NJ Court Rules Building Owner Not Responsible for Safety of Water Supply

NJ Court Rules Building Owner Not Responsible for Safety of Water Supply

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently ruled that a building owner could not be held liable when an employee contracted Legionnaires’ disease from the building’s water supply. The case, Vellucci v. Allstate Insurance Company, offers an interesting discussion of the legal responsibilities of a New Jersey commercial property owner.

The Facts of the Case

Albert D. Vellucci was employed by Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) in an office located in a commercial office building in the Township of Bridgewater. The building was owned, designed, built, and managed by defendant Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. (Mack-Cali). Plaintiff Anthony Vellucci filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of his late father alleging that he contracted Legionnaires’ disease in December 2004 when he was exposed to a water borne pathogen in the building’s water supply system. The plaintiff also sued New Jersey American Water Co., Inc., the building’s water supplier.

After the trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment, the plaintiff appealed. As summarized by the Appellate Division, the plaintiff argued on appeal that Mack-Cali, as a sophisticated owner and manager of commercial properties, had a duty to maintain the building’s water supply and plumbing system in a reasonably safe condition, including taking affirmative measures to detect the presence of the Legionella bacteria.

The Court’s Decision

The Appellate Division disagreed, concluding that the building owner did not have an affirmative duty to test the building’s water supply for bacteria. As explained by the court, “Absent evidence that Mack-Cali actually knew or should have known, through the exercise of reasonable maintenance measures, that the building’s water supply had been contaminated with the Legionella bacteria, Mack-Cali is not liable for decedent’s demise.”

The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that large, commercial landlords should be held liable because they are in the best position to prevent what can amount to substantial harm. Rather, the court noted that there is no statutory or regulatory scheme imposing a duty on owners and managers of commercial office buildings to take affirmative action to detect the presence of Legionella.

“There are no industry standards that required Mack-Cali to have done anything more than what it did in response to the salient facts of this case,” the court concluded.

If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Robert Levy, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.