Loading
Telecommunications
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Telecommunications, Fiber Optics Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Utility Engineering, Construction Safety
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Eighth Circuit
Two underground fiber-optic cables running through a concrete roadway in Saint Paul, Minnesota, became the subject of a federal lawsuit after a construction subcontractor severed them during pavement cutting. On April 14, 2015, Maverick Cutting and Breaking LLC was working near the intersection of Kellogg Boulevard and Wabasha Street when its equipment struck a protective pipe containing telecommunications cables owned by MCI Communications Services. The cables were embedded unusually close to the road surface, although their approximate horizontal location had been marked before construction. MCI repaired the damaged lines over approximately eight and a half hours and redirected communications traffic through available capacity elsewhere in its network.
The incident led to a dispute over underground utility protection, contractor responsibilities, and the legal definition of excavation under Minnesota law. MCI sued Maverick in April 2017, alleging trespass, negligence, and statutory liability while seeking compensation for physical repairs and the temporary loss of cable capacity. The parties disagreed about whether Maverick should have taken further precautions before cutting the pavement and whether its work fell within the state's excavation requirements. In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed several claims but allowed excavation-related issues to proceed. The lawsuit ended through settlement and was recorded as closed on June 6, 2019.
Brooks Fiber Communications, MCI's predecessor, installed telecommunications cables along Kellogg Boulevard in Saint Paul. The cables were enclosed in a protective pipe embedded within the concrete roadway instead of being buried in soil beneath the pavement. Historical installation drawings indicated a depth of approximately 12 inches, but measurements taken after the damage showed that the top of the pipe was only seven inches below the road surface. During litigation, the parties disputed whether the installation method followed accepted practices and whether the City of Saint Paul had authorized the cable placement.
The City of Saint Paul engaged engineering firm TKDA to design improvements to several bridges and coordinate underground utilities affected by the project. On April 26, 2013, TKDA requested utility information through Gopher State One Call to identify existing facilities near the planned construction. MCI maintained that it had provided drawings of its cable installation, although TKDA had no record of receiving them. On January 16, 2014, TKDA invited MCI to a utility coordination meeting concerning the work area, but MCI did not attend. The parties later disagreed about the utility information available during project planning.
Carl Bolander & Sons, the subcontractor responsible for excavation and pavement removal, requested underground utility locating before construction began. MCI technician Vince Johnson marked the approximate horizontal position of the company's buried fiber-optic cables without identifying their depth. Johnson testified that MCI's internal drawings sometimes contained depth estimates and that his locating equipment could provide a general depth reading. Neither Bolander nor Maverick had requested this information, and the court found no evidence that Minnesota law required Johnson to supply depth measurements under the circumstances.
Maverick was cutting concrete under Bolander's direction when its mechanized saw struck a four-inch pipe containing two MCI fiber-optic cables. The pipe ran through pavement approximately 13 inches thick, with its upper surface only seven inches below the roadway. Maverick had not received the original installation drawings or independently investigated the depth of the cables before beginning work. The damaged lines required approximately eight and a half hours of repairs, during which MCI carried telecommunications traffic through spare capacity within its existing network.
Representatives of the City of Saint Paul, TKDA, Bolander, and MCI met the following day to discuss the damaged cables and their location within the pavement. Their discussions addressed the unexpected installation depth and conflicts between existing utilities and the ongoing construction. MCI later marked the depth of its remaining cables in the project area and relocated facilities that interfered with the planned work at its own expense. The parties' differing accounts of the cable placement, project drawings, and utility coordination became part of the subsequent negligence dispute.
MCI Communications Services and MCImetro Access Transmission Services filed suit against Maverick in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Their claims included trespass, negligence, and statutory liability under Minnesota laws governing excavation near underground utilities. MCI sought $52,024.68 for physical cable repairs and $859,326.59 for loss of use, calculated using the estimated cost of obtaining substitute telecommunications capacity. Maverick contested responsibility, maintaining that it had followed Bolander's instructions and had been hired to cut concrete rather than independently locate or excavate underground utilities.
