Mold lawsuit: Expect long, drawnout fight
Schools case closes in on first deadline
STAMFORD — The city’s lawsuit against two former maintenance companies, which officials blame for the mold crisis in Stamford schools, is nearing its first deadline.
But residents anticipating a quick and substantial payout to the city, an expectation several have expressed online, should take note: Adjudicating the case is not likely to happen quickly, and will involve insurance companies maneuvering to determine liability — while at the same time the maintenance firms seek to put responsibility back on the city for not paying to keep up its buildings.
“It’s a legal process and takes a while to work out,” said Al Barbarotta, president and CEO of Trumbullbased AFB Construction Management, one of the companies being sued.
By Jan. 7 the two companies — AFB and ABM Industries, must file an appearance indicating who will represent them against the claim brought jointly by the city and Stamford Public Schools.
Barbarotta said someone will respond to the subpoena on behalf of his company by the set date. But he said realizing who bears responsibility for the case will be complicated.
AFB was contracted to handle school building maintenance from 2001 until 2017. Throughout that period his company always had insurance against occurrences including liability claims, but the policy was with at least six different insurance companies over that span of time.
“Figuring out who might cover liability over that whole period of time makes it a peculiar case,” said Barbarotta.
ABM, a New York Citybased company, was hired to maintain the district’s facilities from 2017 until its termination in June. It did not respond to repeated calls for comment on the lawsuit.
In the court filing, the city and schools claim negligence and breach of contract by both companies are directly responsible for the development of mold in at least half of Stamford’s 21 public schools, which has cost the city $50 million in remediation over the past two years.
“From the onset, we promised to hold the responsible parties accountable and this lawsuit is the means we’ve chosen to achieve that result,” said Mike Handler, the city’s director of administration, in an interview with the Advocate last month.
Neither Handler nor Superintendent of Schools Tamu Lucero agreed to speak about the approaching deadline.
Barbarotta has repeatedly said the city’s inability to fund infrastructure repairs is responsible for the mold crisis, not his company.
“Roof repair, window replacement ac replacement NOT FUNDED!!” Barbarotta wrote in an email to the Advocate.
A 2009 facility needs report completed by consultant EMG called for $138 million in capital improvements for the schools, but in the ensuing decade schools saw only half of that sum invested.
Many of the school buildings where mold grew had been flagged for mold assessments during the needs study.
Former Board of Education Chairman David Mannis told the Advocate last year that the district, often given about $4 million to $5 million each year to spread across 20 buildings, usually favored spending on more pressing issues like security upgrades.