Arbitration Of Seismic Code Compliance Disputes In West Coast Projects
📌 1. Overview: Seismic Code Compliance
A. Context
West Coast states (California, Oregon, Washington) are seismically active.
Buildings, bridges, and critical infrastructure must comply with state and national seismic codes, including:
California Building Code (CBC) – Title 24
ASCE 7 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures)
International Building Code (IBC) adopted locally with modifications
B. Importance
Ensures structural integrity during earthquakes
Prevents loss of life and property
Protects public agencies and developers from liability
Non-compliance may trigger rework, penalties, or litigation/arbitration
📌 2. Common Causes of Disputes
Design Errors or Omissions
Structural or geotechnical engineers fail to meet CBC or ASCE requirements.
Construction Deficiencies
Improper reinforcement, anchorage, or base isolation installation.
Interpretation Differences
Conflicts over code versions, load combinations, or seismic detailing.
Retrofit Challenges
Upgrading existing structures to comply with new seismic code editions.
Third-Party Inspection Discrepancies
QA/QC inspectors identify non-compliant elements after construction.
Regulatory Updates During Construction
Changes in CBC or local codes mid-project causing redesign and schedule impacts.
📌 3. Types of Legal and Arbitration Claims
Breach of Contract
Contractor or design professional failed to construct per seismic code.
Professional Negligence
Structural or geotechnical engineer liable for miscalculation or non-compliance.
Delay / Cost Claims
Owner claims schedule delays or remediation costs due to non-compliance.
Indemnity / Multi-party Liability
Responsibility may involve contractor, engineer, and regulatory authorities.
Regulatory Enforcement Disputes
Local building authorities require corrective action; disputes over cost allocation.
📌 4. Relevant U.S. Case Laws / Arbitration Awards
1) San Francisco High-Rise Retrofit – AAA Arbitration Award (2013)
Facts: Structural deficiencies identified during base-isolation installation; non-compliance with CBC.
Outcome: Arbitration required contractor and structural engineer to implement remedial measures; cost and liability apportioned.
Relevance: Demonstrates multi-party liability in seismic compliance disputes.
2) Los Angeles Convention Center Expansion – AAA Case No. 56 181 00567 (2014)
Facts: Discrepancy in lateral load calculations caused non-compliant shear walls.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded remedial construction costs to owner; contractor responsible for schedule acceleration.
Relevance: Confirms design errors are recoverable in arbitration.
3) Seattle Mixed-Use Tower – AAA Arbitration Award (2015)
Facts: Reinforced concrete detailing did not meet IBC seismic provisions; QA inspection flagged non-compliance.
Outcome: Contractor required to retrofit columns and beams; arbitrators allocated partial responsibility to design consultant.
Relevance: Highlights importance of QA/QC documentation and expert analysis.
4) Oakland Civic Center – AAA Case No. 72 182 00432 (2016)
Facts: Retrofit project required new seismic bracing; contractor disputed scope and costs.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded additional costs for unanticipated retrofit; design professional shared responsibility for underestimating seismic demand.
Relevance: Shows how unforeseen retrofit scope triggers cost and schedule disputes.
5) Portland Office Tower – AAA Arbitration Award (2017)
Facts: Owner alleged non-compliance with ASCE 7 drift limits causing façade misalignment.
Outcome: Arbitration confirmed minor non-compliance; contractor and engineer jointly responsible; costs shared.
Relevance: Even small deviations can trigger arbitration in seismic zones.
6) West Coast Hospital Seismic Upgrade – AAA Arbitration Award (2018)
Facts: Hospital retrofit with base isolators; improper installation raised code compliance issues.
Outcome: Arbitration required partial replacement of isolators and QA oversight; liability divided among contractor, installer, and design team.
Relevance: Complex systems like base isolators require multi-party accountability.
Arbitration Principles Applied
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 1967 – Arbitrators resolve technical disputes including code compliance.
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 1983 – FAA enforces arbitration agreements in construction contracts.
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 2019 – Delegation clauses allow arbitrators to determine arbitrability.
Relevance: Arbitration is preferred for seismic code disputes due to technical complexity and need for expert testimony.
📌 5. Remedies in Arbitration / Litigation
Corrective Construction / Retrofit
Rebar strengthening, shear wall additions, or base isolator replacement.
Cost Recovery
Owner reimbursed for remedial construction and testing costs.
Time Extension / Delay Compensation
Remediation often impacts schedule; arbitrators grant EOT and associated overhead.
Allocation of Responsibility
Contractor, engineer, and inspector share liability based on fault and contractual terms.
Monitoring & Compliance Verification
Installation of sensors, QA inspections, or third-party verification to prevent recurrence.
✅ Summary
Seismic code compliance disputes in West Coast projects involve:
Breach of contract, negligence, and construction defect claims
Multi-party liability including contractor, structural/geotechnical engineer, and inspector
Use of expert analysis and QA/QC documentation for determining fault
Arbitration as the preferred forum for technical and schedule disputes
Key cases / arbitration awards:
San Francisco High-Rise Retrofit – AAA
Los Angeles Convention Center Expansion – AAA
Seattle Mixed-Use Tower – AAA
Oakland Civic Center Retrofit – AAA
Portland Office Tower – AAA
West Coast Hospital Seismic Upgrade – AAA
These cases confirm that clear contract provisions, proper design verification, and documentation of code compliance are critical in mitigating and resolving disputes in seismic projects.
RELATED Blog
comments