Quantcast

Burst steam pipe case update: Verizon blames power company

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Saturday, November 23, 2024

Burst steam pipe case update: Verizon blames power company

State Court
Verizonworker760

PITTSBURGH – Verizon continues its pursuit of financial penalties against a Pittsburgh energy supplier, which it says controlled a steam pipe which burst underneath an intersection and damaged its equipment and facilities.

Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC of Basking Ridge, N.J., first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on June 29 versus Pittsburgh Allegheny County Thermal Ltd. (PACT), of Pittsburgh.

Per the lawsuit, Verizon owned underground facilities in the vicinity of 1st Avenue and Municipal Court Drive in Pittsburgh, while PACT owned and maintained steam pipes and steam delivery facilities in proximity to that very same area.

“As of Nov. 12, 2018, the steam pipes and steam delivery facilities owned by PACT cracked and broke and allowed for a release of steam from the steam pipes and steam delivery facilities. The break and the release of steam impacted and damaged Verizon’s facilities which were in the vicinity of the steam pipes and steam delivery facilities, including a nine-conduit bank,” according to the lawsuit.

“PACT, by and through its agents, servants, employees, contractors and/or subcontractors acting in the course and scope of their employment, failed to maintain the subject steam pipes and steam delivery facilities, causing them to crack, break and allow steam to escape, which damaged Verizon’s facilities.”

Due to the incident, Verizon’s conduit was melted and damaged, which necessitated a removal of the damaged conduit and placement of a new conduit and split-duct conduit. Verizon sustained damages of $428,756.53 in the process, the suit says.

PACT filed an answer to the complaint along with new matter on Aug. 24.

“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief can be granted and the plaintiff specifically assumed the risk of any and all damages allegedly sustained as a result of the incident referred to in plaintiff’s complaint. The answering defendant was not negligent and did not own, operate or control the premises where the incident occurred, and therefore owed no legal duty to the plaintiff,” the answer read, in part.

“Answering defendant did not have a contractual or common law duty to plaintiff and plaintiff’s claims are therefore barred. Plaintiff caused its own accident, damages and/or losses. The incident complained of, and any alleged injuries or damages sustained by the plaintiff, resulted from plaintiff’s own contributory negligence and its failure to take reasonable precautions for the safety of their property at all times material.”

Per the defendant, Verizon’s alleged injuries, damages, and/or losses are barred by plaintiff’s own comparative negligence, and any recovery of plaintiff should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.

UPDATE

On Aug. 28, Verizon responded to PACT’s answer and new matter, denying the entirety of the defendant’s initial foray into the case.

“The allegations…contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Verizon specifically denies the allegations. Further, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 provides, “All affirmative defenses, including but not limited to the defenses of…estoppel and fraud…shall be pleaded in a responsive pleading under the heading ‘New Matter.’ Further, ‘all defenses not raised in an answer or reply are deemed waived,” the reply states.

“Plaintiff Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant, Pittsburgh Allegheny County Thermal, Ltd. for damages sustained along with costs, attorney’s fees and such other relief as is deemed just and equitable by this Court.”

For counts of negligence and nuisance, the plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount in damages, plus costs, attorney’s fees and all other just and equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.

The plaintiff is represented by Andrew L. Salvatore of Salvatore Law, in West Chester.

The defendant is represented by Brett A. Wolfson and Grant H. Hackley of Rawle & Henderson, in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-007237

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News