PARIS — Two businesses have filed responses to a lawsuit brought against them by NEPW Logistics and its insurer, denying any complicity in damage done in a warehouse fire here last December.

Bancroft Contracting Corp. of Paris and Jerric Corp. of Paris brought their answers to Oxford County Superior Court. The two businesses are being sued by NEPW Logistics and United States Fire Insurance Co.

A 233,000-square-foot NEPW warehouse on Pine Street in Paris was seriously damaged last year when bales of shredded paper ignited at the facility’s railroad loading dock. Fifty-three fire departments assisted, and the blaze was not contained until three days later.

NEPW states that the fire destroyed more than 10,000 tons of pulp and paper products in the warehouse and damaged $5 million worth of product. The company also says repair costs exceeded $4 million, and the business lost more than $1 million more due to interruption of service.

The company charges Bancroft with breach of contract and negligence, among others, and asks for relief. Jerric Corp., initially named as High Tech Fire Protection, is charged with breach of contract and negligence.

NEPW is asking that the court award it compensatory damages equal to damages incurred in the fire. It also asks that Bancroft be required to pay expenses incurred by fire departments, including $46,000 by the Paris Fire Department, and indemnify NEPW against any claims arising from the fire.

Attorneys Frederick Badger and Barri Bloom, representing Bancroft, admitted that the company entered into a $79,000 contract with NEPW in September 2008 to rebuild a section of the warehouse roof. The attorneys deny any wrongdoing in the company’s actions.

NEPW had charged Bancroft’s workers with using improper care and violating industry safety standards by not keeping a fire watch and moving protective blankets placed over paper products when welding work on the roof was moved to a different area. In its complaint, NEPW included a report from the Maine Fire Marshal’s Office, which says that the fire was “the direct cause of the welding being conducted overhead and dropping slag over and behind the paper.”

Badger and Bloom said Bancroft did not create a hazard in the course of its work. They also argued that a paragraph in NEPW’s complaint referring to the report should be stricken due to the “unauthorized dissemination of the Fire Marshal’s investigation and report.”

Attorney Elizabeth Germani, representing Jerric, admitted that the company had contracted with NEPW in October 2008 to service and maintain fire suppression systems in the warehouse, including annual evaluations and necessary repairs.

NEPW charges that Jerric was liable to the extent that deficiencies in the system contributed to the damage.

Germani denied that Jerric failed to maintain the system or identify problems in the fire suppression system.

Both companies ask that NEPW’s complaint be dismissed. Bancroft’s response includes a charge of negligence by NEPW “equal to or greater than any fault” by Bancroft as well as NEPW’s assumption of risk. Jerric’s response includes the assertions that the claims were a result of a third party the company has no control over and that the company is not responsible for damages done before or after its conduct.

NEPW has also filed suit against three insurance companies, asking the companies to cooperate to adjust and pay the claims of its customers. That matter has since been moved to federal court.

[email protected]