As the litigation proceeded, MCI sought to amend its complaint to add contractual claims against Maverick and claims against Bolander, which had hired the saw-cutting subcontractor. A magistrate judge denied the request, and on September 24, 2018, Chief Judge John R. Tunheim upheld that decision after finding that MCI had not acted with sufficient diligence in seeking the amendment. MCI then filed a separate federal lawsuit against Bolander on October 22, 2018, over the same cable-cutting incident. The Maverick action continued, with liability, recoverable damages, and the proposed expert testimony remaining contested.
Chief Judge John R. Tunheim granted Maverick's summary judgment motion in part, dismissing MCI's trespass claims and negligence theories based on contractual duties or saw-cutting industry standards. However, conflicting evidence about whether Maverick's equipment disturbed soil beneath the pavement left excavation-related negligence and statutory liability claims unresolved. The court also rejected MCI's $859,326.59 loss-of-use claim because the company had rerouted traffic through its existing network rather than paying for replacement capacity, and the proposed rental calculation lacked a reliable market basis.
The decision also addressed proposed testimony from Ron Peterson and Peter Tooley for MCI and Steven M. Hamilton for Maverick. Peterson could discuss accepted cable-protection practices and, if the work qualified as excavation, relevant excavation standards, but not contractual duties or saw-cutting standards. Hamilton could address cable depth, utility coordination, and certain construction practices, but not saw-cutting standards or disputed facts presented as established. Tooley's proposed damages testimony was excluded following the rejection of MCI's loss-of-use claim. The court's rulings narrowed the remaining issues without determining Maverick's negligence.
The action against Maverick was recorded as dismissed following settlement, with a termination date of June 6, 2019. The settlement ended the lawsuit before a jury determined whether Maverick's saw-cutting constituted excavation or whether the contractor was negligent under the remaining legal theories. The recorded disposition does not identify the settlement amount or establish an admission of fault. MCI's separate lawsuit against Bolander was not resolved by the closure of the Maverick action.
Court:
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
Case Name:
MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. Maverick Cutting and Breaking LLC
Maverick severed two MCI fiber-optic cables while cutting concrete during a Saint Paul road project in 2015.
The dispute focused on underground utility markings, unusually shallow cable placement, contractor precautions, and whether the saw-cutting qualified as excavation under Minnesota law.
The court dismissed MCI’s trespass claims and certain negligence theories but allowed excavation-related negligence and statutory claims to continue.
MCI’s $859,326.59 loss-of-use claim was rejected because traffic had been rerouted through existing spare network capacity and the proposed replacement-cost calculation lacked a reliable market basis.
The parties settled before trial, and the federal case closed on June 6, 2019 without a final finding of liability.
Fiber Optics
Underground cable
Underground Utilities
Utility Construction
Telecommunications Engineer
Cables
Damage Analysis
Construction Accidents
Electrical Systems
Network Engineering
Two underground fiber-optic cables running through a concrete roadway in Saint Paul, Minnesota, became the subject of a federal lawsuit after a construction subcontractor severed them during pavement cutting. On April 14, 2015, Maverick Cutting and Breaking LLC was working near the intersection of Kellogg Boulevard and Wabasha Street when its equipment struck a protective pipe containing telecommunications cables owned by MCI Communications Services. The cables were embedded unusually close to the road surface, although their approximate horizontal location had been marked before construction. MCI repaired the damaged lines over approximately eight and a half hours and redirected communications traffic through available capacity elsewhere in its network.
The incident led to a dispute over underground utility protection, contractor responsibilities, and the legal definition of excavation under Minnesota law. MCI sued Maverick in April 2017, alleging trespass, negligence, and statutory liability while seeking compensation for physical repairs and the temporary loss of cable capacity. The parties disagreed about whether Maverick should have taken further precautions before cutting the pavement and whether its work fell within the state's excavation requirements. In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed several claims but allowed excavation-related issues to proceed. The lawsuit ended through settlement and was recorded as closed on June 6, 2019.
