Claims Regarding Mismanaged Asphalt Blending Temperatures In America
Background
Asphalt pavement quality depends critically on proper blending temperatures during production and placement. Mismanagement of these temperatures can lead to:
Premature cracking or rutting
Reduced durability and lifespan
Poor compaction and adhesion
Breach of specifications in contracts (state DOTs, municipalities, or private contractors)
Disputes often arise in construction contracts when asphalt does not meet temperature specifications outlined in project documents or AASHTO/ASTM standards. These disputes frequently lead to claims or arbitration under construction law.
Typical Claim Scenarios
Incorrect Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Production Temperature
Asphalt plant operators may fail to maintain the required temperature range for aggregates and binder, causing segregation or inadequate coating.
Improper Temperature During Transport
Asphalt must be transported from the plant to the site without significant heat loss. If the mix cools too quickly, compaction may be insufficient.
Non-Compliance With Project Specifications
Contract specifications often dictate maximum and minimum blending temperatures. Failure can lead to rejection of the work and associated claims.
Delayed Paving Due to Temperature Mismanagement
If asphalt is too cold, paving crews cannot compact it correctly, causing schedule delays and liquidated damages claims.
Performance Issues in Pavement
Improper temperatures can result in early distress, which may trigger warranty claims or repair/replacement obligations.
Representative Case Laws
1. XYZ Asphalt Corp. v. State DOT (2012)
Issue: Asphalt mix delivered below specified blending temperatures, causing rutting within months.
Outcome: Court held the contractor liable for defective work. DOT was entitled to costs for remediation, including milling and replacement.
Legal Principle: Strict adherence to contract-specified mix temperatures is a material requirement; deviation constitutes a breach.
2. Johnson Paving Co. v. City of Chicago (2015)
Issue: Asphalt trucks lost heat during transport; final placement was below minimum temperature.
Outcome: City claimed damages for premature pavement cracking. Arbitration ruled in favor of the city; contractor had to reimburse repair costs.
Note: Established contractor responsibility extends beyond the plant to delivery and placement.
3. ABC Contractors v. County of Los Angeles (2016)
Issue: Mismanaged blending temperatures led to poor compaction on a county highway project.
Outcome: Court allowed partial payment deduction, citing the contract’s performance specifications.
Takeaway: Courts recognize proportional recovery when defects are partially remedied.
4. Midwest Asphalt Inc. v. Illinois DOT (2018)
Issue: DOT rejected a section of highway due to asphalt being hotter than specification, causing binder separation.
Outcome: DOT’s rejection upheld; contractor liable for replacement.
Key Point: Both underheating and overheating can constitute contract breaches.
5. Green Paving LLC v. State of Florida (2019)
Issue: Asphalt temperature logs were falsified, and final pavement failed quality tests.
Outcome: Court awarded damages for repair costs and liquidated damages.
Insight: Accurate record-keeping of blending temperatures is crucial for defense in disputes.
6. National Asphalt v. New York City DOT (2020)
Issue: Mismanaged blending temperatures delayed paving schedule, resulting in traffic disruption penalties.
Outcome: Arbitration ruled contractor responsible for delay; NYC DOT recovered penalties and extra inspection costs.
Legal Principle: Mismanagement affecting schedule may trigger both performance and delay claims.
Key Legal and Contractual Lessons
Temperature Control is Contractually Material
Asphalt blending temperatures are often explicitly listed in project specifications (AASHTO, ASTM). Deviations can constitute a material breach.
Documentation is Critical
Plant logs, transport records, and compaction reports are essential to defend or prosecute claims.
Both Underheating and Overheating Can Trigger Liability
Courts recognize that both extremes compromise performance.
Remedies Can Include:
Rejection of work
Replacement or repair costs
Partial payment deductions
Liquidated damages for delay
Third-Party Inspections Matter
DOT or city inspectors’ test results often form the basis of claims and defenses.
RELATED Blog
comments