The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District is responding to a lawsuit that alleges water damage occurred to a Furry Creek home in March of 2015.
Gordon and Dianne Wallace, the plaintiffs in the case, accused the defendants, the SLRD and Corix Utilities Inc., of working on a metered pressure reducing valve that regulated the water pressure of the residence.
“The work negligently carried out by SLRD and/or Corix created an excessive high pressure condition which resulted in the failure of sprinkler piping within the premises... causing extensive water damage,” reads a statement of claim the Wallaces filed last year.
“As a result of the defendants’ negligence, breach of duty of care, statutory or otherwise, failure to warn and/or nuisance, the plaintiffs have sustained loss, damage and expense.”
The Wallaces say they had to pay for repairs, inspection and investigation costs, among other things, as a result of the incident.
However, responses filed in April and May this year by the regional district and Corix deny the claims.
“The SLRD denies that the plaintiffs have sustained any loss or damage as alleged, or at all,” reads the regional district’s statement of defence.
If the alleged water failure occurred, the SLRD says, then the cause was not discoverable upon reasonable inspection by the regional district.
The SLRD also said Corix was in charge of operating and maintaining the water system.
“If…[the pressure reducing valve] failed and thereby caused water to be delivered to the plaintiffs’ property under high pressure... which is not admitted but which is denied, then the alleged failure was caused by Corix in failing to adequately operate, maintain, repair or inspect the water supply system,” reads the SLRD claim.
Corix, however, asserts that it did its due diligence. “The defect within the threads of the intake line of the water system was not readily discoverable on reasonable inspection and occurred without any negligence or breach of duty on the part of Corix, its servant and agents,” reads the company’s statement of the defence.
The company also denies the plaintiffs suffered the alleged loss or damage.
Requests for comment were sent to the lawyers of each party. None of them responded before press deadline.
A notice of change of solicitor was filed in the Vancouver courts July 24. Court registry staff couldn’t comment on who filed the notice.