Brooks Fiber Communications, MCI's predecessor, installed telecommunications cables along Kellogg Boulevard in Saint Paul. The cables were enclosed in a protective pipe embedded within the concrete roadway instead of being buried in soil beneath the pavement. Historical installation drawings indicated a depth of approximately 12 inches, but measurements taken after the damage showed that the top of the pipe was only seven inches below the road surface. During litigation, the parties disputed whether the installation method followed accepted practices and whether the City of Saint Paul had authorized the cable placement.
The City of Saint Paul engaged engineering firm TKDA to design improvements to several bridges and coordinate underground utilities affected by the project. On April 26, 2013, TKDA requested utility information through Gopher State One Call to identify existing facilities near the planned construction. MCI maintained that it had provided drawings of its cable installation, although TKDA had no record of receiving them. On January 16, 2014, TKDA invited MCI to a utility coordination meeting concerning the work area, but MCI did not attend. The parties later disagreed about the utility information available during project planning.
Carl Bolander & Sons, the subcontractor responsible for excavation and pavement removal, requested underground utility locating before construction began. MCI technician Vince Johnson marked the approximate horizontal position of the company's buried fiber-optic cables without identifying their depth. Johnson testified that MCI's internal drawings sometimes contained depth estimates and that his locating equipment could provide a general depth reading. Neither Bolander nor Maverick had requested this information, and the court found no evidence that Minnesota law required Johnson to supply depth measurements under the circumstances.
Maverick was cutting concrete under Bolander's direction when its mechanized saw struck a four-inch pipe containing two MCI fiber-optic cables. The pipe ran through pavement approximately 13 inches thick, with its upper surface only seven inches below the roadway. Maverick had not received the original installation drawings or independently investigated the depth of the cables before beginning work. The damaged lines required approximately eight and a half hours of repairs, during which MCI carried telecommunications traffic through spare capacity within its existing network.
Representatives of the City of Saint Paul, TKDA, Bolander, and MCI met the following day to discuss the damaged cables and their location within the pavement. Their discussions addressed the unexpected installation depth and conflicts between existing utilities and the ongoing construction. MCI later marked the depth of its remaining cables in the project area and relocated facilities that interfered with the planned work at its own expense. The parties' differing accounts of the cable placement, project drawings, and utility coordination became part of the subsequent negligence dispute.
MCI Communications Services and MCImetro Access Transmission Services filed suit against Maverick in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Their claims included trespass, negligence, and statutory liability under Minnesota laws governing excavation near underground utilities. MCI sought $52,024.68 for physical cable repairs and $859,326.59 for loss of use, calculated using the estimated cost of obtaining substitute telecommunications capacity. Maverick contested responsibility, maintaining that it had followed Bolander's instructions and had been hired to cut concrete rather than independently locate or excavate underground utilities.
As the litigation proceeded, MCI sought to amend its complaint to add contractual claims against Maverick and claims against Bolander, which had hired the saw-cutting subcontractor. A magistrate judge denied the request, and on September 24, 2018, Chief Judge John R. Tunheim upheld that decision after finding that MCI had not acted with sufficient diligence in seeking the amendment. MCI then filed a separate federal lawsuit against Bolander on October 22, 2018, over the same cable-cutting incident. The Maverick action continued, with liability, recoverable damages, and the proposed expert testimony remaining contested.
Chief Judge John R. Tunheim granted Maverick's summary judgment motion in part, dismissing MCI's trespass claims and negligence theories based on contractual duties or saw-cutting industry standards. However, conflicting evidence about whether Maverick's equipment disturbed soil beneath the pavement left excavation-related negligence and statutory liability claims unresolved. The court also rejected MCI's $859,326.59 loss-of-use claim because the company had rerouted traffic through its existing network rather than paying for replacement capacity, and the proposed rental calculation lacked a reliable market basis.
