Article 6550(d) effectively places LAN/STV, as an independent contractor performing DART’s functions, in DART’s shoes for purposes of liability. That is, as the language of the statute plainly states, LAN/STV'is liable “only to the extent” that the DART itself would be liable had it performed the same function. Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6550d (Vernon Supp.2004-2005). Texas- law would not permit DART to be held liable in tort on these facts. Accordingly, peither does Article 6550d permit LAN/STV, performing DART’s functions, to be held liable in tort. GLF argues that this reading of Article 6550d is inconsistent with the language of the statute. Texas law, GLF notes, draws a-distinction between immunity from liability and immunity fronVsuit. See Martin K. Eby, 369 F.3d at 468 (<HOLDING>). Because Article 6550d is framied in terms of
holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional holding governmental immunity is no defense to contractual liability recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit