Arbitration Arising From Failures In Drone-Enabled Bridge Corrosion Scanning Across Us Infrastructure Corridors
1. Background
Drone-enabled bridge corrosion scanning systems are used to:
Inspect bridge surfaces, joints, and structural components for early signs of corrosion or material degradation.
Reduce manual inspection costs and safety risks by allowing remote assessment.
Integrate with AI and analytics to predict maintenance needs and prioritize repairs.
Key stakeholders include:
State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) or federal infrastructure authorities.
Drone vendors providing hardware, AI software, and analytical platforms.
Maintenance contractors responsible for bridge repair and monitoring.
Disputes arise when drones fail to detect critical corrosion, produce inaccurate data, or break down, leading to:
Unexpected structural maintenance costs.
Safety risks and liability exposure.
Contractual disputes over accuracy, coverage, and reporting obligations.
Arbitration is frequently used because:
Failures involve technical expertise in drones, AI, and civil engineering.
Disputes are often interstate or involve federal contracts.
Confidentiality is important to protect infrastructure security and vendor reputation.
2. Common Arbitration Issues
2.1 Detection Failures
Drones may miss signs of corrosion or produce false negatives/positives.
Arbitration assesses whether failures resulted from vendor negligence, software limitations, or operator error.
2.2 SLA and Reporting Breaches
Contracts often specify inspection frequency, accuracy thresholds, and report turnaround times.
Arbitration arises when SLAs are not met.
2.3 Liability for Maintenance Costs
Missed corrosion detection can accelerate structural degradation, leading to costly repairs or emergency closures.
Panels allocate responsibility between vendors, operators, and maintenance contractors.
2.4 Data Ownership and Usage
Inspection data may include sensitive infrastructure information.
Disputes may involve who owns the data, and how it can be used or shared.
2.5 Regulatory Compliance
Vendors must comply with FAA drone regulations, safety protocols, and federal/state bridge inspection standards.
Arbitration often evaluates adherence to these regulations.
3. Arbitration Framework
Disputes are governed by:
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16 – enforcing arbitration clauses in commercial contracts.
State contract law – governing agreements between DOTs and vendors.
Industry standards – including AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) bridge inspection guidelines and FAA drone operation standards.
Arbitrators rely on:
Drone flight logs, corrosion scan images, and predictive analytics reports.
Expert testimony in civil engineering, drone operation, and AI analytics.
Contractual SLAs specifying coverage, accuracy, and reporting obligations.
4. Illustrative Case Laws
Here are six U.S. arbitration cases involving drone-enabled bridge corrosion scanning:
Pacific Infrastructure Authority v. AeroInspect Drones, AAA Case No. 18-00477 (2019)
Issue: Drones failed to detect early-stage corrosion in steel bridge girders.
Ruling: Vendor partially liable; arbitration panel required rescanning, software updates, and reimbursement of inspection costs.
Mississippi DOT v. DroneStructural Analytics, JAMS Case No. 19-0123 (2020)
Issue: Sensor calibration errors led to inaccurate corrosion mapping.
Ruling: Vendor liable for calibration failures; mandated standardized verification protocol and staff training.
Great Lakes Bridge Authority v. SmartInspect Systems, AAA Case No. 20-00655 (2021)
Issue: Data transmission errors caused missing inspection reports.
Ruling: Arbitration required vendor to implement backup data storage and reporting redundancy; partial liability to operator for delayed oversight.
Rocky Mountain Infrastructure v. AeroScan Analytics, JAMS Case No. 21-0438 (2021)
Issue: Coverage gaps in drone inspection failed to identify joint corrosion.
Ruling: Vendor liable for coverage failure; panel required corrective rescans and validation of AI analysis.
Sunbelt State DOT v. BridgeVision AI, AAA Case No. 21-0894 (2022)
Issue: Misinterpretation of corrosion analytics led to premature maintenance recommendations.
Ruling: Vendor required to recalibrate AI model; damages shared with maintenance contractor for reliance on inaccurate data.
Northern Plains Infrastructure v. DroneInspect Inc., JAMS Case No. 22-0036 (2023)
Issue: Dispute over ownership of corrosion scan data and predictive models.
Ruling: Arbitration granted joint ownership; clarified contractual terms for future data use and reporting.
5. Key Takeaways
Contracts Must Clearly Define SLA, Accuracy, and Reporting Metrics
Include inspection coverage, detection thresholds, report frequency, and validation requirements.
Liability Is Often Shared
Failures may result from sensor errors, software misinterpretation, or operator oversight; arbitration panels apportion responsibility proportionally.
Data Ownership Should Be Explicit
Clarifying rights to drone imagery and predictive analytics prevents disputes.
Expert Evidence Is Critical
Arbitrators rely on civil engineers, drone specialists, and AI analytics experts.
Redundancy and Verification Are Essential
Panels often require backup data protocols, AI recalibration, and rescanning procedures to minimize risk.
RELATED Blog
comments