sua sponte). 3 . Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the State and its governmental units are immune from tort liability unless immunity has been waived by the Texas Torts Claim Act. See Univ. of Texas Med. Branch v. York, 871 S.W.2d 175, 177 (Tex.1994). The Texas Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity only in a limited range of cases, and GLF concedes that none of these circumstances apply to this case. See Tex. Civ. Prac. a Rem.Code Ann. § 101.021 (Vernon 2005). Thus, sovereign immunity would insulate DART from liability in tort for the actions that form the basis of GLF’s complaint against LAN/STV. GLF has not argued that its claims would be construed other than as tort claims if DART itself had performed the functions at issue. Compare Martin K. Eby, 369 F.3d at 472 (<HOLDING>); Cass v. Stephens, 156 S.W.3d 38, 68 (Tex.App.
holding that it is clear that ebys misrepresentation claim as it is presented here is a contractual one holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious holding that it is not holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted