PITTSBURGH – A major insurance provider stands by its claims that a natural gas company’s alleged negligence in failing to turn off the gas supply to a Penn Hills building, allegedly exacerbated the effect of a structure fire which took place at the property.
The Travelers Indemnity Company of America and Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America of Hartford, Conn., Churchill Center, LLC of Pittsburgh and Big Shot Bob’s Penn Hills, LLC of Penn Hills first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 16 versus Peoples Natural Gas Company, LLC and Peoples Gas Company, LLC, both of Pittsburgh.
During the events in question, Churchill owned a commercial building and real property located in Penn Hills. Churchill entered into a property management agreement with Union Real Estate, which authorized URE to, among other items, oversee, manage and procure insurance for the building and property.
Big Shot Bob’s leased space and operated its business within the building, while Peoples Gas owned and was responsible for a gas distribution system, which provided natural gas to the building and its occupants.
“On or about July 28, 2019, natural gas began to escape from the gas equipment and was ignited at or near the meter room thereby causing a gas-fueled fire within the meter room. The Penn Hills Police Department and Penn Hills Fire Department were notified about the fire at approximately 7:27 p.m. and responded to the fire just minutes later,” the suit stated.
“Upon arrival at the property, police and fire department personnel observed that the fire was confined to the meter room and was being fueled by natural gas escaping from the gas equipment. Fire Department personnel then immediately notified Peoples Gas about the gas-fueled fire and requested that Peoples Gas shut off the gas supply to the building.”
After the fire department had continuously discharged water into the meter room and onto the gas equipment for multiple hours, the suit said that the gas-fueled fire began to spread from the meter room to the building – and then continued to spread from the meter room into the building for multiple hours because Peoples Gas did not shut off the supply of natural gas to the building.
In the early morning hours of July 29, Peoples Gas finally shut off the supply of natural gas to the building, and once the supply of natural gas to the building was shut off, the fire department quickly extinguished the fire.
On or about July 29, Morgan O’Brien, the president and chief executive officer for Peoples Gas at the time, was interviewed by media personnel and expressly admitted that: a) The gas flowing from the Gas Equipment was “the main culprit” of the fire; b) Peoples Gas, “unbelievably,” could not find the shut off valve for the natural gas that it had supplied to the building; and c) Peoples Gas “did not do its best” in responding to the fire and shutting off the gas.
“At the time Mr. O’Brien made the admissions averred in the preceding paragraph, he was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Peoples Gas and speaking on behalf of Peoples Gas,” the suit said.
“A short time after the fire, while the gas equipment remained on the property in the meter room, a chain linked fence displaying ‘No Trespassing’ signs was erected around the fire damaged building and meter room.”
Peoples Gas was notified on Aug. 2 “to preserve all physical evidence in its current state and not alter or modify any physical evidence.”
After receiving the Aug. 2 letter, the suit claimed that Peoples Gas personnel “breached the fence without notice to or permission from plaintiffs and surreptitiously manipulated, altered and removed gas meters, pipes and pipe unions in the meter room, thereby intentionally spoiling critical evidence associated with the cause and spread of the fire.”
The suit added that as a result of the foregoing actions and omissions of Peoples Gas, the fire was caused to occur and spread for multiple hours thereby causing substantial damage to the business and property of Churchill and BSB.
“Pursuant to its policy of insurance covering BSB, Travelers Casualty was required to and has paid to or on behalf of BSB an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of Allegheny County for damages caused by the fire and has become legally, equitably and contractually subrogated to the rights of BSB to the extent of such payments,” per the suit.
“Despite the payments made by Travelers Indemnity and Travelers Casualty, Churchill and BSB sustained uninsured losses and damages as a result of the fire. If Peoples Gas had acted in a reasonably prudent manner, the damages sustained by plaintiffs as a result of the fire would have been completely prevented or greatly mitigated.”
UPDATE
The Peoples Natural Gas Company defendants filed an answer and new matter in the case on May 3, denying that it owned all of the pipes on the property in question and many of the suit’s other allegations.
“To the extent that Peoples owned any pipes or pipe unions, it would have been a minimal amount as almost all of the pipes and pipe unions were owned and under the control of Churchill. Peoples admits only that it owned certain meters that were originally installed on the exterior of the building. Churchill subsequently constructed the ‘Meter Room’ around the meters that had been installed on the exterior of the Building. Peoples specifically denies that the Meter Room contained ‘pipes and pipe unions’ owned by Peoples,” the answer stated.
“To the contrary, certain lines and other equipment in the Meter Room were owned and to be serviced and maintained by other entities. The lines that ran from the outside valve to the meters, and then from the meters into other areas of the building, were owned, possessed, controlled by and the responsibility of Churchill. In addition, Peoples denies that it had sole access to the Meter Room. Finally, Peoples specifically denies that the fire originated in the Meter Room.”
Furthermore, the answer’s new matter asserted further affirmative defenses.
“The complaint, read in its entirety, fails to state a claim or cause of action against Peoples upon which relief may be granted. The claims set forth in the complaint may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches, accord and satisfaction, consent, payment, release, estoppel, unclean hands and/or waiver. Some or all of plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitations. Plaintiffs have sustained no actual losses or damages,” per the new matter, in part.
“Any of the damages alleged by plaintiffs were directly or proximately caused by their own contributory negligence and/or comparative negligence. Peoples believes, and therefore avers, that any of the damages alleged by the plaintiffs were directly or proximately caused by the plaintiffs’ own contributory negligence and are therefore barred in whole or in part by the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Peoples raises, as a complete defense to some or all of plaintiffs’ claims for damages, plaintiffs’ assumption of a known risk. There exists no proximate cause between any of the plaintiffs’ alleged damages and any alleged act or omission on the part of Peoples.”
On May 20, Travelers Casualty filed a response to the defendants’ answer and new matter.
“The averments contained…constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of further response and without waiving the foregoing denial, it is specifically denied that plaintiffs assumed any risk, including the risk that defendant would act negligently or improperly as set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint. By way of further response and without waiving the foregoing denial, to the extent a response is deemed required, the averments are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1029(e),” the response stated.
For counts of negligence and nuisance, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of the arbitration limits of Allegheny County, plus court costs, attorney fees, other such and further relief as the Honorable Court deems just and appropriate and a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Hogan and Jonathan B. Acklen of the Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman, in Fort Washington.
The defendants are represented by Daniel B. McLane and Gretchen N. Panchik of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, plus Timothy J. Lyon of Lyon, LLC and Michael C. Turzai, all in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-001296
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com