The decision also addressed proposed testimony from Ron Peterson and Peter Tooley for MCI and Steven M. Hamilton for Maverick. Peterson could discuss accepted cable-protection practices and, if the work qualified as excavation, relevant excavation standards, but not contractual duties or saw-cutting standards. Hamilton could address cable depth, utility coordination, and certain construction practices, but not saw-cutting standards or disputed facts presented as established. Tooley's proposed damages testimony was excluded following the rejection of MCI's loss-of-use claim. The court's rulings narrowed the remaining issues without determining Maverick's negligence.
The action against Maverick was recorded as dismissed following settlement, with a termination date of June 6, 2019. The settlement ended the lawsuit before a jury determined whether Maverick's saw-cutting constituted excavation or whether the contractor was negligent under the remaining legal theories. The recorded disposition does not identify the settlement amount or establish an admission of fault. MCI's separate lawsuit against Bolander was not resolved by the closure of the Maverick action.
Underground Utility and Excavation Practices Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Ron Peterson, MCI's proposed expert, evaluated precautions for construction work near buried telecommunications facilities. His opinions addressed excavation standards, utility markings, cable protection, and methods for identifying underground obstructions. Peterson maintained that Maverick should have taken additional precautions before cutting across the marked cable route, including exposing the buried utilities and using ground-penetrating radar to check for obstructions.
The court permitted Peterson to discuss accepted cable-protection practices and whether the cables' placement appeared consistent with those practices. He could also offer opinions about excavation industry standards if Maverick's work was found to qualify as excavation. However, the court excluded his opinions on contractual duties, what Brooks Fiber Communications actually did during installation, and saw-cutting industry standards. The judge also found that Peterson's cited publications did not establish a general industry requirement to use ground-penetrating radar before concrete cutting.
Electrical Engineering Expert Witness (Defense)
Steven M. Hamilton, Maverick's proposed expert, was a Minnesota-licensed electrical engineer with more than 27 years of experience. His analysis addressed the unusual depth of MCI's cables, underground utility coordination, and the information available to construction participants before the incident. His background included engineering work on light-rail projects involving utility conflicts, installation planning, and coordination with existing underground infrastructure. Hamilton questioned whether Maverick should have been expected to anticipate fiber-optic cables embedded within the concrete roadway.
The court allowed Hamilton to offer opinions concerning cable depth, underground utility location and relocation, and certain construction contracting practices. These included distinctions between low-bid and best-value projects and between industry standards and recommended practices. However, his proposed testimony about saw-cutting industry standards was excluded because he lacked sufficient experience in that field. The judge also restricted him from presenting disputed facts or witness accounts as established truths.
Telecommunications Loss-of-Use Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Peter Tooley was identified as MCI's proposed expert in connection with its loss-of-use damages claim. MCI sought compensation based on the estimated cost of obtaining substitute telecommunications capacity from another provider while the damaged cables were being repaired. The company calculated its claim using hypothetical replacement costs rather than charges it had actually incurred.
During repairs, MCI redirected communications traffic to spare capacity within its existing network instead of purchasing replacement service. The court determined that the proposed loss-of-use damages were not recoverable under the circumstances and excluded Tooley's testimony and the related rental-cost evidence. The ruling concerned the admissibility of that damages evidence, rather than a finding that Tooley lacked the necessary qualifications.
Underground Cable Depth and Installation Practices
The damaged cables were enclosed in a protective pipe within the concrete pavement, closer to the road surface than several construction participants expected. Several witnesses described conventional telecommunications cable burial depths of 24 to 36 inches or more, depending on the installation. MCI's expert maintained that steel pipe and concrete encasement could provide acceptable protection for cables installed closer to the surface. The court did not make a final determination that Brooks Fiber Communications had improperly installed the cables or lacked authorization from the city.
