Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Crestwood School District filed a court response to the lawsuit from Rinehimer Bus Lines that not only denies the claims in the suit, but makes counterclaims of additional failures by Rinehimer and seeks compensatory and other damages.
Crestwood terminated a contract with Rinehimer after a state audit discovered first that the district lacked proper driver clearances on file, then that Rinehimer also lacked those clearances. While state law requires districts to keep such paperwork on hand and updated, the contracted company is usually responsible for getting the clearances in order.
Though 46 pages long, the bulk of the response denies, point by point, much of what Rinehimer alleged in its opening salvo, often with little more than boilerplate legalese. But the response gets into more detail on key points of the lawsuit.
Rinehimer contends it did not violate a clause that allows the district to cancel the contract without notice if the “contractor demonstrates a complete failure to provide busing services.” Rinehimer contends that never happened, even after it was discovered Rinehimer lacked proper clearances for most of its drivers. The lawsuit contends the two sides could have made arrangements to continue providing bus service while the issue was fixed, but that Crestwood “was not interested in pursuing any of them, including the option of putting teachers on the buses.”
Rinehimer’s suit contends Crestwood was in violation of the law after the state auditor general’s office discovered the district lacked copies of required clearances, but the response flatly denies that, noting that while the district did learn of the lack of clearances because of the audit, the audit also discovered “that the documentation maintained by Rinehimer for its drivers was seriously deficient.
“In fact, Rinehimer did not have copies of the required driver’s license, records and clearance forms for more than two-thirds of its 46 drivers,” the response says. “As Rinehimer has admitted, this was in violation of, inter alia, paragraphs three and 18 of the parties’ contract.”
“Inter alia” means “among other things.”
The response also argues that in the resulting performance audit by the state, “the auditor general itself found (Rinehimer), by not maintaining complete and proper records, failed to comply with the contract’s requirements to ensure its drivers were in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.”
The response specifically denies the lawsuit’s allegation “that Crestwood’s lack of oversight was the root cause for any purported violation. On the contrary, it was Rinehimer’s breach of the parties’ contract that caused same.”
The suit contends it wasn’t necessary for Crestwood to cancel school for two days, which the response denies, putting the onus on Rinehimer’s failure to maintain required records for drivers. “Crestwood took necessary action, unlike Rinehimer, to ensure the safety of Crestwood’s student population based on Rinehimer’s failures.”
The response also rejects Rinehimer’s claim the district owes the company at least $50,000 under the contract for fuel costs that exceeded $1.67 per gallon, noting that “despite repeated requests by Crestwood, Rinehimer failed to provide receipts and supporting documentation to demonstrate its claim,” and that “Rinehimer failed to purchase fuel in accordance with the contract.”
The response makes counterclaims seeking unspecified compensatory and other damages for expenses and actions needed after what the district says was Rinehimer’s breech of contract, and for costs incurred because “since 2015, and before, Rinehimer has consistently overcharged Crestwood in violation of the terms of the contract for fuel surcharges.”