AMER-CONSOLIDATED ROOFING, INC. D/B/A TOP WALL CONSTRUCTION, Appellant
KEY CITY VETERINARY CLINIC, INC., Appellee
Appeal from the County Court at Law Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 22, 909
consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.
Willson, J., not participating.
an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Key
City Veterinary Clinic, Inc. (KCV) and against Appellant,
Amer-Consolidated Roofing, Inc. d/b/a Top Wall Construction
(TWC). In two issues, TWC contends that the trial court erred
when it (1) granted KCV's motion for summary judgment on
TWC's original breach-of-contract claim and (2) granted
summary judgment on TWC's entire case because KCV's
motion did not address TWC's newly pleaded claims of
quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, which TWC added after
KCV filed its motion but before the hearing on the motion.
Because we conclude that the trial court properly granted
summary judgment on TWC's breach-of-contract claim and
did not err when it granted summary judgment on the entire
case, we affirm.
November 2015, TWC filed suit against KCV for breach of
contract. The alleged contract in dispute is entitled
"Service Contract" (the Contract). Pursuant to the
Contract, KCV agreed to allow TWC to inspect KCV's
property (specifically, the roof) to "[d]etermine if the
roof has hail damage," "[d]etermine the life
expectancy of the roof," and "[e]stimate the
replacement cost." The Contract stated that the
"inspection will be free of charge." The Contract
then expressed the following two provisions immediately
In consideration for TWC acting as the owner's project
manager and assisting in the acquisition of funds, the Owner
agrees to allow TWC to perform the work arising from any
weather caused property damage[.]
In return for these services, the Owner will enter into a
production contract that allows TWC to perform the work to
repair the damaged property equal to the replacement cost
value of the damage.
Contract concluded with two signatures: one presumably by the
"Owner/Agent" of KCV and the other by "Top
original petition, TWC alleged that it entered into a valid
and enforceable contract with KCV, that it fully performed
its obligations under the Contract, and that it incurred
damages as a result of KCV's failure to perform KCV's
obligations under the Contract-namely, failing to enter into
a production contract with TWC and failing to retain TWC to
perform the repair work. According to TWC, it suffered
"lost income" damages of $19, 604.88 because KCV
failed to enter into a production contract and allow TWC to
perform the repair work. In response to TWC's original
petition, KCV generally denied the allegations.
2017, KCV filed its traditional and no-evidence motion for
summary judgment. In relevant part, KCV argued that the
Contract was invalid for lack of consideration and that TWC
failed to show any evidence of its lost profits. The trial
court set a hearing on KCV's motion for June 9, 2017.
2, 2017, TWC filed its First Amended Original Petition to
include two additional causes of action: quantum meruit and
unjust enrichment. Despite the amendment, KCV did not amend
its motion for summary judgment to address the additional
causes of action.
the hearing on the motion, the trial court granted summary
judgment in favor of KCV. The trial court also rendered final
judgment in favor of KCV. In doing so, the trial court
ordered that TWC take nothing by way of its claims against