Stinger Welding, the bridge- and span-building company that was sued three weeks ago by the agency that worked to bring it to Libby, last Friday counter-sued the Port Authority.

In the counter-claim, which names the Kootenai Business Park Industrial District as third-party defendants, was filed by Thomas A. Budewitz, a Helena, Mont., attorney.

In the 16-page document, Budewitz breaks down the allegations named in the original suit, mostly denying the Port Authority allegations paragraph by paragraph.

On Wednesday, also in the 19th Judicial District Court in Lincoln County, Allan Payne, attorney for the Port Authority, filed a summary judgment that amends the initial complaint and seeks to get Stinger Welding to adhere to its original lease agreement with the Port Authority.

“This is a straight-up contract claim,” Payne said. 

“We’re just trying to get (Stinger) to live up to the terms of the original lease agreement. We have a contractual dispute, and this will put a halt to things until we this figured out.”

According to the lawsuit, the Port Authority is alleging breach of contract and unfair dealings with the agency that brought the Coolidge, Ariz.,-based business to Libby in 2009.

The sticking point is Stinger’s failure to abide by the initial agreement that called for the company to finance construction of its facility on property leased from the Port Authority and the Port Authority would then purchase the finished building and lease it back to Stinger.

For Stinger, the deal began to unravel when it was unable to finance the project and the Port Authority advanced $3.4 million for construction, including a lump sum that included about $1.5 million paid directly to Stinger.

The agreement called for the Port Authority to purchase the completed facility from Stinger at cost, minus, of course, the Port Authority’s contribution of $3.24 million of its own funds and obtained grant funding.

According to the suit, the loan was rejected because Stinger failed to negotiate terms on the lease agreement that were required by the Montana Board of Investments.

Now, in essence, the Port Authority is at risk of losing the Stinger building to Stinger because the bridge builder refuse to acknowledge any obligation from having received the Port Authority’s $3.4 million.

“Provisions are such that the sale was not valid by state law,” said Payne, who was not the Port Authority attorney at the time of the original agreement.

“I’m just trying to fix the problem,” Payne said. 

“We have a Port Authority Board that is a bunch of local businessmen. They’re just trying to help the community (by offering the building to Stinger). It’s just something that not valid. You can’t dispose of county property that way,” Payne said.

“The Port Authority is the people of Lincoln County, so the public owns the building,” Payne said.

The summary judgment also includes an affidavit from Paul Rumelhart, stating his role as Director of the Kootenai River Development Council he acted as a representative of the Port Authority.