State Farm, Donora Historical Society settle lawsuit over damages sustained during heavy snowfall
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, Nov. 1, 2012, 2:47 p.m.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. has settled its federal lawsuit against the Donora Historical Society but can't provide any details of the settlement, an attorney for the insurer said Thursday.
Both sides filed a motion on Thursday to dismiss the lawsuit. State Farm was seeking to recover about $156,000 it paid in claims to the owners of an adjacent Washington County property when the society's building partially collapsed onto their home during a February 2010 snowstorm.
The insurer claimed the society, which quit using the building in 2008, knew it was unsound before the collapse. The society claimed the building was still structurally sound but collapsed due to a heavy snowfall that damaged several other buildings in the region.
Daniel Luccaro, one of the lawyers for State Farm, confirmed there was a settlement but said its terms are confidential. A spokesman for the society referred questions to Thomas Birris, the lawyer representing the society in the lawsuit. Birris couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
Show commenting policy
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 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.