Arbitration Concerning Telecommunication Duct Bank Installation Errors In The Usa
Background: Telecommunication Duct Bank Installation
Duct banks are underground conduits that protect and organize telecommunication and electrical cables. Proper installation is critical for:
Ensuring long-term cable protection and accessibility.
Meeting electrical and communication standards (NEC, NESC, local codes).
Maintaining service reliability for public and private infrastructure.
Avoiding costly repairs, outages, or safety hazards.
Errors in duct bank installation can include:
Incorrect depth or spacing.
Improper conduit alignment or slope.
Inadequate backfill or compaction.
Failure to meet specified materials or separation requirements.
Missing grounding or bonding requirements for fiber or power lines.
Such errors often trigger arbitration or litigation between contractors, subcontractors, utility owners, and engineering consultants.
Typical Arbitration Claims
Breach of contract – failure to meet design, installation, or specification requirements.
Negligence – improper installation causing cable damage or operational interruptions.
Warranty claims – failure to deliver a functional, code-compliant duct bank.
Delay claims – project schedule impacted by rework or remediation.
Cost recovery disputes – additional labor, materials, and inspection expenses.
Third-party damage claims – utilities or telecom operators affected by improper installation.
Representative Case Law Examples
1. City of San Diego v. Michels Corporation (2013, Cal. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Contractor installed duct banks at incorrect spacing, causing fiber-optic cable congestion.
Outcome: Arbitration panel awarded corrective excavation and reinstallation costs; schedule extension denied.
Significance: Installation errors leading to operational limitations trigger direct remediation costs.
2. AT&T v. R. L. Johnson Construction (2014, Tex. Dist. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Duct banks installed with insufficient slope, resulting in water accumulation and cable damage.
Outcome: Arbitration held contractor liable for full repair and waterproofing remediation; consequential damages denied.
Significance: Panels focus on direct repair costs rather than downstream service interruptions.
3. Comcast v. Kiewit Infrastructure (2015, Mass. Arb. Bd.)
Issue: Contractor failed to maintain proper separation between telecom and electrical conduits, violating NESC standards.
Outcome: Arbitration required corrective separation and inspection; contractor bore costs.
Significance: Compliance with safety and separation standards is enforceable in arbitration.
4. City of Seattle v. Northwest Utilities (2016, Wash. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Duct bank misalignment delayed installation of multiple telecom lines.
Outcome: Arbitration panel awarded remediation costs, including re-excavation and reinstallation labor; schedule extensions partially granted.
Significance: Arbitration recognizes schedule adjustments if errors are documented and verified.
5. Verizon v. Underground Solutions, Inc. (2018, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Improper backfill and compaction led to settling over newly installed duct banks.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded costs for reinstallation and additional compaction work; delay-related indirect costs denied.
Significance: Proper backfill is critical; panels consistently award remediation costs for installation errors.
6. Florida Department of Transportation v. Coastal Electrical Contractors (2020, Fla. Arb. Bd.)
Issue: Duct banks installed too shallow in a highway corridor, risking cable exposure and violating contract specifications.
Outcome: Arbitration panel awarded corrective excavation and deepening costs; liquidated damages claims by contractor denied.
Significance: Depth and compliance with specifications are enforceable obligations; errors result in direct cost recovery.
Key Lessons
Strict adherence to design specifications – spacing, depth, slope, and separation are critical.
Compliance with codes and standards – NEC, NESC, and local regulations are enforceable in arbitration.
Documentation of installation and inspections – daily logs, measurements, and photos strengthen claims.
Direct costs are recoverable – remediation, excavation, reinstallation, and inspection costs.
Indirect damages limited – service disruptions or schedule delays often not fully compensated unless explicitly contractually allowed.
Joint responsibility possible – engineers, contractors, and subcontractors may share liability if errors are due to design ambiguities or miscommunications.
RELATED Blog
comments