The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

NORTH Eleuthera MP Rickey Mackey has alleged in an affidavit that his gas company – accused of negligently causing a fire that destroyed four residential units in Harbour Island – did not require licences as plaintiffs claim in a lawsuit. 

His affidavit, filed in the Supreme Court on Monday, counters claims that when Eleuthera Petroleum Limited was hired to fill a propane tank in June 2018, it negligently caused an explosion that destroyed the residential units and displaced residents. 

Plaintiffs––who are seeking more than $450k in damages––allege Mr Mackey’s company was unlicensed.

Freeman Hanna, a former Ministry of Works inspector, claimed in an affidavit last month that the company did not have a dealer’s or sub-dealer’s licence to sell, store and convey liquified petroleum gas to the public, nor did the employees have an installer’s licence to connect, disconnect or fill liquified containers.

Mr Hanna alleged that when Mr Mackey approached him last year to discuss the causes of the fire, he asked him if he had any defence against the legal action brought against his company.

He claimed he told the MP his company and its employees lacked the necessary licences.

He also claimed he inspected the site of the fire on March 20, 2020 and concluded the employees of the gas company did not monitor the filling of the tank carefully, causing the tank to become overfilled and the relief valve to blow off the excess gas which then leaked and was ignited. He said the ignited flame flashed back to the tank, which became overfilled, causing the fire.

He said the company “did not follow any of the basic standards set out in the regulations for the refilling of a bulk tank.”

Addressing Mr Hanna’s claims, Mr Mackey said in his affidavit that “the defendant does not install liquified containers and accordingly requires no licence for that purpose.”

“As regards paragraph 8 of Mr Hanna’s affidavit, in my discussion with Mr Hanna in early 2020, I approached him to enquire whether the Liquified Petroleum Act had been extended to the Family Islands in that there had always been a question as to whether or not it had been and he stated that in his view this was a misunderstanding as it applied and that was the end of the conversation,” he said.

“If, as Mr Hanna states, he was acting volatile inspector from 1999 and subsequently inspector and he was aware of the purported breach (of operating without a licence) then surely he would have said something to me about the alleged breach or does it perhaps suggest that the Act was not extended.

“At no time did I ask Mr Hanna whether he believed that EP had a defence to the action as he swears in paragraph 9 of his affidavit as I was never of the view that the company was liable.

“As regards paragraph 10 of his affidavit, I am at a loss to try and understand how Mr Hanna can suggest that he can determine the cause of a fire when inspecting a property some 21 months after a fire as he asserts.”

The plaintiffs are Justin Higgs, the owner of the four residential units and a laundromat attached to the building, and Letario Carl Higgs, one of the tenants.

Mr Higgs alleges he suffered “tremendous losses” because of the fire.

He claims that in discussions with Mr Mackey in the days after the fire, Mr Mackey admitted that his company and its employees were responsible for the blaze.

He further claims that though Mr Mackey agreed to give him resources to rebuild the structure, he has been unable to communicate with the MP so they could finish the project.

Mr Mackey, however, says he tried to help Mr Higgs given his status “as a relative of my wife and as a constituent”.

“I met with the first plaintiff and his wife and agreed to assist him by providing the material to replace the roof of his building and commercial garbage bins to collect the debris and a donation of $10,000 towards his loss but at no time did I admit on behalf of EP any liability to the first plaintiff or his wife, nor did I offer to rebuild his structure,” he said in his affidavit.

“Since my payments of the sum of $10,000 and the provision of the material to replace the roof as I had agreed, up to the commencement of these proceedings, I received no communication from the first plaintiff suggesting that I had promised to make any further contribution towards his loss.

“With regard to the affidavit of Justin Higgs, if, as he asserts, he attempted on ‘numerous occasions’ to contact me, I know nothing of such attempts as neither I nor my wife, who is Mr Higgs’ first cousin, can recall any attempt by him to contact me or my wife up to the commencement of these proceedings.

“Mr Higgs’ statement is doubly strange given the fact that I pass his premises at least once on virtually every day when I am in Harbour Island and never once has Mr Higgs animated any desire to speak with me so he clearly made no effort to contact me.”

Mr Mackey alleges people on Harbour Island have told him Mr Higgs created a GoFundMe account to help restore his building and “received substantial donations towards the replacement costs of his building”.

“…As I had received no further communication from him since our initial meeting it would suggest that he had accepted the position and required no further assistance from me,” he said. “Clearly if (which is denied) the plaintiffs were entitled to any damages from the defendant, such would be reduced substantially as a consequence of these donations.”

Mr Mackey alleges the fire was caused by Mr Higgs’ negligence, not his company. 

“…The fire resulted not from the negligence of the defendant but from the negligence of the first plaintiff or his agents whereby the plaintiff positioned a bulk gas tank so as to place it where, unbeknown to the defendant, exposed it to open flame within the interior of the building,” he said.

“Prior to the first plaintiff taking over the operation of the laundromat referenced in the statement of claim he was engaged in the business of preparing dryers and other equipment used in the laundromat business and by virtue therefore would have been aware of the danger of placing a gas dryer in a position that would have exposed it to a propane tank.”

Mr Mackey said his company has been in the propane gas business on Harbour Island since 1996 “and its employees are experienced and knowledgeable as regards the handling of a volatile product.”

Plaintiffs entered a $450,646.96 default judgement against Eleuthera Petroleum Ltd last year and had the Royal Bank of Canada account connected to the company frozen.

Eleuthera Petroleum, however, has succeeded in getting the judgement stricken after its lawyers argued that COVID-19 prevented the company from submitting a timely defence in the case. The case is now headed to trial.

Mr Mackey’s affidavit says: “… As regards the sums claimed by both plaintiffs, if, which is denied, the defendant had any liability for the losses claimed there is in the most part no evidence to support the sums claimed and with my knowledge of construction the sums claimed are grossly excessive.”