Limits of Underground Utility Location Markings
The utility markings on Kellogg Boulevard identified the approximate horizontal route of MCI's cables but provided no depth measurements. Johnson testified that his equipment could supply a general depth estimate, although such readings might be mistaken for precise measurements by construction crews. The court found no evidence that the contractors requested additional depth information or that Minnesota law required the locator to provide it under these circumstances. The parties also disputed the availability of historical installation drawings, which contained information about the cables' original placement.
Concrete Saw-Cutting Under Minnesota Excavation Law
Maverick argued that cutting concrete was different from excavating soil and therefore did not automatically trigger duties imposed on excavators. MCI maintained that the saw blade could have penetrated beneath the pavement and disturbed soil, bringing the activity within Minnesota's excavation statute. The judge found that the evidence did not conclusively establish whether soil disturbance had occurred. The statutory classification and related negligence claims therefore remained unresolved when the parties settled.
Industry Safety Practices and Contractor Duties
The parties disagreed over the precautions required when cutting pavement near marked telecommunications facilities. Peterson proposed additional measures, including ground-penetrating radar and methods for exposing underground utilities, but the court examined whether the publications he cited established those measures as recognized requirements for saw-cutting work. The judge concluded that the evidence did not support negligence based solely on an asserted saw-cutting industry standard. Claims concerning duties under excavation practices and Minnesota law were considered separately.
Spare Network Capacity and Loss-of-Use Damages
MCI maintained additional telecommunications capacity that could carry traffic when part of its network became unavailable. Following the cable damage, the company used that capacity rather than purchasing replacement service from another provider. Its $859,326.59 loss-of-use demand was calculated using estimated third-party capacity costs, even though those charges were not incurred. The court rejected the claim under Minnesota law because MCI had maintained traffic through its existing network without incurring substitute-capacity charges. The judge also considered MCI's routine use of spare capacity and found the proposed rental calculation speculative because no established rental market for spare cable capacity existed. The separate claim for physical repair expenses remained tied to the unresolved liability dispute.
The March 2019 ruling narrowed MCI's claims against Maverick but left unresolved whether the saw-cutting operation fell within Minnesota's excavation laws and whether Maverick breached duties applicable to that work. Rather than proceed to a trial on those remaining questions, the parties settled, and the lawsuit was recorded as closed on June 6, 2019. No jury verdict established negligence, and the reported disposition did not disclose the settlement amount or allocation of responsibility. MCI had also filed a separate lawsuit against Bolander, the subcontractor responsible for directing Maverick's work, after its attempt to add Bolander to the original action was denied.
Who was responsible for the Saint Paul construction project?
The City of Saint Paul was the project owner, and engineering firm TKDA provided design and utility coordination services. Kraemer North America served as the general contractor, while Carl Bolander & Sons handled excavation, pavement removal, and related work. Bolander hired Maverick Cutting and Breaking to perform concrete saw-cutting and instructed the company where and how deeply to cut.
What did the contractors know about the buried cables?
The approximate horizontal location of MCI's telecommunications cables had been marked before construction. However, Maverick had not received the historical cable installation drawings, and the markings did not state the depth of the buried pipe. The parties disagreed over whether additional investigation or coordination should have occurred before cutting the pavement.
Did the fiber-optic cable damage interrupt network traffic?
The incident severed two telecommunications cables and required approximately eight and a half hours of repair work. MCI rerouted traffic through spare capacity already available within its existing network during that period. The court record describes this transfer of traffic but does not establish a widespread customer-facing communications outage.
Why was MCI's $859,326.59 damage claim rejected?
MCI sought loss-of-use damages calculated using the estimated cost of obtaining substitute telecommunications capacity from another provider. However, it had relied on its own spare network capacity and had not paid those proposed third-party rental charges. The court also found that the hypothetical rental calculation lacked a reliable market basis and considered MCI's routine use of spare capacity. It therefore rejected the loss-of-use claim under Minnesota law, while the separate claim for physical cable repairs remained unresolved by that ruling.
