Resident blames Leetsdale for sewage-backup damage
A Leetsdale homeowner wants the borough to pay for damage inside her home she said was caused by a raw-sewage backup.
On Jan. 30, the basement of Susan Falcone and her husband Michael's Winding Road home filled with raw sewage after, she said, a nearby pipe was found to be blocked.
Among the items Falcone said were damaged include several pieces of furniture, a television and clothing.
“The expense is in the thousands,” she told council at a meeting earlier this month.
“We had sentimental items stored in the basement. They're gone.”
A manhole discovered about 4 inches below the surface in a neighbor's yard appeared to be the source of the problem, Falcone said.
Falcone said she found the manhole marked on borough maps but that Leetsdale workers told her they had not previously known about the manhole.
“It's never been cleaned in 20 years,” Falcone said.
“Maintenance should be done on every manhole.”
Adding to her frustration was a Feb. 9 letter from the borough's insurance company releasing Leetsdale from responsibility of the incident, Falcone said.
“Just because Leetsdale's insurance (company) is not paying it, it's still the borough's responsibility to take care of it,” she said.
Leetsdale officials did not publicly comment on the matter.
Council members discussed the matter in executive session at February's monthly meeting.
Borough Solicitor Kate Diersen said she planned to contact the borough's insurance company and expected to know next month if the borough could be financially responsible.
Bobby Cherry is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-324-1408 email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.