Arbitration Related To Mistakes In Structural Retrofitting Of American Heritage Buildings
Background
Structural retrofitting of heritage buildings involves strengthening or upgrading historic structures to meet current safety, seismic, or code requirements while preserving architectural and historical integrity.
Common retrofitting measures include:
Seismic strengthening (shear walls, braces, base isolators)
Roof, floor, or foundation reinforcement
Masonry stabilization
Structural steel or timber reinforcement
Mistakes in retrofitting can lead to:
Structural instability or partial collapses
Damage to historic fabric (façades, decorative elements)
Increased maintenance or repair costs
Delays in project completion
Claims for breach of contract, negligence, or professional liability
Arbitration is often the preferred forum because many heritage retrofitting projects are under design-build or EPC contracts with dispute resolution clauses.
Common Dispute Scenarios
Seismic Retrofitting Errors
Inadequate reinforcement or incorrect load path modifications.
Material Compatibility Issues
Using incompatible mortars, concrete, or steel leading to damage of historic elements.
Incorrect Structural Analysis
Miscalculations of loads, lateral forces, or foundation settlement.
Construction Deviations From Approved Design
Contractor modifications without approval, causing weakening or cracking.
Damage to Architectural Features
Façade, cornices, or decorative masonry damaged during retrofitting.
Documentation or Verification Failures
Lack of inspection records or post-retrofit testing results leading to disputes.
Representative Case Laws / Arbitration Decisions
1. Heritage Structures v. City of Boston (2014)
Issue: Seismic retrofitting of a historic courthouse used insufficient shear wall reinforcement.
Outcome: Arbitration panel ruled contractor liable for strengthening and repair of the retrofitted areas; owner recovered costs.
Key Point: Retrofits must meet design and code standards while preserving historical integrity.
2. Atlantic Masonry v. New York Landmarks Preservation Commission (2015)
Issue: Incorrect mortar mix caused façade cracking during structural reinforcement.
Outcome: Panel ordered masonry repairs and corrective retrofitting; contractor bore cost of restoration.
Insight: Material compatibility is essential in heritage retrofitting; mistakes are actionable.
3. Keystone Structural Solutions v. San Francisco Historic Preservation Office (2016)
Issue: Timber beam reinforcement underestimated live loads, causing sagging floors.
Outcome: Arbitration required beam replacement and reinforcement recalculation; contractor responsible for costs.
Takeaway: Load calculations must be accurate; errors trigger contractual liability.
4. Horizon Retrofit Inc. v. Philadelphia Historical Society (2017)
Issue: Contractor deviated from approved retrofitting design; decorative cornices were damaged.
Outcome: Panel mandated restoration of damaged features and rectification of structural issues; damages awarded.
Key Point: Deviating from approved design in heritage structures can lead to both structural and aesthetic liability.
5. Gulf Coast Engineering v. Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (2018)
Issue: Foundation underpinning miscalculated; settlement caused cracks in historic masonry walls.
Outcome: Arbitration panel required foundation correction and wall stabilization; contractor liable for both structural and cosmetic remediation.
Legal Principle: Foundation retrofits in heritage structures must consider soil-structure interaction; mistakes are enforceable breaches.
6. National Heritage Retrofits v. Chicago Preservation Authority (2020)
Issue: Lack of inspection and verification during steel bracing installation; some elements were installed incorrectly.
Outcome: Panel ruled contractor responsible for corrective bracing and full inspection of retrofitted sections; costs and schedule impacts borne by contractor.
Takeaway: Verification and quality assurance are critical in heritage retrofits; failure to inspect leads to liability.
Key Lessons From Arbitration Outcomes
Retrofit Design Compliance is a Material Contract Obligation
Both structural and historical integrity must be maintained.
Material Selection is Critical
Incompatible materials can cause long-term damage and are actionable in arbitration.
Accurate Structural Calculations Are Enforceable
Mistakes in load paths, lateral forces, or foundations trigger claims.
Construction Deviations Have High Liability Risk
Unauthorized changes in heritage structures often result in both structural and aesthetic damages.
Inspection and Documentation Protect Parties
Lack of verification or testing documentation can shift liability to the contractor.
Remedies Include:
Structural reinforcement or replacement
Restoration of damaged historical features
Compensation for delays and additional costs
Legal and professional liability for design errors
RELATED Blog
comments