Underground Utility and Excavation Practices Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Ron Peterson, MCI's proposed expert, evaluated precautions for construction work near buried telecommunications facilities. His opinions addressed excavation standards, utility markings, cable protection, and methods for identifying underground obstructions. Peterson maintained that Maverick should have taken additional precautions before cutting across the marked cable route, including exposing the buried utilities and using ground-penetrating radar to check for obstructions.
The court permitted Peterson to discuss accepted cable-protection practices and whether the cables' placement appeared consistent with those practices. He could also offer opinions about excavation industry standards if Maverick's work was found to qualify as excavation. However, the court excluded his opinions on contractual duties, what Brooks Fiber Communications actually did during installation, and saw-cutting industry standards. The judge also found that Peterson's cited publications did not establish a general industry requirement to use ground-penetrating radar before concrete cutting.
Electrical Engineering Expert Witness (Defense)
Steven M. Hamilton, Maverick's proposed expert, was a Minnesota-licensed electrical engineer with more than 27 years of experience. His analysis addressed the unusual depth of MCI's cables, underground utility coordination, and the information available to construction participants before the incident. His background included engineering work on light-rail projects involving utility conflicts, installation planning, and coordination with existing underground infrastructure. Hamilton questioned whether Maverick should have been expected to anticipate fiber-optic cables embedded within the concrete roadway.
The court allowed Hamilton to offer opinions concerning cable depth, underground utility location and relocation, and certain construction contracting practices. These included distinctions between low-bid and best-value projects and between industry standards and recommended practices. However, his proposed testimony about saw-cutting industry standards was excluded because he lacked sufficient experience in that field. The judge also restricted him from presenting disputed facts or witness accounts as established truths.
Telecommunications Loss-of-Use Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff)
Peter Tooley was identified as MCI's proposed expert in connection with its loss-of-use damages claim. MCI sought compensation based on the estimated cost of obtaining substitute telecommunications capacity from another provider while the damaged cables were being repaired. The company calculated its claim using hypothetical replacement costs rather than charges it had actually incurred.
During repairs, MCI redirected communications traffic to spare capacity within its existing network instead of purchasing replacement service. The court determined that the proposed loss-of-use damages were not recoverable under the circumstances and excluded Tooley's testimony and the related rental-cost evidence. The ruling concerned the admissibility of that damages evidence, rather than a finding that Tooley lacked the necessary qualifications.
Underground Cable Depth and Installation Practices
The damaged cables were enclosed in a protective pipe within the concrete pavement, closer to the road surface than several construction participants expected. Several witnesses described conventional telecommunications cable burial depths of 24 to 36 inches or more, depending on the installation. MCI's expert maintained that steel pipe and concrete encasement could provide acceptable protection for cables installed closer to the surface. The court did not make a final determination that Brooks Fiber Communications had improperly installed the cables or lacked authorization from the city.
Limits of Underground Utility Location Markings
The utility markings on Kellogg Boulevard identified the approximate horizontal route of MCI's cables but provided no depth measurements. Johnson testified that his equipment could supply a general depth estimate, although such readings might be mistaken for precise measurements by construction crews. The court found no evidence that the contractors requested additional depth information or that Minnesota law required the locator to provide it under these circumstances. The parties also disputed the availability of historical installation drawings, which contained information about the cables' original placement.
Concrete Saw-Cutting Under Minnesota Excavation Law
Maverick argued that cutting concrete was different from excavating soil and therefore did not automatically trigger duties imposed on excavators. MCI maintained that the saw blade could have penetrated beneath the pavement and disturbed soil, bringing the activity within Minnesota's excavation statute. The judge found that the evidence did not conclusively establish whether soil disturbance had occurred. The statutory classification and related negligence claims therefore remained unresolved when the parties settled.
