Practice Area

Construction Litigation

Construction claims and litigation can be costly and labor-intensive. Property owners, developers, contractors, engineers, design professionals, and others, including their insurers, who are being sued for construction defects or other allegations need skillful and aggressive representation to protect their assets and reputations.

The construction litigation defense attorneys at Bush + Ramirez have a long track record of resolving claims that arise throughout the construction lifecycle. 

The scope of our construction litigation practice includes a wide variety of claims relating to cost issues, design errors, contract disputes, materials failure, insurance coverage disputes, construction defects, and more.

Because of our extensive experience and knowledge of the complexities in construction law, our trial attorneys counsel clients through the process and advise them on the best path to a successful outcome, either through settlements, arbitration panels, or in the courtroom.

Bush + Ramirez has successfully defended clients in construction litigation matters, including:

  • A property inspection group who was sued after termite problems were found after purchase of a home. Plaintiffs denied signing an inspection contract that limiteddamages to the amount of the inspection. Court found in favor of the inspection company on motion for judgment after evidentiary hearing. The case settled for the inspection amount.
  • A tilt wall construction case involving construction of 10,000+ square foot warehouse. B+R represented a company that applied water resistant barriers between sections of the tilt walls against allegations of water intrusion. Case was resolved.
  • Representing a roofing company against allegations of improper applications at a multi-million dollar residence in South Shore Harbor. Case involved allegations of water intrusion. Case was resolved after a number of mediations.
  • Litigation over construction of daycare center in Galveston, Texas. Show drawings did not clearly indicate whether a wooden truss system was to be supported or free standing. General contractor and architect stamped the drawings “approved as drawn,” and client built free standing trusses. When they were installed, the trusses sagged and had to be replaced. At trial, president of general contractor admitted the company changed the wording of the approval stamp after the incident and because of the incident. Jury found in favor of client.
  • A construction defect claim regarding a pipeline built in Yemen that sustained damage from a flood. Canadian law applied based on the contract. Won summary judgment based on Canadian statute of repose. Handled the appeal of the case, and the appellate court sustained the verdict of the trial court.