British Columbia-based Steelhead Systems Inc. (SSI) has responded to a lawsuit filed by Ski Bluewood, Washington over a delayed lift project. As I detailed last month, the two parties initially agreed to bring a used detachable quad to Bluewood in June 2024. The 1993 Doppelmayr lift would replace a base-to-summit triple chair and dramatically reduce ride time. SSI would act as a broker between Pro-Alpin Ropeway Services of Austria and Bluewood, bringing the lift from Sölden to Washington at significant saving versus a new lift. SCJ Alliance would engineer the lift and Bluewood would complete much of the installation work itself. Bluewood announced in late June 2024 the lift was expected to open for the 2025-26 season.
The deal soured this summer when disagreements arose over shipping costs, timelines, the number of shipping containers needed, exchange rates and more. In its claim filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Bluewood alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment by SSI. In its Response to Civil Claim, SSI’s attorney denies many of Bluewood’s claims, including that shipping costs and exchange rates were fixed upon contract signing. SSI alleges only after Bluewood stopped making payments did it stop shipping containers across the Atlantic. “Pursuant to [the agreement], all responsibility and risk with respect to the equipment, including transportation, rests with the Buyer,” the filing notes. “This responsibility includes any changes to shipping costs or exchange rates, which are matters outside the control of the Defendants.” SSI argues three outstanding invoices total $587,548.
SSI also alleges its principal, Zrinko Amerl, told Bluewood in 2024 that fall 2025 completion was an optimistic timeline. The complaint alleges Bluewood failed to provide accurate survey data in a timely manner. Steelhead Systems says SCJ Alliance’s engineer requested a 16th tower, which SSI agreed to provide at below market price. Finally, SSI alleges “ProAlpin insisted that there be a garage system put in place for maintenance and storage of chairs, however [Bluewood] refused to follow this recommendation.” On October 26th, I received word that SCJ did not request a 16th tower and that line was in the process of being corrected in the Response to Civil Claim.
To date 23 containers have been delivered to Bluewood containing chairs, terminal elements and towers. Four containers’ worth of equipment remains in Austria. Alarmingly, Pro-Alpin indicated to SSI that all remaining parts, including bullwheels and the haul rope, not picked up by September 8th, 2025 would be scrapped. “As of today’s date, SSI is unaware if any action has been taken with respect to this,” the filing notes.
Shortly after filing the response, SSI countersued Bluewood’s owners, alleging the lawsuit, associated press release and media coverage have damaged its reputation. The filing specifically mentions Lift Blog’s coverage and reader comments impacting SSI’s ability to sell lifts within the broader mountain resort industry. “As a result of the defamatory statements made by [Bluewood], SSI has suffered and continues to suffer losses to its business,” the suit says, alleging statements made by Bluewood will cause an estimated loss of approximately $10 to $15 million in revenue. The company seeks payment of outstanding invoices plus interest, damages and other costs.
Bluewood officials declined to comment beyond their initial press release, citing pending litigation. The ski area has been busy re-hanging chairs on the Skyline Express, the 1978 Borvig once set to be replaced.
Lift Blog 
This is quite concerning. It leaves to wonder who actually defaulted on the contract. Hopefully, the remaining parts have not been scrapped.
LikeLike
Good piece, solid reporting. I happened to stop in Dayton at a local
cafe for chicken fried steak this summer, ended up sitting next to
management and workers, asked about the situation. To a man they were
royally pissed off at the Canucks and called their tactics blackmail. I
trust the locals, they thought they had a deal as SSI was screwing
them. I trust the locals and the lifties to tell the truth, not the
brokers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sounds like a bully complaining to the playground teacher cos a kid fought back. If SSI actually are the a-holes they appear to be, they deserve to lose their business, not just a handful of millions. Your business should be strong enough to withstand a little criticism from a few armchair “experts” on a niche blog. (I am literally in my airmchair typing this before work.) There is obviously always more to every story than is told to the public, so we shall see. That said, defrauding a foreign entity takes a lot more energy than Bluewood folks likely have. Small ski areas take real work, the force-times-distance kind, and lots of it. Brokerage is more about schmoozing. Lotta time for fraud. Here’s hoping Bluewood is above board and survives this. If some shady pricks win a lawsuit against em, we’ll have another lost ski area.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, it’s honestly hilarious how SSI tries blaming Liftblog for its bad media coverage 😂. We are literally ski lift nerds who happen to love mountain transportation. You are right that if SSI wins a lawsuit, Bluewood will be in serious trouble, and it would be devastating for them to close. Although I feel like this scenario is unlikely to occur, at worst, they might have to renounce their detachable dream, like Sasquatch Mountain. We just need to wait and see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The filing specifically mentions Lift Blog’s coverage and reader comments impacting SSI’s ability to sell lifts within the broader mountain resort industry.
Is SSI really that insecure about their business? Lmao
(that was a joke SSI, please don’t sue me.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
i love all ski lift companies and ski lifts they’re all great.
nothing to see here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looking back at the earlier article, this is over something like $535K that Bluewood was billed for shipping and other expenses. IMO, the lawsuit will cost them a lot more than that in legal fees alone + the cost of any lost business and additional costs to restore the existing lift to working condition.
The contract was written in such a way that they were assuming risks and it came back to bite them when it those risks surfaced.
I think Bluewood got screwed here, but they should have had their lawyers review the contract before signing it if they didn’t do that up front. If they did, then the need new lawyers.
I had some friends get sued over $50K. It cost them 2 years and over $300K to fight it. They won, but did they really win?
LikeLike
I would have to see the contract to have an informed opinion.
LikeLike
Note the strikethrough and correction above: “On October 26th, I received word that SCJ did not request a 16th tower and that line was in the process of being corrected in the Response to Civil Claim.”
LikeLike