MEDIA – A Delaware County woman has reiterated claims that while performing its services, a roofing company set fire to her home and caused more than $77,000 in damages to her residence.
Lauren Esterbrook of Ridley Park first filed suit in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on July 17 versus KO Roofing, LLC, of Glenolden.
“On or about Jan. 19, 2022, the plaintiff resided at 335 Gorsuch Street in Folsom, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff was a tenant at the 335 Gorsuch Street address. Her landlord and the owner of the building was Stephen J. Sweeney, who occupied the first floor,” the suit said.
“On about Jan. 19, 2022, the defendant, KO Roofing, LLC, was installing a new roof at the 335 Gorsuch Street address. On the date and time in question, the employees of the defendant were utilizing a torch to apply roofing material to a flat roof area on the B side of the residence, to the right of the second floor sliding door.”
The suit added that at the time the defendant’s employees were applying the roof material and utilizing the torch, they negligently caused the roof to ignite directly where they were working, which eventually caused a fire.
“The fire caused by the defendant’s employees quickly spread and eventually engulfed the entire property at 335 Gorsuch Sheet, including the second floor unit occupied by the plaintiff. As a result of the defendant causing a fire to ignite, the plaintiff was forced completely out of her residence and all of her personal property and belongings were consumed within the file. The defendant, its employees and/or agents (including the workers on site on the day of the incident) were careless, reckless and negligent in installing the new roof on the property at 335 Gorsuch Street as follows: (a) Negligently allowed the flame from the torch to ignite the roof and the interior walls; (b) Negligently allowed the flame from the torch to enter the void between the wall and the rear of the house; (c) Failing to take adequate precautions to prevent the flame from the defendant’s torch from causing a fire; (d) Being otherwise careless, reckless and negligent under the circumstances,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the defendant’s carelessness, recklessness and negligence as set forth above, the plaintiff has suffered economic damages totaling in excess of $77,253 to her personal property and belongings. As a result of the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff was forced to incur expenses relating to alternative living arrangements. As a result of the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff continues to suffer economic damages.”
The defendant answered the complaint on Dec. 1 and denied starting the fire at the plaintiff’s home or being responsible for the $77,000+ in damages she subsequently incurred.
“Plaintiff’s claims are either barred or subject to reduction pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Answering defendant asserts the defense of waiver, estoppel and laches as defenses to the plaintiff’s claims set forth in its complaint. Any and all warranties and/or guarantees provided by answering defendant were effectively limited or disclaimed in compliance with all applicable law. Answering defendant breached no warranty, either express or implied, regarding goods or services supplied by answering defendant. The injuries and damages complained of in plaintiff’s complaint are a direct and proximate result of acts and/or omissions of entities other than answering defendant, of whom answering defendant had neither control nor the right of control. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate damages which may serve to bar or limit recovery. Answering defendant has complied with the terms of any and all applicable warranties and/or guarantees. Answering defendant is not liable for consequential damages. Answering defendant is not liable for plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees,” according to the answer’s new matter, in part.
“Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for damages owed by answering defendant. This Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. The defendant acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. Defendant has at all times acted with reasonableness and in good faith. Defendant at all times acted properly. If plaintiff sustained damages, which is specifically denied, then such damages were caused by others and, not caused by defendant. Some or all of the claims in plaintiff’s complaint are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and statute of repose. Plaintiff failed to mitigate its alleged damages. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. The defendant denies any acts or omissions or breach of contract as alleged.”
UPDATE
In a Dec. 13 reply to the defense’s new matter, plaintiff counsel denied it outright.
“The averments in these paragraphs are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. However, to the extent that said averments are deemed factual, then the same are denied and deemed at issue, and strict proof thereof will be demanded at the time of trial. Wherefore, plaintiff hereby demands judgment in her favor and requests that defendant’s new matter be dismissed,” the reply stated.
For one count of negligence, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, together with interests, costs and attorney’s fees.
The plaintiff is represented by Guy N. Paolino of Forbes Bender & Paolino, in Media.
The defendant is represented by Denise M. Montgomery of Sweeney & Sheehan, in Philadelphia.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2023-006058
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com