Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-03213 , ~"" L' ..., ,_ ' , . .r. "0 . '~ ~,..;.;..,. . > EDWIN C. FARVER, 1314 Strafford Road Camp Hill, PA 17011-6206 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff . NO. DO -~IJ Cu~( T~ vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE : COMPANY, 260 Interstate North Circle, NW Atlanta, GA 30339-2111 and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 1 PNC Plaza 249 5th A venue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2707 Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court, your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice, for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim for relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator 4th Floor Cumberland COunty Courthouse Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 240-6200 EDWIN C. FARVER, 1314 Strafford Road Camp Hill, P A 17011-6206 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff NO. vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE : COMPANY. 260 Interstate North Circle, NW Atlanta, GA 30339-2111 and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 1 PNC Plaza 249 5th Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2707 Defendants NOTICIA Le han demand ado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas sugnuientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abodado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puedeentrar una orden contra usted sin previa aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO IlENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME paR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUY A DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA A VERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Court Administrator 4th Floor Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 240-6200 '_,1'-_ _s ,~ ", " -,-,,- 'I"'. ,,' "",,,,--" , '- EDWIN C. FARVER, 1314 Strafford Road Camp Hill, P A 17011-6206 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff NO. Ifo. :3;U~ ~-r~ vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE : COMPANY, 260 Interstate North Circle, NW Atlanta, GA 30339-2111 and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 1 PNC Plaza 249 S'h Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2707 Defendants COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver, is an adult individual residing at 1314 Strafford Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011-6206. 2. Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company, upon information and belief, is a Delaware Corporation with a principal place of business at 260 Interstate North Circle, NW, Atlanta, Georgia, 30339-2111. 3. Upon information and belief, Union Security Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Union Security") regularly transacts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., is, upon information and belief a Pennsylvania Corporation engaged in the business of banking and insurance, 1 ! '~ -<:1 , '," ----<<, , ~, " '" with a principal place of business at 2730 Liberty A venue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 (hereinafter referred to as "PNC"). 5. At all times material hereto, PNC, its agents, servants, and employees acted in its individual capacity and as agents and/or ostensible agents of Defendant Union Security. 6. Upon application, Defendant Union Security issued to Plaintiff Edwin Farver a policy of disability insurance, Certificate No. YBUA236006. A true and correct copy of the Certificate is attached hereto and marked as "Exhibit A". 7. Under Certificate No. YBUA236006, the monthly disability benefit is $400.10. See "Exhibit A". 8. Upon application, on or about December 10, 1998, Defendant Union Security issued Plaintiff Edwin Farver a second policy of disability insurance, Certificate no. YBUA23601O. A true and correct copy of the Certificate is attached hereto and marked as "ExhibitB". 9. Under Certificate No. YBUA23601O, the original amount of insurance is $60,779.77 with a maximum coverage term of 120 months, for a monthly benefit of $506.50. 10. Plaintiff Edwin Farver applied for and received both policies of insurance through Defendant PNC. See Exhibits A and B. 11. Both of the aforementioned policies were purchased from Defendant Union Security through Defendant PNC at a branch office located at 1101 Carlisle Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania near the Cedar Cliff Mall. 2 ~ ,e, -to , ." I' 12. Prior to purchasing the aforementioned policies, an agents, servant, or employee of Defendant PNC represented to Plaintiff Edwin Farver that in the event of his disability, disability insurance would "cover the full amount of his loans", and would "cover his mortgage payments". 13. Based on the foregoing representations, Plaintiff Edwin Farver applied for and purchased the above-mentioned policies of disability insurance. 14. Plaintiff Edwin Farver has paid all premiums due and owing for the aforementioned policies. 15. Neither policy of disability insurance has been properly cancelled or rescinded by Defendant Union Security, and no premium refunds have been made to Plaintiff Farver. 16. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Edwin Farver has been employed as a truck driver with Consolidated Freightways. 17. Due to physical injury, Plaintiff Edwin Farver has been totally disabled within the meaning of Defendant Union Security's policies from November 8, 1999 through March 22,2000. 18. Plaintiff Edwin Farver may become totally disabled in the future within the meaning of "total disability" under the Union Security policies. 19. As a result of Plaintiff Edwin Farver's disability, he has made formal requests for benefits under both Certificate No. YBUA236006 and YBUA23601O. 20. Defendant Union Security has paid only a monthly benefit of $250.00 under Certificate No. YBUA236010,. 3 '~ . I' 25. At all times material hereto Defendant Union Security has failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the failure to provide any benefits under Certificate No. YBUA236006. 26. Defendant Union Security's conduct has forced Plaintiff Edwin Farver to file suit to recover benefits legitimately due and owing under the above-referenced policies. 