§ 113.006.No Waiver of Immunity to Suit for Tort Liability

The chapter is a contract waiver, and this sentence keeps it that way.

No tort claim is authorized, whether the tort alleged is negligent or intentional.

The line matters because failures overlap. A district that stops delivering water may have breached a contract and may have been careless, and the same facts support both descriptions.

Pleading around the limit does not work. Calling a delivery failure negligence, or negligent misrepresentation, does not convert it into a claim this chapter allows.

Tort claims against governmental units have their own statute. Chapter 101 sets out where the state and its subdivisions answer in tort, on its own terms and with its own caps.

Chapter 114 carries an even longer version of this sentence, naming fraud and tortious interference alongside negligence.

The result is a clean division. This chapter answers one question — was the water delivered as the contract required — and sends everything else elsewhere.

Tort claims carry their own machinery. The Tort Claims Act sets notice requirements, damage caps and a narrow list of covered conduct, none of which appears in this chapter.

The label on the pleading does not decide the question. What matters is the substance of the complaint, and a complaint that the water was not delivered is a contract complaint.