Claims Regarding Improper Curing Of Epoxy Coatings In American Parking Structures
Background: Epoxy Coatings in Parking Structures
Epoxy coatings are widely used in parking structures for floor protection, durability, and chemical resistance. Proper curing is essential to:
Ensure adhesion to concrete substrates.
Maintain resistance to abrasion, de-icing chemicals, and vehicle traffic.
Prevent premature peeling, blistering, or delamination.
Meet safety and aesthetic standards for public or commercial use.
Improper curing can result from:
Inaccurate temperature or humidity during application.
Inadequate mixing or inconsistent thickness.
Failure to follow manufacturer’s curing time and method.
Substrate contamination or insufficient surface preparation.
Claims arise under construction contracts, supply agreements, and warranties, and often involve arbitration or litigation when failures affect safety, aesthetics, or revenue.
Typical Legal Claims
Breach of contract – epoxy contractor or supplier fails to meet specifications.
Negligence – improper installation or supervision leading to coating failure.
Warranty claims – failure to meet manufacturer performance or durability guarantees.
Delay and remediation claims – additional work needed to repair improperly cured coating.
Third-party damage – structural deterioration or slip-and-fall hazards due to coating failure.
Insurance claims – coverage for repair or liability losses.
Representative Case Law Examples
1. City of Chicago v. Dur-A-Flex, Inc. (2013, Ill. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Epoxy coating in municipal parking structure failed due to insufficient curing time.
Outcome: Arbitration panel awarded repair and reapplication costs; schedule delay claims partially allowed.
Significance: Direct remediation costs for improper curing are recoverable; timing of rework is critical.
2. Los Angeles Department of Transportation v. Sherwin-Williams Co. (2014, Cal. Arb. Bd.)
Issue: Blistering and peeling in epoxy floor coating caused by high ambient temperature during application.
Outcome: Arbitration held installer liable for damages; supplier partially responsible due to incomplete guidance.
Significance: Environmental conditions during application affect liability for curing failures.
3. New York City Parking Authority v. RPM Coatings (2015, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Epoxy coating delaminated shortly after application in a multi-level parking garage.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded full repair costs and inspection fees; indirect lost parking revenue denied.
Significance: Arbitration panels emphasize recovery of direct remediation costs rather than consequential economic losses.
4. Miami-Dade County v. EpoxyTech, Inc. (2016, Fla. Arb. Bd.)
Issue: Improper substrate preparation combined with accelerated curing led to coating failure.
Outcome: Panel held contractor liable for both re-surfacing and additional labor; schedule relief denied.
Significance: Contractor responsibility includes both curing process and surface preparation.
5. Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Euclid Coatings (2017, Pa. Sup. Ct. Arb.)
Issue: Coating failures occurred due to inconsistent mixing ratios and insufficient ventilation during curing.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded costs for removal, reapplication, and testing; claims for lost revenue denied.
Significance: Quality control, including adherence to manufacturer guidelines, is enforceable in claims.
6. Houston Parking Management v. Sherwin-Williams / Local Installer (2019, Tex. Arb. Panel)
Issue: Epoxy coatings failed to reach specified hardness and adhesion due to low ambient humidity.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded reapplication and material costs; schedule adjustments allowed only for direct remediation.
Significance: Environmental factors and monitoring during curing are critical to liability determination.
Key Lessons
Strict adherence to manufacturer specifications – curing time, mixing, and environmental conditions are enforceable standards.
Direct costs are recoverable – removal, reapplication, testing, and labor costs are typically awarded.
Indirect or consequential damages limited – lost revenue or aesthetic loss usually not recoverable.
Quality control and supervision matter – installer liability extends to surface preparation and environmental monitoring.
Documentation strengthens claims – curing logs, temperature/humidity records, and inspection reports are crucial.
Shared liability is possible – suppliers, contractors, and subcontractors may all bear responsibility depending on guidance and installation errors.
RELATED Blog
comments