Town Sued Over Rekindled FireSerdar Tumgoren | |
| An insurance company is suing the Town of Guilford, claiming the rekindling of a fire that destroyed a home two years ago was the result of “negligence and carelessness” by the Fire Department. The Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company, based in New Jersey, filed the suit Dec. 10 in the Superior Court of New Haven in order to recoup $15,000 in costs associated with damage at 74 Stepstone Hill Road. Guilford firefighters extinguished a garage fire late on Dec. 23, 2001, but the fire re-ignited hours later and gutted the residence. The suit claims the fire department failed to adequately extinguish the initial fire and detect the early stages of the rekindled blaze. Fire Marshall Charles Herrschaft could not be reached for comment on the matter. In an interview following the incident, Herrschaft said firefighters had initially considered the job well done after extinguishing the garage fire. Heat damage was limited to the second floor and attic of the house, though smoke damage made the entire structure uninhabitable. Firefighters then patrolled the area, looking for potential problems. He said firefighters “spent three hours with two thermal imaging cameras looking for hot spots.” Fire crews left the scene at around 2:30 a.m. on the 24th, leaving behind a "fire watch"--a volunteer whose job is to watch for signs that the fire might restart. The department received a 6:45 a.m. call from the fire watch and upon arrival found the second floor of the home heavily involved in fire. In an investigation following the second fire, Herrschaft said that hot debris from the garage blaze fell into the gap between the concrete garage foundation and the wooden house foundation. The concrete would effectively hide the heat signature of the debris, making the hot spot impossible for the thermal imaging cameras to detect. Herrschaft said at the time that firefighters did not suspect a wooden foundation under the house because the garage at the Brand home had a poured concrete foundation, The residents--Jeffrey and Patty Brand and their two young children--were not hurt in the fires, but had to find “alternative living arrangements at substantial additional expense,” according to Prudential. The suit also claims that the department’s actions placed the family at “imminent risk” and violated its own “fire watch” policies. The town must respond to the allegations by Jan. 20, 2004.
| |
Copyright Shore Publishing LLC, 2003 | |