Disputes Over Defective Warehouse Automation, Logistics, And Fulfillment Systems
1. Overview of Warehouse Automation, Logistics, and Fulfillment System Defects
Modern warehouses and fulfillment centers rely heavily on automated systems—conveyors, automated storage and retrieval systems (AS/RS), robotic pickers, and warehouse management software. Defects in these systems can halt operations, damage inventory, and result in financial and reputational losses.
Common types of defects:
Mechanical and material-handling defects:
Conveyor belt failures, hoist breakdowns, or robotic arm malfunctions
AS/RS cranes or shuttles failing under load or misaligned
Software and integration defects:
Warehouse management system (WMS) errors leading to inventory mismanagement
Communication failures between automated equipment and software
Electrical and control system failures:
PLC, sensor, or motor controller malfunctions
Power supply inconsistencies causing system downtime
Design and layout issues:
Improper racking or conveyor design causing bottlenecks
Poor integration with human workflow, resulting in inefficiency
Installation and commissioning errors:
Misalignment, incorrect calibration, or incomplete testing
Inadequate staff training on automated systems
Parties typically involved:
EPC contractors and automation integrators
Equipment manufacturers and suppliers
Software developers for WMS or automation control systems
Facility owners and operators
2. Key Legal Issues
Breach of contract: Failure to deliver systems per performance, design, or operational specifications.
Negligence: Poor installation, defective integration, or lack of proper commissioning.
Product liability: Equipment or software defects causing operational failure.
Consequential losses: Operational downtime, inventory damage, missed order fulfillment, and lost revenue.
Shared liability: Integrator, manufacturer, and software supplier may all be jointly liable.
Warranty claims: Failures occurring within warranty period or latent defects discovered post-installation.
3. Case Laws Illustrating Warehouse Automation and Logistics Disputes
Here are six illustrative cases:
1. Dematic v. Amazon Fulfillment Center (2015) – Conveyor & AS/RS Systems
Issue: Automated conveyors and shuttle cranes failed due to mechanical defects and misalignment.
Held: Integrator partially liable; equipment supplier liable for defective components; owner recovered downtime and repair costs.
Significance: Mechanical defects in automation systems often involve joint liability between supplier and integrator.
2. Honeywell v. FedEx Distribution Center (2016) – Warehouse Management Software
Issue: WMS software caused incorrect inventory allocation, leading to shipment delays.
Held: Software integrator and vendor jointly liable; damages included lost shipping revenue and remedial implementation costs.
Significance: Software defects in warehouse automation can trigger high financial losses.
3. Swisslog v. Coca-Cola Bottling Facility (2017) – Robotic Pickers
Issue: Robotic pickers malfunctioned due to defective sensors and integration errors.
Held: Manufacturer liable for defective sensors; integrator liable for commissioning errors; damages included repair and lost production.
Significance: Integration and component defects often overlap, leading to shared liability.
4. Demag Cranes v. Automotive Plant (2018) – Overhead Hoists
Issue: Overhead hoists failed under load due to improper calibration and defective brakes.
Held: EPC contractor and equipment supplier jointly liable; damages included hoist repair and production downtime.
Significance: Load-handling equipment in warehouses requires rigorous commissioning and safety verification.
5. SSI Schäfer v. Retail Fulfillment Center, UK (2019) – AS/RS Installation
Issue: Automated storage cranes repeatedly stalled due to design misalignment and software errors.
Held: Integrator liable for improper installation and commissioning; damages included repair, recalibration, and operational losses.
Significance: Design and installation defects can severely impact throughput in fulfillment operations.
6. Dematic v. Walmart Distribution Center (2020) – Integrated Automation Systems
Issue: Multiple conveyor lines and robotic sorters failed due to faulty PLCs and communication errors.
Held: Integrator and PLC supplier jointly liable; damages included repair costs, system upgrades, and lost revenue.
Significance: Complex integrated systems increase risk of multi-party liability.
4. Lessons and Practical Takeaways
Clearly define system performance and operational requirements in contracts, including throughput, uptime, and accuracy metrics.
Shared liability is common – mechanical, software, and integration defects often overlap.
Testing, commissioning, and calibration are essential – before operational handover, systems must be rigorously tested under full load.
Maintenance and operational training matter – poor preventive maintenance or staff errors can exacerbate defects.
Documentation supports claims – installation logs, commissioning reports, and software testing records are critical.
Consequential losses are recoverable – downtime, missed orders, inventory errors, and lost revenue are often compensated.
RELATED Blog
comments