Steelers offensive coordinator, wife, must pay man more than $10,000 for boarding their dogs
Pittsburgh Steelers offensive coordinator Todd Haley and his wife must pay an Oakdale man more than $10,000 for boarding their four dogs, an arbitration panel ruled on Monday.
According to court documents, the Haleys owe Nick Fiscante $10,090 because the couple failed to pay him for boarding the dogs at his house between March and July 2012.
A civil complaint against the Haleys was filed in April and District Judge Maureen McGraw-Desmet originally ruled in Fiscante's favor in August. The Haleys appealed.
Christine Haley, who appeared in court on Monday, told the arbitration panel that she paid Fiscante $3,000 but refused to pay the rest because two of their English bulldogs became so aggressive that she had to get rid of them.
“Your little kids say, ‘Where are George and Frank?' because they want their dogs back. We couldn't take a risk to have them hurt,” Christine Haley told the Trib's news partner WPXI TV.
Fiscante denied the allegations.
“If we owe somebody, we pay them. That's how things are done here. I don't know if celebrity status comes into play with it, and I'm hoping that's not the case,” Fiscante said.
In August, a McMurray homebuilder sued the Haleys, alleging they badly damaged a $1.4 million home they rented in Upper St. Clair and skipped out on the deal to buy it.
The Haleys deny the allegations, their attorney told the Trib, and have filed claims against the homebuilder.
Todd Haley, former head coach for the Kansas City Chiefs, joined the Steelers in 2012. He is the son of Dick Haley, a former director of player personnel for the Steelers.
Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
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.