Construction Litigation: Proven Success

Dan Davis has handled construction disputes of all kinds, including:

  • Claims for delays and excess overhead
  • Claims for inadequate, inaccurate or insufficient plans, drawings and specifications
  • Claims for non-payment by contractors, subcontractors and vendors
  • Mechanic and materialmen's claims for lien and foreclosure
  • Claims for negligent performance of construction work, resulting in damage to property
  • Claims for adverse subsurface conditions, changed conditions or differing site conditions
  • Construction claims brought before arbitration tribunals such as the American Arbitration Association

Additionally, Dan Davis has vast experience with claims for changed or differing site conditions.

A major case involving property damage on a construction project, tried to a successful conclusion before a jury, is summarized below.

Proof of Negligence Established - Dallas County Jury Verdict


Dan Davis represented a construction company in a case against a provider of hoisting services that resulted from an incident during the construction of the Texas A & M University Reed Arena. His client was engaged to erect huge steel trusses for the superstructure of the Arena on the Texas A & M University campus in College Station, Texas.

In October 1996, during the course of erecting a 160-foot long, approximately 170,000-pound truss structure, a crane lifting the structure dropped its end. The client, with one of their cranes and operators, along with a crane and operator leased from the defendant, was conducting this operation. The defendant's operator dropped his load from 80-feet in the air, causing enormous destruction to the structure below.

As a result, many parties on the project sued for damages sustained to the structure. The client was able to settle most of those claims with insurance dollars from the various parties. However, the defendant continually and steadfastly refused responsibility for the destruction of the client's crane and property sustained in the incident. The defendant engaged engineering consultants who theorized that the malfeasance was the result of poor planning on the client's behalf, rather than the operator's misconduct. It was claimed that the client had miscalculated the weight of the equipment involved, resulting in a lift that was doomed to fail. In trial, the defendant sought to justify the conduct of their operator.

After approximately two weeks of testimony, the case was submitted on theories of negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty of good and workmanlike performance under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA.) The jury responded with a 100% negligence finding against the defendant, finding that they failed to perform in a good and workmanlike fashion and did so knowingly. A verdict was rendered in favor of Dan Davis' client for $650,000 in property damages and lost profits, and $600,000 in attorneys' fees. The jury also awarded additional damages of $5,000,000.

Rust Remediation vs. Amoco,, for Plaintiff, $100 million wrongful termination suit.

ChemWaste vs. Kellog Contractors, for Plaintiff, $100 million suit for fraud and misrepresentation.

OHM vs. Citgo, for Plaintiff, suit for $35 million for breach and misrepresentation.

Harding Lawson Associates vs. Ethan Allen, for Plaintiff, $5 million and suit for breach of contract and rescission.

Hirschfeld Steel vs. Irwin Steel Erectors, representing Defendant/Cross Plaintiff, $5 million suit involving crane collapse.

John North vs. AB Electrolux, representing Plaintiff, in suit for theft of bagless vacuum design; $30 million settlement.

Eby Construction v. LAN/STV, $5 million plaintiff verdict against engineering firm for negligent misrepresentation. Read More Here!