YOUNGSTOWN – A contractor hired by the city apparently failed to call before digging, damaging underground telephone equipment and resulting in a lawsuit settlement.

Ohio Bell Telephone Co., doing business as AT&T Ohio, filed a lawsuit May 10 in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court against the city and Marucci and Gaffney Excavating Co. seeking $36,427.94 for damage done to its underground facilities when the contractor was doing repair work near 540 E. Midlothian Blvd. just days earlier.

The city’s board of control signed off on a settlement to have Youngstown pay one-third of the damage, $12,142.65 to AT&T.

As part of the settlement, Marucci and Gaffney is also paying $12,142.65 to AT&T and the phone company is absorbing the remaining $12,142.65 of the damages, according to city lawyers.

The settlement doesn’t include an admission of guilt or liability by the city or Marucci and Gaffney.

AT&T’s lawsuit states that Marucci and Gaffney was excavating on behalf of the city for a project when it hit the underground lines.

The lawsuit contends Marucci and Gaffney “failed to define and pre-mark the approximate location of its proposed excavation as required by (state law) and negligently failed to notify the Ohio Utility Protection Service prior to excavating as required by” state law.

The lawsuit also states Marucci and Gaffney “negligently failed to maintain reasonable clearance between plaintiff’s underground utility facilities and the cutting edge or point of powered equipment; failed to preserve and protect the markings of the tolerance zone of plaintiff’s underground facilities; when approaching and excavating within the tolerance zone failed to require an individual other than the equipment operator to visually monitor the excavation for any indication of plaintiff’s underground facilities; failed to conduct the excavation within the tolerance zone of plaintiff’s underground facilities in a careful, prudent and nondestructive manner in order to prevent damage, in breach of the common law standard of care for excavators and the requirements of” state law.

In its June 7 response, Marucci and Gaffney denied “each and every allegation.” The business also contended the “damages and losses of plaintiff resulted from the negligence of plaintiff causing or contributing to said accident and that said negligence was greater than the negligence, if any, of defendant.”

In the city’s July 10 response, it wrote it was “without sufficient knowledge or information to affirm or deny the allegations” in AT&T’s complaint.

Among the city’s defense arguments were that it was “immune from liability” under state law and that the court lacked jurisdiction. The city sought to have the case dismissed.

The last entry in the case was Oct. 8.

A Feb. 13 mediation was canceled after a deal was struck.

The case will be dismissed shortly.