AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL TEAM, INC. AGAINST HARVEY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND HARVEY/STABILE COTTON MILL, LLC
LANDYA B. McCAFFERTY, Chief District Judge.
PARTIES
1. Upon information and belief, Mr. James Pelton ("Mr. Pelton"), is an adult who resides at 922 Farmington Drive, Cheshire, New Haven County, Connecticut.
2. Upon information and belief, Ms. Tania Pelton ("Ms. Pelton") is an adult individual who resides at 922 Farmington Drive, Cheshire, New Haven County, Connecticut.
3. Cotton Mill Square, LLC, ("Cotton Mill") is a New Hampshire limited-liability company with a principal place of business at 20 Cotton Road Suite 200, Nashua, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire.
4. The Architectural Team, Inc. ("TAT") is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a principal place of business at 50 Commandant's Way, Chelsea, Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
5. Harvey Construction Corporation ("Harvey") is a New Hampshire corporation with a principal place of business at 10 Harvey Road, Bedford, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire.
6. Harvey/Stabile Cotton Mill, LLC ("Harvey/Stabile") is a New Hampshire Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business at 20 Cotton Road, Nashua, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire.
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
7. TAT repeats and incorporates by reference its allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 6 above as if they were set forth herein.
8. Cotton Mill is the owner of The Apartments at Cotton Mill, an eight-floor apartment complex located at 30 Front Street, Nashua, New Hampshire ("Apartment Complex").
9. In 2012, Cotton Mill contracted with TAT for the latter to provide certain architectural design services relative to the renovation of the Apartment Complex.
10. On or about 2012, Cotton Mill hired Harvey for the latter to provide general-contractor services for the renovation of the Apartment Complex.
11. Harvey claims that Harvey/Stabile was retained to provide general-contractor services for the renovation of the Apartment Complex.
12. In accordance with its contractual duties, TAT prepared one or more drawings, RFIs, and other documents providing for a system of canopies, gutters, and downspouts to be installed over the front entrances to the Apartment Complex. The purpose of that system was to prevent precipitation from proceeding onto the areas immediately adjacent to the building entrances.
13. TAT forwarded those documents to Harvey.
14. Harvey/Stabile also presumably received the documents prepared by TAT.
15. For reasons unknown to TAT, Harvey and/or Harvey/Stabile implemented the canopies but not the gutters nor the downspouts.
16. In August 2014, the City of Nashua issued a certificate of occupancy for the Apartment Complex.
COMPLAINT
17. Via the Complaint, dated 3/23/18, Mr. Pelton and Ms. Pelton have alleged the following:
a. that, on 2/6/16, they were residents of the Cotton Mill;
b. that, on 2/6/16, Mr. Pelton slipped and fell on an accumulation of ice located on an exterior stairway adjacent to one of the front entrances an entrance at Cotton Mill;
c. that, as a result, Mr. Pelton suffered injuries;
d. that, as a result, Ms. Pelton suffered a loss of consortium; and
e. that Cotton Mill is liable to them because (1) the design of the roofing/canopy system did not contain a system for shedding precipitation away from the entrance
and, thus, was defective and (2) Cotton Mill otherwise failed to keep the stairway free from ice and snow.
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT OF COTTON MILL
18. Via its third-party complaint, dated 6/18/18, Cotton Mill has alleged that, if it is found liable for an improper design of the roofing system above the noted building entrance, then TAT is liable to it for contribution and breach of contract. Cotton Mill later filed a claim against Harvey.
COUNT I — COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION
v. Harvey Construction Corporation
19. TAT repeats and incorporates by reference its allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 18 above as if they were set forth herein.
20. Harvey had a duty to incorporate the front-entrance gutter and downspout system designed by TAT, and it breached that duty.
21. TAT asserts that if it is found liable, which liability it specifically denies, then Harvey, as a result of its negligence and other potential wrongdoing, is responsible.
22. If TAT is held liable, then such liability is derivative and/or vicarious in nature for that of Harvey's liability.
23. TAT is entitled to common law indemnification from Harvey, including all costs and fees incurred in defending any and all claims against it, and in prosecuting this third-party complaint.
WHEREFORE, TAT demands judgment against Harvey for indemnification for any and all sums that may be adjudged against it, including but not limited to, any and all costs and fees incurred in defending the claims against it and in prosecuting this Amended Third-Party Complaint, in addition to any other relief deemed fair and just.
COUNT II — CONTRIBUTION
v. Harvey Construction Corporation
24. TAT repeats and incorporates by reference its allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 23 above as if they were set forth herein.
25. TAT asserts that if it is found liable, which liability it specifically denies, then Harvey, as a result of its negligence, is a joint-tortfeasor and therefore is liable for contribution to the extent of its proportional fault for Plaintiffs' damages.
WHEREFORE, TAT demands judgment against Harvey for any and all sums that may be adjudged against it including, but not limited to, any and all costs and fees incurred in defending the claims against it and in prosecuting this Amended Third-Party Complaint, in addition to any other relief deemed fair and just.
COUNT IV — COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION
v. Harvey/Stabile Cotton Mill, LLC
26. TAT repeats and incorporates by reference its allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 25 above as if they were set forth herein.
27. Harvey/Stabile had a duty to incorporate the front-entrance gutter and downspout system designed by TAT, and it breached that duty.
28. TAT asserts that if it is found liable, which liability it specifically denies, then Harvey/Stabile, as a result of its negligence and other potential wrongdoing, is responsible.
29. If TAT is held liable, then such liability is derivative and/or vicarious in nature for that of Harvey/Stabile's liability.
30. TAT is entitled to common law indemnification from Harvey/Stabile, including all costs and fees incurred in defending any and all claims against it, and in prosecuting this third-party complaint.
WHEREFORE, TAT demands judgment against Harvey/Stabile for indemnification for any and all sums that may be adjudged against it, including but not limited to, any and all costs and fees incurred in defending the claims against it and in prosecuting this Amended Third-Party Complaint, in addition to any other relief deemed fair and just.
COUNT V — CONTRIBUTION
v. Harvey Construction Corporation
31. TAT repeats and incorporates by reference its allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 30 above as if they were set forth herein.
32. TAT asserts that if it is found liable, which liability it specifically denies, then Harvey/Stabile, as a result of its negligence, is a joint-tortfeasor and therefore is liable for contribution to the extent of its proportional fault for Plaintiffs' damages.
WHEREFORE, TAT demands judgment against Harvey/Stabile for any and all sums that may be adjudged against it including, but not limited to, any and all costs and fees incurred in defending the claims against it and in prosecuting this Amended Third-Party Complaint, in addition to any other relief deemed fair and just.
JURY CLAIM
TAT demands a trial by jury on all counts and issues.