Industry Safety Practices and Contractor Duties
The parties disagreed over the precautions required when cutting pavement near marked telecommunications facilities. Peterson proposed additional measures, including ground-penetrating radar and methods for exposing underground utilities, but the court examined whether the publications he cited established those measures as recognized requirements for saw-cutting work. The judge concluded that the evidence did not support negligence based solely on an asserted saw-cutting industry standard. Claims concerning duties under excavation practices and Minnesota law were considered separately.
Spare Network Capacity and Loss-of-Use Damages
MCI maintained additional telecommunications capacity that could carry traffic when part of its network became unavailable. Following the cable damage, the company used that capacity rather than purchasing replacement service from another provider. Its $859,326.59 loss-of-use demand was calculated using estimated third-party capacity costs, even though those charges were not incurred. The court rejected the claim under Minnesota law because MCI had maintained traffic through its existing network without incurring substitute-capacity charges. The judge also considered MCI's routine use of spare capacity and found the proposed rental calculation speculative because no established rental market for spare cable capacity existed. The separate claim for physical repair expenses remained tied to the unresolved liability dispute.
The March 2019 ruling narrowed MCI's claims against Maverick but left unresolved whether the saw-cutting operation fell within Minnesota's excavation laws and whether Maverick breached duties applicable to that work. Rather than proceed to a trial on those remaining questions, the parties settled, and the lawsuit was recorded as closed on June 6, 2019. No jury verdict established negligence, and the reported disposition did not disclose the settlement amount or allocation of responsibility. MCI had also filed a separate lawsuit against Bolander, the subcontractor responsible for directing Maverick's work, after its attempt to add Bolander to the original action was denied.
Who was responsible for the Saint Paul construction project?
The City of Saint Paul was the project owner, and engineering firm TKDA provided design and utility coordination services. Kraemer North America served as the general contractor, while Carl Bolander & Sons handled excavation, pavement removal, and related work. Bolander hired Maverick Cutting and Breaking to perform concrete saw-cutting and instructed the company where and how deeply to cut.
What did the contractors know about the buried cables?
The approximate horizontal location of MCI's telecommunications cables had been marked before construction. However, Maverick had not received the historical cable installation drawings, and the markings did not state the depth of the buried pipe. The parties disagreed over whether additional investigation or coordination should have occurred before cutting the pavement.
Did the fiber-optic cable damage interrupt network traffic?
The incident severed two telecommunications cables and required approximately eight and a half hours of repair work. MCI rerouted traffic through spare capacity already available within its existing network during that period. The court record describes this transfer of traffic but does not establish a widespread customer-facing communications outage.
Why was MCI's $859,326.59 damage claim rejected?
MCI sought loss-of-use damages calculated using the estimated cost of obtaining substitute telecommunications capacity from another provider. However, it had relied on its own spare network capacity and had not paid those proposed third-party rental charges. The court also found that the hypothetical rental calculation lacked a reliable market basis and considered MCI's routine use of spare capacity. It therefore rejected the loss-of-use claim under Minnesota law, while the separate claim for physical cable repairs remained unresolved by that ruling.
Was Maverick found liable for damaging MCI's cables?
No final trial verdict established Maverick's liability. The court dismissed certain claims in March 2019 but left excavation-related negligence and statutory liability questions open because the facts concerning soil disturbance remained disputed. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, and the federal lawsuit against Maverick closed on June 6, 2019.
Fiber Optics
Underground cable
Underground Utilities
Utility Construction
Telecommunications Engineer
Cables
Damage Analysis
Construction Accidents
Electrical Systems
Network Engineering
Trade Secret, +3
Telecommunications
Patent, +4
Telecommunications
Was Maverick found liable for damaging MCI's cables?
No final trial verdict established Maverick's liability. The court dismissed certain claims in March 2019 but left excavation-related negligence and statutory liability questions open because the facts concerning soil disturbance remained disputed. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, and the federal lawsuit against Maverick closed on June 6, 2019.