The following examples are illustrations of the Firm's experience representing all members of a typical design team. The representation of design professionals is the focus of the Firms practice. Indeed, as illustrated herein, the Firm has represented all members of the typical design team and that experience is invaluable in allowing the Firm to provide an experienced, real world view of a dispute from the standpoint of all parties involved. 

A summary dismissal of claims asserted against one of the world's largest architectural firms was obtained in a case which established the law in Texas as regards the application of the Statute of Repose to architects involved in disputes with municipalities. In that case, the Court ruled that the ten-year Statute of Repose barred a suit brought against the architectural firm despite the fact that the time limitation for filing suits does not normally apply to municipalities. The Court found that even though the design defect complained of in the suit was not discovered until immediately prior to the filing of suit (two years from accrual of the cause of action is the normal amount of time a Plaintiff has to sue for negligence) the fact that the project was substantially completed more than ten years before suit was filed entitled the architect to dismissal.

A demand letter was received from representatives of the estate of an individual killed when an allegedly defectively designed structure collapsed. The prompt, detailed response to that demand letter, coupled with an accurate analysis and application of the applicable law, convinced the claimants to seek other relief. Accordingly, the architect was saved the substantial costs of defense and lost billable time, which necessarily would have resulted had suit been filed.

An architect was accused of negligence in the design of a shopping center which gave rise to a personal injury claim by a shopper. Following a trial, the jury refused to find the existence of any negligence on the part of the architect.

The owner of a high-rise building alleged that the design of the mechanical systems for the building were defective. As a result of a prompt and detailed technical response to the claim, the fault of the mechanical engineer was minimized and a reasonable settlement was reached during mediation.

The significance of a case involving the defense of a claim asserted against a civil engineer is illustrated by the fact that one of the nation's largest insurers of design professionals chose to utilize the case as an example of its service and commitment to clients in a national advertising campaign. The case involved a claim asserted by a developer who was experiencing problems with the buckling of the floors and sidewalks of a shopping center. During the jury trial, it was shown that the civil engineer had performed its work properly and that the developer's own negligence was the cause of the problems with the shopping center. Accordingly, the jury found no liability against the civil engineer on the fourteen claims asserted by the owner against the civil engineer.

A structural engineering firm was sued for design defects by the original owner more than ten years after substantial completion of a hotel. For the first time, the Texas Supreme Court declared that the statute of repose applied to the claims of the original owner, even when the claim was founded on the contract. Thus, the claims asserted against the structural engineer were dismissed.

A series of claims were made by homeowners complaining of problems with the foundation of their homes. When the homeowners sued the builder, the builder sued the design team. As a result of the explanation of the roles of the various participants in construction, the builder was persuaded to dismiss its claims against the soils engineers.