PITTSBURGH – A Kilbuck Township couple accused of possessing an illegally-constructed parking area whose groundwater runoff flooded their next-door neighbors’ finished basement have denied liability for the events in question.
James Florida and Alexis Florida first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on May 24 versus William Lichauer and Diane Lichauer. All parties are of Kilbuck Township.
“Plaintiffs and defendants are neighbors. In this context, plaintiffs’ property borders and abuts defendants’ property. In or about October 2022, defendants improperly, unlawfully, and illegally installed and constructed a parking area/pad in the rear of their property measuring approximately 30 feet by 30 feet. Defendants constructed the parking area/pad out of broken pieces of road, driveway and/or concrete materials,” the suit said.
“It is believed and, therefore, averred that defendants did not obtain proper approval from the appropriate municipal entity/entities prior to the installation of the parking area/pad. In this context, it is believed and/or averred that the pad/parking area was not properly installed according to municipal regulations and/or requirements. The parking area/pad improperly, unlawfully and illegally installed by defendants encroaches upon plaintiffs’ property. Specifically, the parking area/pad abuts and encroaches upon plaintiffs’ fence on the border of the property and upon the border of the property.”
The suit added that the defendants’ improper, unlawful and illegal installation of the parking area/pad in the rear of their property has caused significant groundwater to be redirected from the defendants’ property to the rear area/back yard of the plaintiffs’ property – and furthermore, that such redirection has led to “significant groundwater intrusion into the [finished] basement of the plaintiffs’ property.”
“The water intrusion caused by defendants’ improper, unlawful and illegal installation of the parking area/pad in the rear of their property has caused the following extensive damage to plaintiffs’ finished basement: The rear yard to the property is wet, swampy and unusable after it rains; The patio in the rear of property is covered with substantial ground water and is unusable after it rains; Plaintiffs’ finished basement at the property has suffered extensive water intrusion causing significant mold buildup in the basement. Plaintiffs finished basement at the property has suffered extensive water intrusion causing damage to the painted drywall in the basement, and plaintiffs finished basement at the property has suffered extensive water intrusion causing damage to the carpet and/or tile flooring in the basement,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the damages set forth in detail, plaintiffs have been required to undertake the following repairs: Plaintiffs have been required to conduct mold abatement and remediation to their entire finished basement of the property; Plaintiffs have been required to remove all drywall damaged by water intrusion in the finished basement of the property; Plaintiffs have been required to remove all carpet and/or tile flooring damaged by water intrusion in the finished basement of the property; Plaintiffs have been and/or will be required to install new and/or replacement drywall, paint, carpet and/or tile flooring materials in the finished basement of the property.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed an answer and new matter in the case on July 13, which denied the plaintiffs’ assertions and responsibility for the subject events at issue, arguing that the parking area was properly constructed and did not facilitate groundwater leaking into the plaintiffs’ basement.
“The complaint fails to state a claim against defendants upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by their own unclean hands. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel and waiver. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by their own contributory negligence,” the new matter stated.
“The parking area/pad alleged by plaintiffs to be improperly installed is made of a permeable material which allows water to drain through it rather than directing the water across the surface. Plaintiffs’ ‘water problem’ was a pre-existing condition on their property at the time that the parking area/pad was installed. Plaintiffs’ removal of multiple hemlock trees from their own property removed a natural water barrier to their property and contributed to their ‘water problem.’ Plaintiffs’ use of plastic ground cover on their property has prevented water from being absorbed and contributed to their ‘water problem.’ Any damages or harm that plaintiffs have suffered is a result of a pre-existing condition of their own property and increased by their own actions.”
For one count of trespass, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits of the court, plus costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by C. Christopher Hasson in Washington, Pa.
The defendants are represented by Steven P. Engel and Michael J. Imbornone of Maiello Brungo & Maiello, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-006575
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com