Council denies Cox claim, even though city admits fault

Posted 9/16/14

Bring it on.

That is what Joseph Solomon, D-Ward 4 told Cox Communications in voting to deny a Cox Communications claim for wires brought down by a city crew trimming tree limbs on Palmer Avenue …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Council denies Cox claim, even though city admits fault

Posted

Bring it on.

That is what Joseph Solomon, D-Ward 4 told Cox Communications in voting to deny a Cox Communications claim for wires brought down by a city crew trimming tree limbs on Palmer Avenue more than a year ago. The city acknowledges it was responsible, but Solomon wants to see more than one estimate for the cost of repairs, and he wants a Cox representative to be present to answer questions when the council considers the claim.

With only a single estimate for the repairs, which Cox made at the time, and no Cox representative in the audience, Solomon moved to deny the $1,664.46 claim.

Cox has three claims against the city for a total of $4,262.24. One of those claims, for $1,453.06, was denied on May 12 when the company failed to have a representative at the council meeting.

Solomon said others bringing claims are required to get more than a single estimate and to appear before the City Council.

“Cox said you have to trust us,” Solomon said.

He added that the company further told him to either pay the claim or face their lawyers in court.

“Let them then sue us,” said Solomon.

He questioned why there should be a “double standard” for the large corporation. As a rule, claimants are required to get three estimates for damages and repairs. City Council President Donna Travis went along with Solomon.

“I totally agree with you,” she said.

Ed Ladouceur, D-Ward 5, said Cox failed to be responsive to other city concerns. He said cables have been too low in places and they didn’t take corrective action when it was brought to their attention.

But while the council felt they had reason to withhold payment from Cox, Tanya Ferrara of Canna Street was not so definitive. Ward 1 Councilman Steven Colantuono said her claim posed a “unique situation.”

Ferrara is looking for $1,600, which is not covered by her insurance, for the door firefighters damaged to gain entrance to her house on March 31. No one was in the house at the time.

When Ferrara returned home, she found a note from Warwick Police informing her that firefighters had entered the house. The department was responding to calls of a possible house fire, as clouds of smoke were reported coming from the chimney. Ferrera has a wood stove.

Colantuono said his support of paying the claim “is [in] no way reflective of how the department did its job.”

But Solomon saw an issue. He questioned whether the city would be asked to pay other damage claims for actions taken by municipal employees in the course of performing their jobs.

In the course of analyzing the situation, Ferrera sought to question Solomon.

“I didn’t interrupt you,” Solomon said referring to the earlier committee meeting when Ferrera had been permitted to speak, “Please don’t interrupt me.”

Ward 9 Councilman Steve Merolla thought firefighters “made an honest error” in breaking into the house when there wasn’t a fire.

Ward 5 Councilman Ed Ladouceur said firefighters faced a decision and acted. He questioned what might happen next time, would firefighters delay acting, which could conceivably result in a worse situation.

Assistant Chief Bruce Cooney took offense to the suggestion that firefighters used the incident as a training opportunity.

“We took action based on the call,” he said.

Cooney said that, once firefighters gained access, they didn’t find anything out of the ordinary.

John Harrington, legal counsel to the council was uncertain whether paying the claim would set a precedent that would result in additional claims, even in situations where the department was responding to an emergency.

Ward 3 Councilwoman Camille Vella-Wilkinson recommended the council hold the claim “until we get a legal opinion on whether we’re opening the city to further liability.”

The council will reconsider the claim on Oct. 15.

Comments

2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • TheDeal

    Firefighters didn't make an error at all. The smoke was obviously significant enough that someone thought the house was on fire. Firefighters, when presented with that much smoke, have an obligation to make absolutely sure. People complain about firefighters preplanning public buildings and spaces, never mind knowing every house with a wood burning stove. Furthermore, while some stoves are obvious from the street, the only way to ensure that the stove has not caught interior or structural materials aflame is to make entry and check. The firefighters were simply performing their due diligence. It should be noted that the homeowner stated her appreciation for the firefighters response.

    Tuesday, September 16, 2014 Report this

  • maggie123

    I was at the Council Meeting when this woman first presented her claim (because I had a pot hole claim) This is not her fault, nor was it Warwick Fire Fighters... It was an unfortunate event. If I remember correctly she is a single mom trying to make ends meet and had to increase her homeowner deductible so that she could afford the premium. Council should just approve her claim. She is a taxpayer. and the city spends a lot more money than this on lessor things. $1400.00 is a lot of money to a single working mom. Show some good faith. It is not like this is something that happens on a regular basis....Unlike the pothole money that is paid out yearly. Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill at the expense of this woman Can't you just do what is right without it being someone's fault?

    Wednesday, September 17, 2014 Report this