SHAMOKIN - A local contractor hasn't given up in his pursuit of a $98,500 invoice submitted to City Hall last year for an emergency demolition on North Shamokin Street.
An amended complaint was filed July 16 in Northumberland County Court by an attorney on behalf of Robert Gusick. It details an invoice that when originally submitted had no detail, stating the costs of labor, heavy equipment and debris removal.
Last month, a county judge threw out a breach-of-contract claim in Gusick's original complaint filed in October 2012. He allowed claims of unjust enrichment and quasi-contract to stand and ordered an amended complaint be filed and accompanied with billing details.
The lawsuit stems from the June 2012 demolition of a vacant commercial building, partially collapsed in the 700 block. Gusick had 15 days on the project and estimates he completed 75 percent of the work before he and city officials had a falling out over the cost and scope of the project.
The contractor said he was ordered to tear down the entire structure and remove the debris, and that a verbal estimate of $98,500 was accepted both by the city's mayor and clerk.
The city has argued that Gusick was only to eliminate the danger of further collapse onto North Shamokin Street, and that a verbal agreement beyond that never occurred. The contractor's written invoice, including only a total, was frowned upon by the city.
Gusick's amended complaint includes four exhibits:
- An invoice from Daniel Shingara Enterprises Inc. showing the use of 10 Dumpsters between June 19 and 29, 2012, totaling $2,750;
- A ledger for the use of an excavator for 154.5 hours at $175 per hour, totaling $27,037.50;
- A ledger for the use of a tri-axle, 154.5 hours at $75 per hour, totaling $11,587.50;
- Totals for two laborers of 309 hours.
The complaint says the laborers were paid an hourly rate of $50 and $25, respectively, and that the combined cost for the two is $11,475.
Costs for debris disposal and miscellaneous rental expenses totaled $22,150, according to the complaint.
The profit margin was $23,500, the complaint states, citing the emergency nature of the work and that the contractor had to put off other projects.
Gusick performed the work to the benefit of the city but hasn't been paid a dime, he argues in the unjust enrichment claim. The city could have looked elsewhere for a contractor but did not. Instead, it entered a contract with Gusick, the quasi contract claim states, and his services weren't ended until the project was nearly completed.
An answer from the city has not yet been filed but is expected, based on past comments from the city solicitor.