CLEARFIELD – The Clearfield County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday voted to permit its attorneys to continue the legal fight over the original construction of the county jail’s roof.
In January 2023, the commissioners filed a civil complaint asking the court to award the county $3,878,660 in damages against TranSystems Corp., successor to L. Robert Kimball and Associates Inc., Leonard S. Fiore Inc., and Showalter Masonry Inc., the architect, the general contractor and the masonry contractor, who designed and built the Clearfield County Jail in 1981.
The lawsuit alleged that the original construction drawings show that a bond beam should have been placed directly below the roof deck around the perimeter of the building.
“The main purpose of a bond beam is to provide lateral support for the walls and anchor the roof,” stated Attorney Anthony D’Amico of D’Amico Law Offices in Pittsburgh, who is representing the county in the lawsuit, in a previously-published press release. “Basically, a bond beam ties the full masonry structure together.”
In August 2021, the county partnered with ABM Building Solutions LLC to oversee the completion of a $9,398,612 renovation project at the jail.
During the demolition work for the renovation, it was discovered that the bond beam was not included during the original construction of the jail.
As a result, the roof was floating on top of the walls of the building, which created a safety hazard that needed to be corrected in order for the renovation project to continue, stated D’Amico.
The additional cost for completing the jail renovation project because the jail was constructed without a bond beam forms the basis for the damages claimed.
D’Amico stated, “The commissioners filed the lawsuit because they believe that it is fundamentally unfair for the citizens of Clearfield County to pay the additional costs to renovate the jail.
“The additional costs should be paid by the architect and the contractors who designed and built the jail but never finished the job that they were paid to do.”
The various defendants filed preliminary objections asking the judge to dismiss the county’s complaint against them and a hearing was held in November 2023.
On Feb. 15, the judge issued a decision granting one of the most important preliminary objections that the county’s complaint violated the statute of repose.
The statute of repose is like the statute of limitations in that it restricts the time in which a claim may be brought against a contractor for damages arising out of faulty or defective work.
But, according to D’Amico, time—as the law says—“doesn’t run against the king,” who in this instance is the county, which would make the statute inapplicable.
“We were aware at the time we filed our lawsuit that we would be treading new ground,” he stated. “… That’s because after the trial courts sustained the preliminary objections in [the few prior] cases, which essentially dismissed the lawsuits, the counties didn’t appeal.
“The judge—in our case—looked at those opinions and although he wasn’t bound by them, he was certainly persuaded by them and said, ‘I’ll do the same.’”
This came as no surprise to D’Amico, who urged the commissioners back in February to ask the Commonwealth Court to decide if “time runs against the king” as it relates to both the statute of limitations and statute of repose.
Tuesday Commissioner John Sobel reported that in early November, the court issued an order dismissing the county’s appeal on the basis that the statute of repose does apply.
“However, our attorneys argue that there should be an exception,” he said, “and there is case law where an exception has been granted when government is the plaintiff because its constructed buildings normally serve a public need and purpose.”
Sobel said though the odds aren’t in the county’s favor, D’Amico still wanted “one more shot” and requested permission to file a “leave to appeal,” or a request to permit an appeal, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which the commissioners favored unanimously.
There’s no financial risk for the county.
