§ 101.067.Graffiti Removal

A narrow exclusion, and every word of it is a limit.

The chapter does not apply to a claim for property damage caused by the removal of graffiti under Section 250.006, Local Government Code.

The referenced provision lets a municipality remove graffiti from private property after notice to the owner, where the owner has not removed it themselves — a public nuisance abatement power aimed at a visible and recurring problem.

The difficulty the exclusion solves is that removal is destructive. Cleaning paint off brick, stone, or render can damage the surface, strip a finish, or leave a patch that does not match. A city that removes graffiti as the statute permits would otherwise face a property damage claim from the owner it was assisting.

Faced with that exposure, the rational municipal choice is to leave the graffiti — which is the opposite of what the removal power was created for.

The exclusion is confined to property damage. A personal injury claim is not covered, so someone hurt by a removal crew — struck by equipment, injured by chemicals — remains within the chapter.

And it is confined to removal under that particular section. Graffiti removal carried out under some other authority, or outside the statutory conditions, is not within the exclusion.

Note that immunity here is granted by exclusion rather than by a substantive standard. The chapter does not apply at all, so there is no negligence question and no gross negligence carve-out — which makes this a stronger protection than the qualified immunities elsewhere in the code.