PITTSBURGH – The parent company of Pottery Barn introduced additional arguments in state court to support its allegations that an adjoining hamburger restaurant leaked both water and sewage into one of its mall stores in Mount Lebanon.
Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. of San Francisco, Calif. first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 3 versus BRGR Management, LLC of Lansdale and SRG Cranberry, LLC, of Pittsburgh.
The plaintiff said its brand Pottery Barn leased and operated a retail store in the Galleria mall, located in Mount Lebanon. Adjoining the Pottery Barn store was BRGR, a gourmet hamburger restaurant, also located in the Galleria.
“On Sept. 22, 2018 and on multiple subsequent occasions [including Dec. 28, 2018], the Pottery Barn store suffered leaks into its premises from defendants’ restaurant. As a result of the repeated flooding, the Pottery Barn store was damaged by sewage, water and other contaminants that were leaking and/or flooding into the store from defendants’ property and/or from a space over which defendants had exclusive control,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the leaks, the Pottery Barn store incurred substantial damages in cleanup, repair, lost merchandise and interruption to its business and lost profits. The leaks were caused and/or allowed to occur due to the negligence and carelessness of defendants and its agents and employees.”
The plaintiff claimed that even after repeated notice, the defendants were knowingly negligent and reckless when it came to the maintenance and repair of the restaurant’s plumbing system, leading the sewage, water and other contaminants to leak into the Pottery Barn store and cause damages totaling more than $266,000.
UPDATE
After an amended complaint was brought on Oct. 26, the defendants filed an answer along with new matter on Nov. 2, which denied all of Pottery Barn’s claims in their entirety.
“SRG reserves the right, to the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery and/or the testimony at the time of trial, to assert the injuries and/or damages alleged by plaintiff are the result of superseding, intervening and/or independent causes over which SRG had no control and in no way participated,” the new matter stated.
“To the extent justified by the evidence developed in discovery and established by the testimony at trial, SRG raises as affirmative defenses to plaintiffs’ claims: Payment, accord and satisfaction, release and statute of limitations, that injuries and damages alleged by plaintiff are the result of pre-existing conditions unrelated to the incident at issue, that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages and any and all other affirmative defenses which discovery may reveal to be appropriate and/or proper.”
Counsel for Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. replied to SRG South Hills, LLC’s answer and new matter on May 10, claiming that the case itself was not filed within the relevant and applicable statute of limitations.
“It is denied that any damages claimed by plaintiff are the result of any superseding, intervening and/or independent causes over which defendant SRG had no control or in no way participated. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded prior to and at time of trial,” the reply stated, in part.
“By way of further answer in defense, it is specifically denied that this action was not clearly filed within the applicable statute of limitations, no payments have been provided by either defendant for plaintiff’s enumerated damages, there have been no releases executed nor has there been an accord and satisfaction of this matter.”
The plaintiff added further affirmative arguments to its case.
“To the extent that this Court deems a response necessary, plaintiff’s damages are not the result of any pre-existing conditions unrelated to the incident at issue. To the extent that this Court deems a response necessary, it is specifically denied that plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages. To the extent that this Court deems a response necessary, it is specifically denied that either defendant can reserve its right to assert any additional affirmative defenses pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030,” the reply added.
For multiple counts of negligence, nuisance, trespass, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in excess of $266,444.99, attorney’s fees, costs, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Kathleen A. Segmiller of Segmiller & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Adam M. Barnes and Amanda C. Steffy of Walsh Burns & Zumpella, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-008237
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com