that the statutory language is inclusive, not exclusive, and its plain language thus encompasses all special purpose districts. The Court concluded that Parkland is a “local government entity” whose immunity from suit for breach of contract is waived by section 271.152.

However, the Court also concluded that the plain language of the statute waives only immunity from claims for breach of contract, and “does not apply to extra contractual claims such as quantum meruit.” The Court therefore reversed and rendered judgment on Hospira’s claim for quantum meruit, and otherwise affirmed the trial court’s order.
Print Friendly and PDF