Driver gets runaround after car is damaged at massive road construction project

Mary Lou Baez is getting Bamboozled.
In fact, It’s one of the worst cases of red tape we’ve seen in a long time.
A colossal runaround. And an utter failure by someone. But who?
The misery involves two government agencies, a road contractor that was fired by the state, the contractor’s insurance company and the firm that’s supposed to cover the state when a contractor fails to safely finish a job. No one wants to take responsibility.
Baez was out and about one day in April. When she pulled her car into a strip mall on Route 206 in Hillsborough, she heard a loud scraping noise.
“The result was some deep scratches to my bumper,” said Baez, 64. “My car is only four months old. On top of that, I’m worried about rust and other possible damage.”
It would cost $1,900 to fix, an estimate said.
That area of Route 206, which has been undergoing a $41 million federally-funded road widening project for years, has been a nightmare for drivers, local businesses and for transportation authorities almost since it started.
The contract for the project, between Doctors Way and Valley Road, was awarded in 2020 to Konkus Corporation of Branchburg. The completion was set for May 2024, but it’s way behind schedule.
Work was dormant for 15 months after the contractor was canned. It started up again this past summer with a new contractor and new hope it will all go well.
Before we plunge you into this absurd adventure — which would indeed be comical if it wasn’t so pathetic — understand that Baez doesn’t want to file a claim with her own insurance company.
“They said I had to pay the ($1,000) deductible and my policy would increase,” Baez said. “I can’t do that.”
Enter the red tape and the runaround,
After the incident, Baez called town hall in Hillsborough. It directed her to the local engineers’ office, which directed her to the Department of Transportation (DOT), which directed her to the Treasury Department, which would handle claims for DOT.
It told her to get an estimate from a body shop, take photos and send it all in.
She did all that, but then Treasury had a new message: Konkus Corp., the contractor that was fired for “safety violations,” was on the hook for the damage.
“(The firing) does not negate the fact that they are the ones who created the hazardous condition,” one Treasury official told Baez in an email. “As such, they are still responsible.”
It said there was a clause in Konkus’ contract that said the contractor would be responsible for incidents like what happened to Baez.
Konkus, by the way, is now suing the state over its sacking.
Baez also asked for help from Sen. Andrew Zwicker, D-Middlesex. His office’s research agreed with the Treasury Department
“The contract between the State and the company contained a hold harmless clause that required the contractor to carry liability insurance to protect his company and the State, and coverage was in force on the date of the occurrence,” Zwicker’s office said in an email to Baez.
Next came a string of emails to Konkus, during which Baez sent documentation several times, and several times, no answers of substance were ever offered.
Somewhere along the line, someone filed a claim with Konkus’ insurance company, CNA. It was denied on June 11.
“(The CNA representative) said he just spoke to an `Ashley’ at Konkus Construction, who advised him that `at the time, we were not the contractors on site,’” Baez said she was told.
So now what?
At the state’s suggestion, Baez paid the $42 court fee and filed a small claims case against Konkus in late October. The company has 60 days to respond.
When we asked the state to review all the updates, it had a new realization. Multiple workers thought Baez’ damage occurred on April 23, 2023 — two days before Konkus was fired from the job.
But it actually happened on that date in 2024, a year later. That meant it was almost a year after the contractor was let go. It took months before anyone noticed the mistake.
That brought a new advisory.
“Recently, we received an update from the Department of Transportation stating they advised you, through a third party reporter, that since the contractor was removed from the project, and both the contractor and their insurance carrier were denying your claim, you should file your claim with the Surety Insurance Carrier, which is responsible for ensuring the project gets completed,” it said.
“A surety insurance carrier, also known as a surety company, is an insurance company that provides a guarantee that a third party will fulfill their obligations,” it said, and it gave Baez a person to contact there.
So started a new round of emails with a representative of Berkley Insurance Company, the surety for the project. After Baez resubmitted her documentation, the first hint of bad news came in an email.
A Berkley representative said that because the state said Konkus created the unsafe condition, it wasn’t clear that the surety should be responsible.
Soon after, the death-knell: Berkeley said it wasn’t responsible.
“As surety, (Berkley) has a performance obligation to NJDOT to complete Konkus’ work, not for property damage to third parties,” it said.
We asked DOT it could finally put an end to this runaround.
And something finally shifted. We don’t know exactly who talked to whom, but DOT assured us Baez’ claim would be processed with a positive outcome for her.
We told Baez of the promise.
“I feel it’s almost too little too late, since all I got from the start was negativity, frustration and embarrassment for all the parties involved — especially the state — for their denials, misinformation — who was responsible and what YEAR the events happened in and telling me to sue Konkus in small claims court,” Baez said. “I’m happier today, but quite exhausted emotionally.”
We will keep an eye on what happens next to make sure the promises are fulfilled.
Please subscribe now and support the local journalism YOU rely on and trust.
Karin Price Mueller may be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X at @KPMueller.