Document text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE COMPANY * 270 Central Avenue Johnston, RI 02919 *
P l a i n t i f f , * v. * Case No.: _____________________ HITT CONTRACTING, INC., * 2900 Fairview Park Drive Falls Church, VA 22042 * AND *
BROTHER’S MECHANICAL, INC. * 8394 Terminal Road, Suite A
Lorton, VA 22079 * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Affiliated FM Insurance Comp any (“AFM”), as subrogee of 300 M Street
Development Group, LLC (“LCOR”), by its undersi gned counsel, files this Complaint against
HITT Contracting, Inc. (“HITT”) an d Brother’s Mechanical, Inc. (“Brother’s Mechanical”), and
in support thereof states and alleges:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a subrogation action arising from significant pr operty damage and business
interruption losses sustained by LCOR , the owner of a multi-family apartment complex, as a direct
and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions and contractual breaches of HITT and Brother’s Mechanical. AFM, as LCOR’s insurer and subrogee, seeks to recover damages in the
amount of $1,020,494. Case 1:25-cv-03381-CJN Document 1 Filed 09/24/25 Page 1 of 8
2 THE PARTIES
2. Plaintiff AFM is an insura nce company organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Rhode Island with its principal place of business in the State of Rhode Island. At all
times pertinent to th is action, AFM was and is licensed to do business, and was and is transacting
business in the District of Columbia.
3. Upon information and belief, HITT is a company organized a nd existing under the
laws of the state of Virginia with its principal place of business in Virginia.
4. Upon information and belief, Brother’s M echanical is a company organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Virginia with its principal place of business in Virginia.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. The United States District Court for the Di strict of Columbia has jurisdiction over
this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
6. Venue is proper in the United States Distri ct Court for the District of Columbia
under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claims occurred in the District and the property at issue is located here.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7. LCOR maintains a twelve-sto ry multi-family apartment complex comprised of 426
apartment units and approximately 442,759 square feet, located at 300 M Street NE, Washington,
DC (the “Property”).
8. On June 19, 2020, LCOR contracted with HITT (the “General Contract”) to
construct the Property. Case 1:25-cv-03381-CJN Document 1 Filed 09/24/25 Page 2 of 8
3 9. On August 11, 2020, HITT entered into a subc ontractor agreement with Brother’s
Mechanical (the “Subcontract”) for, among other things, the inst allation of plum bing systems,
including all fittings, connections, valves, gauges, and backflow devices necessary for a complete
and functioning system.
10. On August 22, 2024, a water leak caused dama ge to the Property (the “Loss”). The
water leak continued for approximately thirty minutes before being shut off by the building
engineer.
11. During the water leak period, uncontrolle d water flooded down from the twelfth
floor into subsequent floors of the Property throu gh a stairwell and elevator shaft. The water leak
caused significant and widespread damage to ceilings, walls, and flooring in the common areas, as
well as to twenty-nine apartment units and two el evators. The Loss was reported to AFM that same
day.
12. AFM’s investigation revealed that the wate r leak originated at a Reduced Pressure
Zone Assembly (“RPZA”) located on the twelfth floor of the Property.
13. An RPZA is a backflow preventer that pr events potentially contaminated backflow
from entering a building’s water supply. It accomplishes its purpose with two independent check valves and a relief valve between them. If either check valve fails, the RP ZA’s relief valve opens
and discharges, ensuring that pot entially contaminated water does not flow into the clean water
supply. The RPZA is intended to accommodate normal discharge and nuisance spitting.
14. According to the RPZA Installation, Main tenance, and Repair Manual, an RPZA
must be equipped with a “Watts ai r gap fitting” to contain and f unnel the discharge. A Watts air
gap fitting consists of two part s: a “Splash Guard” and an “Air Gap Drain Funnel.” The Splash
Guard operates to contain discharged water and di rect it towards the funnel below. The Air Gap Case 1:25-cv-03381-CJN Document 1 Filed 09/24/25 Page 3 of 8
4 Drain Funnel then channels that discharge downwar ds into a floor drain. The Air Gap Drain Funnel
has brackets that must be attached dir ectly onto the flood sensor on the RPZA.
15. The instruction manual also provides that an RPZA must be positioned over a floor
drain to capture the funneled discharge.
16. As water discharges from the relief valv e, it is supposed to be channeled through
the Watts air gap fitting. Without either component of the Watts ai r gap fitting, the discharge goes
in all different directions under pressure. And w ithout a floor drain below the RPZA, the discharge
of contaminated water accumulates without a proper place to drain.
17. Brother’s Mechanical or it s subcontractor installed the RPZA at the Property.
Brother’s Mechanical installed the RPZA at the Pr operty with a fabricated “PVC reducer fitting”
instead of a “Watts air gap fitting.”
18. The PVC reducer fitting was installed without a Splash Guard or sim ilar mechanism
to shroud the relief valve and dir ect water to the funnel below.
19. Unlike a Watts air gap fitti ng, the PVC reducer fitting was not connected to the
RPZA at all. In addition, there was no floor drain located below the RPZA.
