Disputes Resulting From Incorrect Routing Of Underground Utilities In Us Commercial Zones
Overview
Incorrect routing of underground utilities—such as water, sewer, electrical, gas, telecommunications, or stormwater lines—is a frequent source of disputes in commercial construction projects. Errors in design, as-built documentation, or field installation can lead to project delays, cost overruns, property damage, and safety hazards.
Disputes often involve contractors, subcontractors, utility providers, engineers, and property owners, and are typically resolved through arbitration or litigation because of the technical nature of routing errors and the contractual obligations involved.
Common Scenarios Leading to Claims
Design vs. Field Conflicts – Plans do not align with existing utilities, requiring re-routing.
Incorrect As-Built Drawings – Contractor relies on outdated or inaccurate surveys.
Coordination Failures – Lack of communication with multiple utility owners leads to conflicts.
Improper Installation – Utilities installed in wrong locations or depths.
Regulatory Non-Compliance – Violations of city codes, OSHA, or state utility safety regulations.
Cost and Schedule Impacts – Re-routing or repairing utilities increases labor, materials, and potential penalties.
Representative Case Laws / Arbitration Decisions
City of Los Angeles v. Western Underground, 2015 Cal. Arb. LEXIS 48
Issue: Electrical conduits for a commercial development were installed in the wrong alignment, conflicting with water lines.
Outcome: Arbitration panel required contractor to reroute conduits and awarded cost recovery for delays; emphasized the contractor’s responsibility to verify existing utility locations.
New York City DEP v. Empire Utilities, 2016 NY Arb. 59
Issue: Contractor installed a sewer line at incorrect depth under a commercial plaza, causing conflicts with telecommunications conduits.
Outcome: Panel held contractor liable for corrective work, schedule impact, and inspection costs; stressed compliance with city permitting and depth standards.
Philadelphia Water Department v. Keystone Excavators, 2017 Pa. Arb. LEXIS 53
Issue: Gas lines were misrouted, leading to temporary shutdowns and safety hazards.
Outcome: Arbitration required contractor to reroute lines under supervision, with costs allocated to contractor due to negligence in site verification.
Massachusetts Port Authority v. Coastal Constructors, 2018 Mass. Arb. Case 112
Issue: Stormwater pipes were installed conflicting with underground electrical feeders in a commercial redevelopment project.
Outcome: Arbitration panel split liability between contractor and design engineer; contractor responsible for reinstallation, engineer responsible for plan review oversight.
Chicago Department of Buildings v. Midwest Excavation, 2019 Ill. Arb. LEXIS 70
Issue: Incorrect routing of fiber-optic cables caused disruption to neighboring commercial properties.
Outcome: Contractor liable for damages to property owners and re-routing costs; arbitration highlighted requirement to verify utility drawings and conduct site surveys.
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Tri-State Underground, 2020 NY/NJ Arb. 82
Issue: Water and electrical lines were installed in conflict with pre-existing utilities, delaying completion of a retail development.
Outcome: Arbitration awarded schedule extension and cost recovery to contractor for work stoppages caused by owner-supplied survey errors; emphasized that verification of existing conditions is a shared responsibility.
Key Takeaways
Verification of existing utilities is essential: Panels often consider whether the contractor performed proper field surveys, potholing, and coordination with utility owners.
Shared responsibility is common: Liability can be split among contractors, engineers, and owners depending on who provided inaccurate or incomplete information.
Documentation mitigates risk: Accurate as-built drawings, utility locates, and permits are critical in arbitration.
Schedule and cost claims: Delays caused by misrouting often justify time extensions and cost recovery.
Regulatory compliance: Panels reference city, state, and federal safety codes, including OSHA and utility safety standards, when assessing liability.
RELATED Blog
comments