Tenants seek justice in 11-year battle over contaminated water
Toolbox
By Brent Curtis Rutland Herald - Published: November 10, 2008
For 11 years, the owners of the Parsons Hill apartment project in Rutland County and 94 of its former tenants have been adversaries in a battle over who's responsible for a contamined well system.
But for at least one day last week, lawyers for the two groups were united in a common cause.
During a hearing in Rutland Superior Court attended only by lawyers — six in all — the legal teams for the Parsons Hill ownership and two groups of former tenants, argued that two insurance companies that carried policies for Parsons Hill should be liable to pay for damages if the tenants prevail in their 11-year-old case.
Residents at the apartment project sued the owners in 1997 after learning that the water system at the low-income housing complex contained unsafe levels of a toxin called tetrachloroethylene, a carcinogen also known as PCE.
During the last decade, the tenants have won $3.1 million in settlements from more than a dozen individuals and companies involved in the drinking water issue and the case went to the state's Supreme Court, which reversed a Superior Court ruling that would have ended the lawsuit against the Parsons Hill ownership on the grounds that the landlords corrected the water issues when notified.
Now, only the case against the landlords remains — and the jury draw for that trial is set for the end of January 2009.
But before that trial begins, both sides want to know whether it will be the cash-strapped landlords, William and Catherine Rooney, or a trio of insurance companies that would be liable for any damages awarded in the case.
Lawyers for two insurers that covered the project, Century Indemnity Company and Insurance Company of North America, argued in Superior Court last week that the claims sought by the tenants weren't covered under Parsons Hill's policy.
A third insurance company, Vermont Mutual Insurance Group, is contesting claims against its policy with Parsons Hill in Washington Superior Court.
During proceedings in Rutland last week, lawyers for the two insurance companies argued that Parsons Hill wasn't eligible for coverage under their policy's personal injury clause because there was no evidence of a breach of habitability, such as an eviction or other action that deprived the tenants of their rights to inhabit the project.
"We can say in hindsight that the units were uninhabitable but there was no constructive eviction," said Lawrence Serlin, one of two attorneys representing the insurance companies.
But lawyers for Parsons Hill and the tenants have filed 10 claims against the insurance companies, arguing that the insurers were not only liable for any damages but that they had tried to skirt their responsibility to pay by committing consumer fraud, negligent acts and even conspiracy by using information obtained about the Rooneys while providing legal coverage to the couple against them later while examining their claim for liability coverage.
"They talked in obscure language, but the reasonable expectation of a landlord is that there would be coverage under this policy," said Larry Miller, one of the two lawyers representing the tenants.
Judge William Cohen didn't issue a decision last week on the insurance companies motion for summary judgment and the dismissal of the bulk of the claims brought by the tenants and landlords. But Cohen said he planned to make a ruling at some point before the underlying case goes to trial in January.
Contact Brent Curtis at brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com.
60