20. The installation of the RPZA and related components constituted a deviation from
the manufacturer’s instructions, i ndustry standards, and applicable codes, and created a foreseeable
and unreasonable risk of water damage.
21. At the time of the Loss, the proper RPZA fitting and connection had not been
installed and caused water to disc harge outside the PVC reducer fitt ing, and without a floor drain,
water caused significant damage to property beyond that loss of valu e or use of the RPZA, cost to
repair or replace the RPZA, or the lost profits resulting from the loss or use of the RPZA. Case 1:25-cv-03381-CJN Document 1 Filed 09/24/25 Page 4 of 8
5 22. Because of the water leak originating at the improperly installed RPZA on the
twelfth floor of the Property, LCOR sustaine d property damage in the amount of $842,152 and
business income losses in the amount of $178,342 fo r a total of $1,020,494.00.
23. The damages AFM seeks represent losses be yond that loss of value or use of
the RPZA, cost to repair or re place the RPZA, or the lost prof its resulting from the loss or use
of the RPZA.
24. On January 27, 2022, AFM issued to LCOR a ProVision Property Insurance Policy
bearing Policy Number 1137508 with a policy te rm of June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2025 (the
“Policy”).
25. AFM paid covered damages over th e deductible in the Policy.
26. AFM is subrogated to the extent of its pa yments and to the rights of its subrogor,
LCOR, against all individuals, entities and corpora tions responsible for caus ing or contributing to
cause the damages resulting from the Loss.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
(HITT and Brother’s Mechanical)
27. AFM incorporates by reference all preceding pa ragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
28. At all relevant times, HITT and Brother’s Mechanical owed a duty to LCOR, to
use best construction standards and practices, to complete installation in accordance with
instruction manuals and safety guidelines, and to otherwise ensure that the Property was in safe
condition free of hazards or defects.
29. Upon information and belief, the RPZA wa ter leak and subsequent damage were a
direct and proximate result of the following negligence, carelessness, and negligent acts and omissions of HITT and Brother’s Me chanical, by, among other things: Case 1:25-cv-03381-CJN Document 1 Filed 09/24/25 Page 5 of 8
6 (a) failing to install the RPZA in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and
industry standards; (b) failing to equip the RPZA with a Watts air gap fitting, including a splash guard and
air gap drain funnel; (c) failing to position the RPZA over a floor drain; (d) using a non-compliant PVC reducer fitti ng that was not connected to the RPZA;
(e) failing to inspect, test, and verify the proper installa tion and functioning of the
RPZA and related components; (f) failing to remedy known hazards and defects; and
(h) otherwise failing to use due care under the circumstances. 30. The acts and omissions of HITT and Brothe r’s Mechanical were the direct and
proximate cause of the water leak and resulting damages.
31. As a direct and foreseeable result of Defendants’ negligence, LCOR suffered
property damage and business interruption losses in excess of $1,020,494, for which AFM, as
subrogee, seeks recovery.
32. Because of the payments made under the Policy, and by operation of law,
AFM is subrogated to the rights of LCOR regarding the damages because of the Loss.
COUNT II – BREACH OF CONTRACT
(HITT)
33. AFM incorporates by reference all preceding pa ragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
34. HITT has breached its obligations owed to LCOR under the General Contract,
including, but not limited to, § 1.3.
35. HITT has breached its obligations owed to LCOR under the “General Conditions
to the Agreement,” including, but not limited to, §§ 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, and 3.4.1. Case 1:25-cv-03381-CJN Document 1 Filed 09/24/25 Page 6 of 8
7 36. Pursuant to the General C ontract, Brother’s Mechani cal performed the faulty
installation of the RPZA while under HITT’s direct supervision.
37. Pursuant to the General Contract, HITT is fully responsible for all acts and
omissions of Brother’s Mechanical.
38. The improper installation of the RPZA constitutes a material breach of the General
Contract and, by extens ion, the Subcontract.
39. As a direct and proximate result of HITT’s material breaches, LCOR suffered
damages in the amount of $1,020,494, for which AFM, as subrogee, seeks recovery.
40. Pursuant to the General Contract, HITT is responsible for the acts and omissions
of its subcontractors, including Brother’s Mech anical, and is obligated to indemnify LCOR
(and thus AFM as subrogee) for all losse s resulting from such acts and omissions.
WHEREFORE , Plaintiff, Affiliated FM Insura nce Company, as subrogee of LCOR
Incorporated, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against
Defendants, HITT Contracting, Inc. and Brother’s Mechanical, Inc., jointly and severally, in
the amount of $1,020,494, together with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit,
attorney’s fees as permitted by law or contract, and such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
Case 1:25-cv-03381-CJN Document 1 Filed 09/24/25 Page 7 of 8
8
Respectfully submitted,
Bryant S. Green (Bar No. 1048238)
Noah E. Wolfenstein (Bar No. 90020261) Z
ELLE LLP
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Ste. 375 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 899-4119 phone (612) 336-9100 facsimile [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff, The Affiliated FM Insurance Company
Case 1:25-cv-03381-CJN Document 1 Filed 09/24/25 Page 8 of 8