Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz law firm in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM.)

A Texas litigation funding company has sued Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, alleging the firm mishandled an arbitration, ruining its chances of recovering up to $47.9 million from a plaintiffs firm.

Duncan Litigation Investments (DLI) alleged in a negligence suit filed on Tuesday in State District Court in Harris County that Baker Donelson failed to secure a proper tolling agreement in underlying litigation with an unidentified plaintiffs firm, which meant that it could not recover damages in an arbitration.

The funding company is seeking more than $1 million from Baker Donelson, an Am Law 100 firm with an office in Houston.

A firm representative did not respond to a request for a comment on the suit. Neither did Houston managing shareholder Bradley Chambers.

As alleged in the petition, DLI was formed to invest in a docket of mass-tort suits against BP and other defendants following the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010.

The funding company alleged it entered into a contract in 2010 with a plaintiffs attorney and his firm, which called for DLI to invest up to $6 million in exchange for half of the firm's legal fees from the BP docket.

DLI put in more than $5.8 million, the petition said, but “due to the [plaintiffs] firm's actionable misconduct,” DLI lost its entire investment and sustained other damages.

So in 2013, the funding company hired Baker Donelson to investigate bringing civil suits against the plaintiffs firm and its business associates, the petition said.

“Throughout the process, Baker Donelson repeatedly assured DLI that it did not face any issues with the statute of limitations because, according to Baker Donelson, DLI had a tolling agreement with the [plaintiffs] firm,” under which the plaintiffs firm waived statute of limitations, the petition said.

However, the tolling agreement was between the plaintiffs firm and the owner of DLI—rather than DLI itself—and DLI was the party to the contract with the plaintiffs firm, the petition alleged.

DLI sued the plaintiffs firm in February 2018, and the underlying litigation was heard by an arbitration panel in May. In July, the arbitration panel found facts sufficient to support a recovery of damages, but also found that all of DLI's claims were barred by limitations, DLI's petition said.

“Specifically, the panel wrote: 'The panel members are at a loss to understand why DLI was never included in any of the tolling agreements, particularly given that it must have been clear to … counsel that DLI was the owner of these important potential claims,” the funding company alleged.

The plaintiff alleged it would have been awarded between $9.2 million and $47.9 million if Baker Donelson had not failed to procure a tolling agreement for the funding company or warn it of the statute of limitations in time. DLI is seeking damages equal to the amount it would have recovered in the arbitration if its claims had not been time-barred.

D. John Neese Jr., a partner at Meade & Neese in Houston who represents DLI, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday.