2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

← Back to bills and search results

2025 · Regular session · House bill

HB2960

HB2960 makes specified out-of-state law and dispute-location clauses in covered construction contracts void as against public policy, rather than merely giving a party performing the work an option to invalidate them.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to choice of law and venue for certain construction contracts.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists House author(s): Hayes. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

HB2960 makes specified out-of-state law and dispute-location clauses in covered construction contracts void as against public policy, rather than merely giving a party performing the work an option to invalidate them. The retained scope is construction contracts concerning real property in Texas; the rule also covers agreements collateral to or affecting those contracts. It invalidates the specified clause, not the entire construction contract. Final law, Sections 1–2; Business & Commerce Code Section 272.001.

The affected clauses make the contract, related agreement or a dispute under it subject to another state’s law, litigation in another state’s courts, or arbitration in another state. Where a contractual venue clause—the clause choosing where a case will be heard—is void under this rule, an action arising from the contract must be brought in Texas in the county containing the property at issue, unless the parties agree to another venue after the dispute arises. This is not a blanket ban on arbitration or a rule invalidating every agreement to use another Texas county.

The act also updates the related exception in the state’s major-transaction venue statute from “voidable” to “void.” It does not change that statute’s definition of a major transaction or create a new dollar threshold for the construction-contract rule. Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 15.020.

The changes apply only to contracts entered into or renewed on or after September 1, 2025, the act’s effective date. Earlier contracts that have not been renewed are not automatically brought under the new rule. The governor signed June 20, 2025. Official history.

What changed along the way?

The filed bill already proposed making these clauses void and setting the property-county default with a post-dispute agreement exception. The House committee substitute clarified the new subsection and its reference to the prohibited clauses, corrected drafting form, and replaced possible immediate effectiveness with a fixed September 1, 2025 date.

The House-passed, Senate and final versions retain that substance. The official amendment index lists no floor amendments. The committee substitute should not be mistaken for a floor amendment. Text-version index.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Parties to covered Texas construction contracts gain a stronger statutory basis for rejecting the specified out-of-state clauses. Contractors and other parties might avoid the practical burden of litigating far from the property, while parties that prefer another state’s law or forum lose that contractual option under this state-law rule. The actual effect on any dispute can depend on other applicable law and court rulings; this briefing does not determine federal arbitration-law questions or promise a particular litigation result.

The May 7 fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local-government fiscal impact, assuming costs can be absorbed with existing resources. It does not estimate private legal fees, travel savings or changes in construction prices. The act makes no separate appropriation.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.