TBCblog

Comprehensive coverage of the Texas Business Court

Operated by

Reese Marketos LLP

Dallas, Texas  ·  Complex Commercial Litigation

← The Bench
Portrait of Hon. Andrea K. Bouressa

Hon. Andrea K. Bouressa

Judge · Seat 1A

Texas Business Court · First Business Court Division (Dallas)

Biography

Andrea Bouressa was appointed Judge in the First Division of the Texas Business Court by Governor Greg Abbott on September 1, 2024. Prior to that, Governor Abbott appointed her to serve as the first Judge of the 471st Judicial District Court in Collin County, created September 1, 2019. She was subsequently elected to that bench and served a two-year term as Local Administrative District Judge. On the district court bench, she presided over thousands of civil disputes and resolved as many as 200 cases a month. In 2022, the Texas Aggie Bar Association named Judge Bouressa their Rising Aggie Lawyer. She is an active member of TABA and previously served as a Board Member and Treasurer for that organization. She is also a member of the Collin County Bar Association and the Curt B. Henderson Inn of Court, as well as the Collin County Women Lawyers’ Association which honored her with their 2023 Outstanding Jurist award. In private practice, she focused on business and commercial litigation and state court appeals. Judge Bouressa is a third-generation Aggie, with a Bachelor of Science in Sociology from Texas A&M University. She also holds a Master of Science in Sociology from the University of North Texas, and a Juris Doctor from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. She and her husband of more than 20 years live in Collin County and have two daughters.

Source: txcourts.gov

Opinions by Judge Bouressa (6)

Contract Interpretation ×
2026 Tex. Bus. 50 Summary Judgment July 24, 2026

Contract Ambiguity Survives Summary Judgment Where Competing Interpretations Both Find Textual Support

In Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises, Division 1 denied cross-motions for summary judgment on contract interpretation, holding that a residual compensation provision was ambiguous where both parties' readings found support in the text but neither fully reconciled all language. The court granted summary judgment dismissing all fraud claims—plaintiff's fraudulent inducement claim for lack of justifiable reliance, and defendant's counterclaims on no-evidence grounds and under the economic loss rule.

Mem. Op. Summary Judgment Contract Interpretation Ambiguity Fraudulent Inducement Economic Loss Rule Opinion PDF ↓
2026 Tex. Bus. 43 Summary Judgment July 14, 2026

Partial Summary Judgment on Liability Granted Where Defendant Fails to Controvert Breach or Raise Viable Affirmative Defenses

In Cobalt Falcon v. AXS Investments, the Business Court granted partial summary judgment on breach of contract liability under Delaware law, holding that the defendant's undisputed cessation of required monthly payments established breach and damages as a matter of law, while the court left the amount of damages for trial and declined to resolve whether the absence of an acceleration clause limited recovery to pre-filing installments. The court also rejected the defendant's unconscionability defense, finding no evidence that a perpetual payment obligation expressly bargained for in exchange for perpetual rights was substantively or procedurally unconscionable.

Mem. Op. Summary Judgment Delaware Law Breach of Contract Unconscionability Affirmative Defenses Opinion PDF ↓
2026 Tex. Bus. 38 Summary Judgment June 09, 2026

"Relocate to Dallas" Clause Ambiguous, Requires Jury Determination of Ongoing Residence Obligation

In Lunderby v. Dominium Development and Acquisition, the Texas Business Court denied cross-motions for summary judgment on whether an employee who moved his family to Minnesota while maintaining an Irving apartment breached a contractual obligation to "relocate to Dallas." The court held that "relocate" is ambiguous as to duration and permanence, rendering the scope of the employee's ongoing residence obligation a fact question for the jury.

Mem. Op. Summary Judgment Contract Interpretation Employment Agreements Ambiguity Opinion PDF ↓
2026 Tex. Bus. 30 Summary Judgment May 19, 2026

Plain Language of 'In Perpetuity' Payment Obligation Survives Fund Closure Under Delaware Law

In Cobalt Falcon v. AXS Investments, the Texas Business Court granted partial summary judgment under TRCP 166(g), holding that a contract provision requiring monthly payments "paid in perpetuity (unless otherwise agreed)" unambiguously requires continuation of payments after closure of the fund that was the subject of the transaction. Applying Delaware law, Judge Bouressa rejected the defendant's argument that the payment obligation was implicitly conditioned on the fund's continued operation, finding the plain meaning of "in perpetuity"—"forever; without end"—controls absent ambiguity.

Mem. Op. Summary Judgment Contract Interpretation Delaware Law TRCP 166(g) Plain Meaning Rule Opinion PDF ↓
2026 Tex. Bus. 8 February 24, 2026

Business Court Confirms Arbitration Award, Holds Parties' Contract Delegated Arbitrability Questions to Arbitrators

In BNSF Railway v. Level 3 Communications, the Business Court granted a motion to confirm and denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award, holding that the parties' Master Right-of-Way Agreement and applicable law gave the arbitration panel authority to decide both substantive and procedural arbitrability questions. The decision reinforces the enforceability of broad arbitration clauses and the limited scope of judicial review when parties have delegated gateway questions to arbitrators.

Arbitration FAA Texas Arbitration Act Arbitrability Scope of Authority Opinion PDF ↓
2025 Tex. Bus. 42 Summary Judgment October 29, 2025

Limitation-of-Liability Clauses Must Be Read in Context: Business Court Distinguishes 'Arising From' and 'Arising Out of or Related To' in Tort Claims Analysis

In Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises, the Business Court's First Division addressed whether the parties' 2022 Alliance Program Agreement's limitation-of-liability provision bars Fiberwave's tortious interference, defamation, and business disparagement claims arising from AT&T's post-termination conduct. The court held that Section 18.6's bar on damages 'arising from such termination' does not categorically preclude tort claims where the question is whether the damages—not merely the complained-of acts—arose from termination itself.

Mem. Op. Summary Judgment Contract Interpretation Limitation of Liability Tortious Interference Business Disparagement Opinion PDF ↓