Represented a pipeline contractor in a Texas state court in the defense of $40 million in claims asserted by a pipeline owner and the assertion of a $14.8 million counterclaim against the pipeline owner arising from the construction of a 31-mile pipeline project in Indiana and Illinois. During the course of this representation, we obtained rulings that: the pipeline owner was guilty of spoliation of its project emails; the pipeline owner was guilty of spoliating the surplus pipe from the project; the pricing terms in the contract were unambiguous and applied regardless of the actual costs incurred by our client, which eliminated the owner’s primary defense to $2.8 million of the claims asserted by our client; excluding evidence of settlement offers made by our client, which the owner intended to use as admissions of liability; denying the owner’s motion for summary judgment on our client’s claim for interest under the Texas Prompt Pay Act; and prohibiting the owner’s damages expert from opining that our client was responsible for the vast majority of the owner’s claims. The pipeline owner and our client subsequently settled the claims between them. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Represented the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) on the U.S. $4 billion Boston Harbor Project, which involved over 100 separate design and construction contracts, and during the peak of construction was one of the largest public works projects in the United States. The treatment plant and associated facilities on Deer Island in Boston Harbor provide 61 communities and 2.5 million people with state-of-the-art wastewater treatment with a capacity of over 900 million gallons per day. Construction included new primary and secondary treatment plants, a new headworks, a sludge-to-fertilizer plant, a dedicated power plant, a 5-mile inter-island tunnel and a 9.5 mile effluent outfall tunnel. As a fully integrated member of MWRA’s management team, worked directly with the MWRA’s legal and technical staff on a day-to-day basis to avoid as many problems as possible and to resolve quickly and efficiently those problems that could not be avoided during the construction of a massive tunnel/wastewater project.

Represented a pipeline contractor in Texas state court against one of the largest pipeline owners in the United States arising out of a 135-mile pipeline crossing Louisiana. The pipeline owner claimed damages against our client in excess of $45 million, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. Our client asserted a counterclaim against the pipeline owner in excess of $51 million, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. We settled the dispute on terms that, at the owner’s request, are confidential.

Represented one of the world's largest suppliers of hydroelectric equipment in the defense and prosecution of a claim involving a hydroelectric project in Minnesota.

Represented a pipeline contractor in Alabama federal court against two affiliated subcontractors. The subcontractors asserted over $15 million in claims against our client. We moved to dismiss one of the subcontractors’ claims on the grounds of improper forum. The court granted our motion, and the parties later settled the claims on favorable terms for our client. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Represented an international construction company in claims against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers arising from the Seven Oaks Dam in Southern California. The Seven Oaks Dam was, at the time, the largest civil works project under construction by the Corps and is the largest earthen dam ever built in North America. The client encountered differing site conditions and defective specifications during construction of the dam, and filed to recoup the extra costs it incurred. After we successfully tried several claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Corps agreed to mediate the client's largest claim which stemmed from the placement of 15 million cubic yards of material on the dam. The mediation was successful and the Corps ultimately agreed to resolve all of the outstanding claims on the dam, with a total recovery for the client in excess of $40 million.