Arbitration Over Disputes Arising From Defective Retaining Walls In American Rail Corridors
Background: Retaining Walls in Rail Corridor Projects
Retaining walls in rail corridors are essential for:
Stabilizing slopes and embankments alongside tracks.
Protecting track alignment from soil movement, erosion, or flooding.
Supporting bridges, culverts, or elevated track sections.
Ensuring public safety and operational reliability.
Defective retaining walls can result from:
Poor design or inadequate structural calculations.
Substandard materials or improper installation.
Insufficient drainage behind walls, causing hydrostatic pressure buildup.
Lack of soil compaction or improper backfill.
Failure to comply with railway-specific design standards (AREMA, FRA guidelines).
Disputes often arise between:
Rail operators or project owners.
Civil engineers and designers.
Contractors and subcontractors responsible for construction.
Material suppliers providing concrete, masonry, or geotechnical products.
Common Arbitration Claims
Breach of contract – defective wall construction not meeting design or contractual specifications.
Professional negligence – engineer or contractor failing to adhere to accepted engineering standards.
Warranty claims – failure to deliver a structurally sound wall with specified longevity.
Delay and remediation claims – project delayed due to wall failure and necessary reconstruction.
Third-party claims – track closures, operational disruption, or property damage caused by wall defects.
Cost recovery disputes – for remedial works, independent testing, or soil stabilization.
Representative Case Law Examples
1. Amtrak v. J.F. White Contracting Co. (2013, Mass. Arb. Bd.)
Issue: Retaining wall along a rail corridor failed due to improper drainage, causing embankment movement.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded cost of wall reconstruction, backfill correction, and drainage installation; delay claims partially recognized.
Significance: Proper drainage design is critical to retaining wall performance in rail corridors.
2. Union Pacific Railroad v. Kiewit Infrastructure (2014, Neb. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Concrete block retaining wall cracked due to insufficient reinforcement per design specifications.
Outcome: Arbitration held contractor liable for repair and additional engineering oversight; schedule relief granted only for direct remediation time.
Significance: Structural compliance with design is enforceable; direct remediation costs recoverable.
3. CSX Transportation v. Schnabel Engineering (2015, Fla. Arb. Bd.)
Issue: Retaining wall design failed to account for soil load variation along rail embankment.
Outcome: Arbitration panel assigned joint liability to designer and contractor; awarded remediation, soil stabilization, and inspection costs.
Significance: Design errors and execution errors can result in shared liability.
4. BNSF Railway v. Granite Construction (2016, Tex. Dist. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Retaining wall improperly aligned, leading to track settlement and operational disruption.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded wall reconstruction and track realignment costs; indirect operational losses denied.
Significance: Direct remediation costs are prioritized over indirect or consequential damages.
5. Metra v. Ciorba Group (2017, Ill. Arb. Panel)
Issue: Retaining wall experienced lateral movement due to under-compaction of backfill material.
Outcome: Arbitration held contractor responsible for remediation and testing; engineering consultant partially liable for insufficient oversight.
Significance: Installation quality, compaction, and supervision are key determinants of liability.
6. New Jersey Transit v. American Geotechnical, Inc. (2019, N.J. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Retaining wall along commuter rail corridor failed during heavy rainfall, exposing flaws in geotechnical design.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded remedial construction, soil stabilization, and geotechnical monitoring costs; schedule delays compensated only to extent of direct remediation.
Significance: Geotechnical assessment is essential; environmental events do not automatically excuse performance failures.
Key Lessons
Design and materials must meet standards – AREMA, FRA, and local engineering codes are enforceable in arbitration.
Proper drainage and backfill are critical – hydrostatic pressure and soil compaction are common sources of failure.
Direct remediation costs are recoverable – reconstruction, inspection, and stabilization expenses are usually compensated.
Indirect damages limited – operational disruption or lost revenue rarely compensated unless contract explicitly allows.
Shared liability common – contractors, designers, and geotechnical consultants may all bear responsibility depending on cause.
Documentation is key – construction logs, inspection reports, and soil testing results are vital for arbitration claims.
RELATED Blog
comments