Claims Regarding Drainage Design Failures In American Suburban Roadway Projects
Background: Drainage Design in Suburban Roadway Projects
Drainage systems in suburban roadway projects are critical to prevent:
Flooding of roadways, sidewalks, and adjacent properties.
Erosion and structural damage to pavements and embankments.
Water accumulation that undermines pavement integrity or causes accidents.
Violation of local stormwater management regulations.
Typical drainage failures include:
Inadequate pipe sizing or slope design.
Poor inlet and outlet placement.
Insufficient detention or retention capacity.
Improper soil stabilization or erosion control.
Such failures often result in contractual disputes, claims for remediation costs, and arbitration/litigation between municipalities, engineering firms, and contractors.
Common Types of Claims
Breach of design contract – engineer or consultant failed to provide adequate drainage design.
Construction defect claims – contractor improperly installed drainage elements per the design.
Negligence claims – failure to adhere to accepted engineering standards or local stormwater codes.
Delay and remediation costs – project delays caused by improper drainage design.
Third-party claims – damages to adjacent property owners due to flooding.
Regulatory compliance claims – violation of local or federal stormwater management regulations.
Representative Case Law Examples
1. City of Houston v. HNTB Corp. (2013, Tex. Dist. Ct.)
Issue: Suburban roadway flooded repeatedly due to undersized culverts and poor stormwater flow design.
Outcome: Court found the engineering firm liable for remediation costs and re-design; contractor not held responsible as installation followed the plans.
Significance: Engineers bear liability for design errors leading to drainage failure.
2. Village of Schaumburg v. TranSystems Corp. (2014, Ill. App. Ct.)
Issue: Roadway ponding caused by improperly designed roadside swales and grading.
Outcome: Court allowed claims for corrective grading, storm inlets, and repair of roadway damage; damages for lost tax revenue denied.
Significance: Recovery focuses on direct remediation costs rather than indirect economic impacts.
3. County of Fairfax v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc. (2015, Va. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Roadway reconstruction failed due to insufficient drainage detention capacity during heavy rain events.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded additional design and construction costs; contractor partially responsible for execution deviations.
Significance: Both design and construction execution can influence liability.
4. City of Orlando v. AECOM Technical Services (2016, Fla. Arb. Bd.)
Issue: Drainage pipes installed at incorrect slopes per design plans, causing frequent flooding.
Outcome: Arbitration split liability: contractor liable for incorrect installation, engineer liable for lack of design verification.
Significance: Highlights importance of plan review and quality assurance procedures.
5. Los Angeles County v. Parsons Brinckerhoff (2017, Cal. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Roadway erosion and sinkholes occurred due to inadequate stormwater runoff management in suburban areas.
Outcome: Panel awarded cost for remedial work, erosion control, and slope stabilization; schedule claims partially allowed.
Significance: Proper drainage design is critical to long-term roadway integrity.
6. Maricopa County v. HDR Engineering (2019, Ariz. Arb. Panel)
Issue: Improper design of cross drains led to localized flooding and property damage.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded direct costs for redesign and reconstruction, including detention basins; indirect damages denied.
Significance: Reinforces the principle that direct remediation costs are the primary recoverable damages in drainage failure claims.
Key Lessons
Design compliance is essential – engineers must follow accepted stormwater management standards and local codes.
Documentation of calculations and inspections – critical in establishing liability in arbitration or court.
Split liability is common – both design firms and contractors may bear responsibility.
Direct costs are recoverable – re-design, reconstruction, and mitigation are typically compensated; indirect or consequential damages usually are not.
Preventive quality assurance – peer reviews, site inspections, and verification of slope/pipe sizes reduce dispute risk.
Regulatory adherence matters – compliance with local and federal stormwater rules is a significant factor in dispute resolution.
RELATED Blog
comments