SPRINGFIELD — A Hampden Superior Court judge two weeks ago denied Southwick’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the town by the limited liability company of an assisted living facility.
The facility, Southwick Care, was seeking to recoup over $300,000 for being erroneously overcharged for water usage, according to the lawsuit.
“In sum, the town has not established that Southwick Care had administrative remedies available to it under [state law] where there was no need to request a water meter test and where Southwick Care paid the water bills and did not claim that another person should have paid them. Accordingly, the town’s motion to dismiss must be denied,” wrote Superior Court Judge Amy L. Karangekis in her ruling.
In December, Lauren F. Olanoff of the Springfield-based law firm Egan, Flanagan & Cohen filed the lawsuit on behalf of Southwick Care LLC, alleging the town overcharged the company $333,393 for water and that its demands for reimbursement “had gone unanswered.”
Southwick Care wrote in its civil filing that for nearly five years, the town overcharged the company $333,393 by adding a “0” to the end of the actual water meter readings, which caused it to be charged for an extra 10 million gallons per bill, totaling 40 million gallons, according to the lawsuit.
The facts presented in the lawsuit by Southwick Care indicated that between November 2020 and April 2025, it used 5.1 million gallons of water for its 58 residential rental units.
It alleges it should have been charged $40,798 between those dates.
However, between April 2021 and April 2025, the town charged Southwick Care $374,191, “which corresponds to 46.1 million gallons at the tier 3 rate,” which was $8.75 per 1,000 gallons for most of that time.
The $333,393 represents the difference between the $374,191 and the $40,798 it believes should have been charged.
The town answered the lawsuit by asking the court to dismiss it because the company hadn’t sought to use two “administrative avenues” to challenge the overcharges.
The first was to have the town check the accuracy of the water meter after it issued a bill for the usage and before the end of quarter or period it was required to be paid.
The second avenue was for Southwick Care to apply for an abatement by filing a petition with the Water Commission by the end of the six-month billing cycle, according to the town’s motion.
If the outcome didn’t satisfy the applicant, it could be appealed to the Appellate Tax Board within three months.
Southwick Care didn’t elect to follow either procedure and “as a result, it failed to exhaust its administrative remedies,” according to the town’s motion.
Southwick Care countered the town’s motion, arguing that it wasn’t required to challenge the accuracy of the water meter or that it owed any money on its bill that required a request for an abatement, according to Southwick Care’s opposition to the town’s motion.
“In fact, [the town’s] claim for breach of contract arises not from a claim of a faulty or inaccurate meter, but rather, a billing error whereby the town incorrectly overcharged [Southwick Care] for its water usage and charged [Southwick Care] at a higher rate in violation of the town’s own rate tiering policy,” according to Southwick Care’s opposition to the town’s motion.
With the town’s motion being denied, it has until April 16 to file a response unless it requests an extension.
