Top Law Columns of 2025
Roads & Bridges law expert Jon Straw explains the legal side of the transportation industry. From sovereign immunity to the implications of AI on the transportation sector, we revisit three standout columns from 2025.
Understanding Sovereign Immunity – January 2025
Straw explains sovereign immunity, which states that government entities cannot be sued unless they enter into a contractual agreement. Once a government agency agrees to enter into a contract, its immunity for disputes within that contract is typically waived. That waiver is limited, however, as it only applies to breaches of the contract’s terms — not to other claims such as negligence or unjust enrichment.
He highlights two cases that illustrate the implications of sovereign immunity:
The first is between the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and a surety — a third party that provides a performance bond and promises to step in if the contractor defaults on the government job by either completing the work or paying the government for the cost of completing the contract. In this case, the surety sued TxDOT to recover the costs from fulfilling the defaulted contractor’s obligations. The surety was able to sue TxDOT because the agency first filed a lawsuit against the surety, effectively waiving its immunity claims related to the contract. Because claims were limited to the contract’s scope, the court ruled that the surety could sue to offset TxDOT’s claims—essentially requesting a reduction in the amount TxDOT sought. However, it could not seek additional damages beyond the contract’s terms.
The second case focuses on a contractor who was responsible for projects with both Harris County and TxDOT. The project with Harris County was to widen portions of the Sam Houston Tollway, and work on an adjacent state highway with TxDOT. After the contractor experienced delays on TxDOT’s projects, an appellate court found that the county was immune from the contractor’s lawsuit because it was not a party to the contract with TxDOT, affirming that each entity controls its own waiver.
Roadwork, Delays and Disputes – February 2025
In his February column, Straw addresses how delays in road construction projects often pave the way for legal disputes, as they trigger claims for additional compensation and/or time extensions. These disagreements center around whether the delays are excusable —meaning beyond the contractor’s control — or compensable, entitling the contractor to additional payment.
To demonstrate such conflict, Straw highlights a case between C&C Road Construction, Inc. and Saab Site Contractors, LP.
TxDOT hired a general contractor for work on U.S. Route 67, which in turn subcontracted part of the work to a subcontractor. TxDOT paid the general contractor for most of the work, but disputes arose over extra base material and change orders, which TxDOT only approved partial payment for. The general contractor did not inform the subcontractor of the additional payments received from TxDOT. TxDOT ultimately assessed liquidated damages for 92 days of delay, and the general contractor withheld final payment from the subcontractor.
Each entity alleged different reasons for the delay. TxDOT requiring the roadway to remain open prevented the proper curing of the base applied by the subcontractor, and the general contractor failed to apply the emulsion layer before traffic resumed. The general contractor blamed the subcontractor for poor compaction and delays, and in turn the subcontractor blamed the general contractor for providing faulty equipment and a lack of support.
Despite a jury finding the general contractor responsible for breach of contract for failing to pay the subcontractor, the subcontractor was only awarded half of its claimed damages and only part of its attorney’s fees. When taken to appeal, the court upheld the damages award, as the jury had the required amount of evidence to support its decision, referred to as a “scintilla of evidence,” but increased the amount of attorney’s fees because the evidence only supported one conclusion.
From Roman Arches to AI – Sept/Oct 2025
Straw’s March column traces the evolution of construction from Roman arches to artificial intelligence, then zeroes in on how AI can transform the industry — if used responsibly.
He explains that while AI offers efficiency gains in scheduling, estimation, risk prediction and project management, it also introduces legal and safety risks. To manage these, Straw recommends a risk management plan built around three steps:
- Start small: Use AI on low-risk projects and specific tasks to explore capabilities without jeopardizing safety or compliance.
- Create an implementation plan: Train personnel and update processes as needed to ensure AI adoption is controlled and adaptable.
- Verify outputs: Maintain human oversight by reviewing AI-generated results and adjusting as necessary.
He argues that AI should augment — not replace — human judgment. With careful planning and oversight, the industry can embrace innovation without sacrificing accountability.