An Ohio company is facing legal action from the city of Charleston after allegedly botched roofing jobs at two city community centers.
City officials sued Ohio Valley Spray Foam Inc. of Marietta, Ohio, last month after spray foam roofs installed 2006 and 2007 at the North Charleston and Martin Luther King Jr. community centers, respectively, began leaking, according to the lawsuit filed in Kanawha Circuit Court.
Both contracts required a 15-year warranty, according to the suit.
City Attorney Paul Ellis said during a recent City Council Parks and Recreation Committee meeting that the community centers' roofs had been leaking for three or four years, but the company has not been responsive to the city's complaints.
The lawsuit, filed by attorney Sean McGinley, states the roofs have been leaking since 2011, causing significant damage and making portions of each building unusable.
The city alleges that the spray foam roofing was installed improperly, citing inconsistencies in the thickness of the spray foam and a urethane coating.
The company has allegedly blamed leaks on "birds pecking at the roofing material," and suggested the city purchase decoys of owls to scare off birds.
The lawsuit states some damage at North Charleston might be related to birds, but said "the vast majority of damage ... is wholly unrelated to a bird peck." It claims no damage at the Martin Luther King Jr. center is related to animal activity.
The city hired an expert firm from Columbus, Ohio, that did inspections of both roofs and presented reports, which will be forwarded to the company's attorney and the insurance company, Ellis said.
"Our hope is that they'll do the right thing. But if they don't, then we'll pursue," Ellis said.
The lawsuit alleges the company breached its contract by promising the roofs wouldn't leak via is warranty and by refusing to repair the leaks that were reported, resulting in "substantial damages" to the roofs, light fixtures, ceilings, walls and floors, and the loss of use of the buildings.
The city also wants a declaratory judgment to determine the company owes it the cost to replace or repair the roofs and subsequent damage; the company's thought that it is not responsible for repairing the leaks.
Both community centers would likely have to have their entire roofs replaced, Ellis said.