Michael T. Davis

  Michael T. Davis has twenty-five years of experience in civil litigation, including five years in administrative law and regulatory policymaking. He has handled a wide variety of matters as lead counsel including product liability, transportation, construction, employment law, coverage disputes, premises liability, personal injury and general commercial litigation. 

  A skilled litigator with significant courtroom experience, Michael has practiced before state and federal courts throughout the State of Kentucky. He has successfully defended thousands of individuals as well as state and local governments, product manufacturers, general contractors and subcontractors, architects and engineers, heavy equipment companies, transportation companies, and retail businesses. 

  Michael also served as assigned counsel and insurance coverage counsel for commercial and personal lines carriers, as well as personal counsel for self-insured businesses. From 2010 to 2016, Michael performed public service on behalf of the Kentucky Public Protection Cabinet, where he represented the Department of Financial Institutions before serving in appointed positions as Deputy General Counsel to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission and General Counsel/Legislative Liaison to the Kentucky Department of Housing, Buildings & Construction. 

Memberships

• Themis Advocates Group

• Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)

• Kentucky Bar Association

• Fayette County Bar Association

• Kentucky Colonel – (Commissioned 2016)

• Fayette County Bar Association Pro Bono Board

• DV8 Advisory Team 

• KBA Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (2008 – 2015)

Trial and Case Highlights

• Bowling v. H.W. Lochner, et al., 2025 WL 3558691 (Ky. App., not to be publ.): As lead counsel, Michael represented H.W. Lochner and its agent in an Eminent Domain Acts case brought by an attorney landowner who opposed condemnation efforts by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet needed to repair a highway bridge in Knott County.  Bowling, an attorney, alleged bad faith negotiations on the part of not only the Cabinet but also Lochner, its right of way agent for the project.  Following a right-to-take trial, the Court sustained Lochner’s motion to dismiss, finding both that Bowling had failed to follow proper procedure for joining Lochner to the action in the first place and that Lochner was nevertheless immune for liability under the disclosed agency doctrine.  The trial court also entered judgment finding that Bowling had failed to prove any wrongdoing in the negotiation or acquisition process.  The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed each of these findings and confirmed that where a third party has notice that an agent is acting on behalf of a principal, “the agent is not liable, generally speaking, for his own authorized acts, or for the subsequent dealings between the third person and the principal.”

• Wilson v. Butzin, 854 Fed.Appx. 682 (6th Cir. 2021, not to be publ.): As lead counsel, Michael defended a motorist sued in state court for personal injuries allegedly resulting from an interstate motor vehicle accident.  Michael removed the case to federal court and immediately sought summary judgment on grounds that, although the original action was timely commenced, plaintiff’s unreasonable delays in effectuating service of summons constituted abandonment and therefore the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations that had expired in the interim.  The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky agreed and granted summary judgment.  Thereafter, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a lengthy analysis rejecting all of the plaintiff’s arguments and affirming summary judgment, finding that plaintiff had indeed abandoned his initial good-faith intent to have a summons issued to Butzin and therefore failed to timely commence the action within the applicable limitations period.

• Motorists Mutual Ins. Co. v. Hartley, 2011 WL 474944 (Ky. App., not to be publ.): As lead coverage counsel, Michael represented the insurer in a declaratory judgment action seeking to enforce an “owned but not scheduled for coverage” exclusion to an underinsured motorist policy against an insured who was injured in a motorcycle accident after choosing not to insure his motorcycles due to the higher cost of premiums. After the trial court relied upon inconsistent Supreme Court precedent to invalidate the exclusion as against public policy, the Court of Appeals reversed and upheld the provision, confirming the lack of coverage for the accident at issue. 

• Westfield Ins. Co. v. Radcliff Auto., LLC, 2009 WL 859843 (U.S. Dist. Ct, W.D. Ky.): As lead coverage counsel, Michael obtained summary judgment against an insured automobile dealership claiming more than $1.2 million in damages from an ongoing fraudulent scheme executed by a third party. The coverage litigation focused upon the legal nature of the loss and the applicability of various policy coverage exclusions. The court ultimately denied summary judgment to the dealer and entered judgment in favor of the insurer on coverage, which led to the dismissal of the dealer’s bad faith claim shortly thereafter. 

• Robinson v. Walls, Walls and Howell, Pike Circuit, Civil Action No. 04-CI-01107: Michael defended Cecil Howell against a motorist seeking $740,000 in personal injury damages arising out of a three-vehicle collision on Highway 23 in Pikeville, KY, on August 7, 2003. Defending on both liability and damages during a three-day trial in June 2006, obtained a unanimous defense verdict. 

• Campbell v. Childers Building, Inc., Lincoln Circuit, Civil Action No. 03-CI-00201: As lead counsel, Michael defended Childers Building against homeowners claiming more than $273,000 in damages and nearly $100,000 in legal fees and costs. The plaintiffs claimed that Childers built their home in an unworkmanlike manner, resulting in mold infestation that rendered their home uninhabitable. The case involved complex issues such as mold intrusion, testing, and remediation standards, construction industry standards in areas such as framing, excavation, insulation, drywall and masonry, breach of warranty and contract, the Consumer Protection Act, and the Kentucky Building Code. After a five-day trial, the jury unanimously rejected the plaintiffs’ mold infestation and negligent construction claims. The jury also rejected the plaintiffs’ breach of warranty and contract claims. Based upon unrelated technical defects admitted by the defense prior to and during the trial, the jury awarded only $15,000 to the plaintiffs. 

Primary Practice Areas

• Appellate Work

• Arbitration

• Automobile Accident Defense

• Bad Faith

• Class Action Litigation

• Commercial Lines (Premises Liability)

• Construction Defect Litigation

• Contract Disputes

• Coverage Litigation

• Dram Shop Litigation

• Employment Practices Liability

• Excess Liability Claims

• Fraud Defense/EUO

• Mediation

• Medical Malpractice

• Municipal Liability Defense

• Municipal Representation and Counsel

• PIP/Reparations Benefits

• Personal Injury

• Personal Lines (Premises Liability)

• Products Liability

• Professional Liability

• Retail and Restaurant (Premises Liability)

• Sexual Abuse Claims

• Transportation Defense

• UM/UIM

• Wrongful Death Defense 

Admissions

• Commonwealth of Kentucky

• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky

• U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

• U.S. Supreme Court 

Education

• University of Kentucky College of Law, J.D.

• Murray State University, B.S.