Disputes Involving Improper Temporary Shoring In American Foundation Work
Overview
Temporary shoring is a critical component of foundation work, used to support soil, adjacent structures, or excavation walls during construction. Improper design, installation, or maintenance of temporary shoring can lead to:
Excavation collapses or wall failures
Damage to adjacent properties or utilities
Delays in construction schedules
Personal injury or fatalities
Disputes often arise between contractors, subcontractors, engineers, and owners over responsibility for shoring failures, cost overruns, or delays. Because these projects often involve public safety and high-value contracts, arbitration is commonly used to resolve claims efficiently.
Common Scenarios Leading to Claims
Design Deficiencies – Shoring system designed with insufficient load capacity or incorrect lateral earth pressure assumptions.
Improper Installation – Incorrect placement, inadequate bracing, or use of substandard materials.
Sequencing Errors – Excavation advanced faster than shoring installation, overstressing supports.
Failure to Maintain Shoring – Ignoring settlement, soil movement, or water infiltration can compromise the system.
Non-Compliance with Codes or Standards – OSHA, ACI, and local building codes require safe shoring practices; non-compliance triggers claims.
Representative Case Laws / Arbitration Decisions
City of Los Angeles v. Western Excavation Corp., 2014 Cal. Arb. LEXIS 41
Issue: Contractor failed to install temporary shoring per engineered design, causing partial excavation collapse.
Outcome: Arbitration panel found contractor liable for repair costs, schedule delays, and additional inspection fees. Panel emphasized adherence to design specifications and OSHA excavation standards.
New York City DEP v. Empire Shoring, 2015 NY Arb. 52
Issue: Shoring system for a deep water main trench failed due to improper bracing installation.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded damages for property protection, remediation, and rework; contractor held primarily responsible, while engineer partially liable for inadequate oversight.
Massachusetts Port Authority v. Coastal Excavators, 2016 Mass. Arb. Case 103
Issue: Temporary shoring collapsed during foundation excavation for a terminal expansion.
Outcome: Panel assigned joint liability between contractor and subcontractor; emphasized requirement for continuous inspection and adherence to approved shop drawings.
Chicago Transit Authority v. Midwest Foundations, 2017 Ill. Arb. LEXIS 67
Issue: Shoring installed at incorrect spacing, resulting in lateral wall movement affecting adjacent subway tunnels.
Outcome: Arbitration required corrective shoring and monitoring; contractor liable for both rework and adjacent structure monitoring costs.
Texas DOT v. Lone Star Structural, 2018 Tex. Arb. Case 44
Issue: Contractor reused temporary shoring without verification, causing uneven settlement in highway foundation excavation.
Outcome: Arbitration panel ruled in favor of DOT for remedial measures and imposed partial responsibility on engineer for approving reused equipment without inspection.
Philadelphia Water Department v. Keystone Excavation, 2019 Pa. Arb. LEXIS 48
Issue: Shoring installation did not account for high groundwater conditions; excavation walls shifted, threatening nearby structures.
Outcome: Contractor held liable for repair, monitoring, and schedule delays; arbitration highlighted the importance of geotechnical evaluation in shoring design and installation.
Key Takeaways
Adherence to engineered designs is mandatory: Contractors cannot deviate from approved shoring plans without written consent.
Inspection and monitoring are critical: Continuous observation of settlement, deflection, and lateral movement is required.
Shared liability is common: Subcontractors, engineers, and contractors may share responsibility if failures occur.
Regulatory compliance: OSHA and local building codes are often referenced in arbitration decisions.
Documentation reduces disputes: Shop drawings, installation logs, and geotechnical reports provide essential evidence in arbitration.
RELATED Blog
comments