SPRINGFIELD — After Southwick’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a limited liability company that owns and operates Southwick Village, the town answered the original complaint in Hampden Superior Court on March 27, denying it overcharged the assisted living facility.
In the original complaint, Southwick Care LLC, doing business as Southwick Village, alleged the town breached its contract with the company because it overcharged it $333,393, when it should have been charged $40,798 between November 2020 and April 2025 for using 5.1 million gallons of water.
However, the town charged Southwick Care for 46.1 million gallons of water.
According to the complaint, the town overcharged Southwick Care by adding a “0” to the end of the actual water meter readings, causing it to be charged for an extra 10 million gallons per bill, totaling 40 million gallons, which Ryan K. O’Hara of Bacon Wilson LLC answered on behalf of the town on March 27.
“Town is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations herein, therefore, denied, leaving SC to proof of same,” according to the town’s response.
Southwick Care also alleged the town improperly charged its water usage at a higher Tier 3 rate, despite the Water Commission capping the rate for multiunit residential rental units at a lower Tier 2 rate in November 2023, which the town answered.
The town’s answer to that allegation was identical to its initial denial that it was without “sufficient information … therefore, denied.”
The town did acknowledge Southwick Care paid the bills, as the original complaint alleged.
Southwick Care also alleged in the complaint that was filed by Lauren F. Olanoff of the Springfield-based law firm, Egan, Flanagan & Cohen, that its demand for reimbursement from the town had gone “unanswered,” which the town denied in its answer.
The town also said it didn’t have “sufficient information” to answer Southwick Care’s allegation that it used 5.1 million gallons of water between November 2020 and April 2025 and that it should have been charged $40,798.
That the town charged Southwick Care for $374,191 for 46.1 million gallons of water at the Tier 3 rate, the town: “Admitted insofar as referenced billing and payments speak for themselves” but was without “sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations.”
Southwick Care, in the original complaint, said it was entitled to interest of at least 12% from the earliest payment it made to the town, citing state law.
The town answered that the interest on the overpayments “contained assertions of law not requiring a response,” which means the assertion by Southwick Care is a legal argument, characterization, or conclusion rather than a factual allegation, and, as such, does not require a formal admit/deny response.
In the original complaint, Southwick Care alleged the overcharging by the town constituted a breach of contract to supply it water at the posted and agreed rate, and that it suffered “significant financial damages,” which the town denied.
The town also listed 14 defenses it may use to defend itself, including that Southwick Care’s lawsuit is legally insufficient even if all the factual allegations are true.
Another defense by the town is that Southwick Care failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit.
That argument was used in the town’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied.
The town will also argue that Southwick Care waited too long to file the lawsuit, which unfairly harmed it, and that the lawsuit was filed after the statute of limitations expired.
And finally, the town will use as a defense that the $333,393 figure was not accompanied by a sworn affidavit from a person having knowledge of how that amount was calculated.
Southwick Care and the town both demand a jury trial to settle the case.
According to the case docket, a judgement is expected by November 2028.
