Minnesota Sues Engineers Alleging Defective Pre-Collapse Inspection and Evaluation of I-35W Bridge
According to the article Minnesota Sues Engineering Firm, Alleges Faulty Analysis of I-35W Bridge by Bill Salisbury at TwinCities.com, the State of Minnesota is suing for defective inspection and analysis of the I-35W bridge that collapsed two years ago. The state is suing URS Corp., the engineering firm the state hired to inspect and report on the condition of the bridge.This past Wednesday the State filed a Complaint Complaint against the engineer in Hennepin County District Court alleging claims for:
Breach of contract - failure to adequately inspect, analyze, and evaluate the structural condition of the bridge under contracts with the State to provide those services
- Negligence - failure to comply with the engineering standard of care in inspecting, analyzing, and evaluating the structural condition of the bridge that, in part, caused the bridge collapse
- Statutory Reimbursement - seeking reimbursement of money the State has paid to collapse survivors out of a special fund established by the Minnesota Legislature
- Subrogation
- by paying survivors out of the special fund, by subrogation, the
State takes over the survivors' claims against the engineer.
- Contractual contribution and indemnity - the State's contracts with the engineer require the engineer to indemnify the State against claims by third-parties (i.e., collapse survivors) arising from the engineer's negligence or other wrongful acts or omissions. The statute establishing the State's special fund also entitles the State to get contribution from those who were, at least in part, responsible for the bridge collapse
- Common law contribution and indemnity - the State's contracts with the engineer require the engineer to indemnify the State against claims by third-parties (i.e., collapse survivors) arising from the engineer's negligence or other wrongful acts or omissions. The statute establishing the State's special fund also entitles the State to get contribution from those who were, at least in part, responsible for the bridge collapse
This case is going to raise some interesting issues, particularly:
- Is there a limitation of liability or exculpatory clause in the engineering agreement? If there is, will the engineer be able to successfully raise it as a defense to all or some of the state's claims?
- How much will the settlement or final judgment be? The State's damages start at $37 Million and go up from there. I doubt limits on the engineer's professional errors and omissions liability insurance come anywhere close to even the first $37 Million
- How does this affect the engineer's other clients? If claims in this case exhaust the engineer's insurance, what is left for claims by other clients on other projects?
- That's in another lawsuit?
- That's going to come later in amendment to the Complaint?
- The State decided that they're asking for so much more than the engineer can pay already, there's not much use in trying to recover for these economic losses?
- Those losses were insured and the state's insurer will sue the engineer separately to recover some of what they paid-out on the State's insurance claim? And maybe the insurer won't bother figuring there won't be much left after the State finishes.
Construction Law Today is a legal blog about construction contracts, disputes, finance, and the people whose job it is to deal with them.