4 <_q~" ... .,__" ,." ~,", ,_ 0 , '". n" COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT EDWIN C. FARVER VS. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 28. From November 8, 1999 through March 22, 2000, Plaintiff Edwin Farver was totally disabled within the meaning of Defendant Union Security's disability policies as reflected on Certificates No. YBUA236006 and YBUA236010. 29. Under the certificates, total disability is defined as the inability of the insured to perform the duties of his regular occupation. See Exhibits A and B. 30. During the above-referenced timeframe, Plaintiff Edwin Farver was completely unable to perform the duties of his regular occupation as a truck driver with his employer. 31. The failure of Defendant Union Security to designate Plaintiff Edwin Farver as "totally disabled" within the meaning of disability certificates YBUA236006 and YBUA23601O, despite the fact that Plaintiff Edwin Farver meets the definition of total disability under the Certificates, constitutes a breach of contract as to both certificates. 32. As a result of the above-mentioned breach of contract by Defendant Union Security, Plaintiff Edwin Farver has sustained damages in the amount of $2,000.50 under Certificate No. YBUA236006 and $12,082.49 under Certificate No. YBUA23601O. 5 '~ <".,--- ., 33. As a result of the aforementioned breach of contract by Defendant Union Security, Plaintiff Edwin Farver has sustained damages in the amount of attorneys' fees and court costs set forth more fully above. 34. As a result of Defendant Union Security's unjustified failure to pay benefits due and owing under the certificates of disability insurance, Plaintiff Edwin Farver has been unable to meet his financial obligations at great hardship. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. COUNT II - INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION EDWIN C. FARVER VS. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 36. Plaintiff Edwin Farver was enticed to purchase and did purchase the above- referenced policies based on the material promises and misrepresentations of Defendant Union Security and Defendant PNC, acting in its capacity as agent of Defendant Union Security as set forth more fully above. 37. Defendant Union Security, through its agent PNC, knew or should have known that material promises and representations made with respect to total disability 6 1'1'" , 'i .. , ,,, benefits concerning both the definition of total disability and the maximum amount of coverages were false. 38. Plaintiff Edwin Farver justifiably relied on both the promises of Defendant PNC at the time he purchased the above-referenced policies and on the amounts of insurance set forth on Certificates YBUA236006 and YBUA23601O. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional misrepresentations of Defendant Union Security, Plaintiff has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in the future as set forth more fully above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and award compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. COUNT III - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION EDWIN C. FARVER VS. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 41. Plaintiff Edwin Farver was enticed to purchase and did purchase the above- referenced policies based on the material promises and misrepresentations of Defendant Union Security and Defendant PNC, acting in its capacity as agent of Defendant Union Security as set forth more fully above. 7 10"=" - 42. Defendant Union Security, individually and through its agent PNC, negligently misrepresented the nature and extent of coverage to Plaintiff Edwin Farver as set forth more fully above. 43. Plaintiff Edwin Farver justifiably relied on both the promises of Defendant PNC at the time he purchased the above-referenced policies and on the amounts of insurance set forth on Certificates YBUA236006 and YBUA23601O. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent misrepresentations of Defendant Union Security, individually and through its agents, Plaintiff Edwin Farver has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in the future as set forth more fully above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and award compensatory damages in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. COUNT IV - PROMISORY ESTOPPEL EDWIN C. FARVER vs. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 46. Plaintiff Edwin Farver was enticed to purchase and did purchase the above- referenced policies of disability insurance based on the representation of Defendant Union Security as set forth on the certificates of insurance as well as on the oral representations and promises of Defendant Union Security's agent, Defendant PNC. 8 I,.... . . ,,< 47. Plaintiff Edwin Farver justifiably relied on the promises and representations of Defendant Union Security, both individually and through its agent, Defendant PNC. 48. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff Edwin Farver's reliance upon the promises and representations of Defendant Union Security as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in the future. 49. Defendant Union Security should be estopped from paying only partial benefits under Certificate No. YBUA236010 and no benefits under Certificate No. YBUA236006. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and award compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. COUNT V - INSURANCE BAD FAITH, 42 PA. C.S.A. ~8371 EDWIN C. FARVER vs. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 50. Paragraphs 1 through 49 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 51. Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. ~8371, the conduct of Defendant Union Security in the handling of Plaintiff Edwin Farver's claim for disability benefits has been in bad faith. 52. For a period of months, Defendant Union Security has failed to provide sufficient explanation for the failure to provide full benefits under Certificate No. YBUA 236010, or the failure to pay any benefits under Certificate No. YBUA236006. 9 '~'"""I'!iI'~'__" , ,~ h ~ ,- ~-'~ ,"",- 53. Defendant Union Security has engaged in delay tactics to postpone the payment of full benefits to Plaintiff Edwin Farver under the above-referenced certificates. 54. Defendant Union Security has failed to conduct adequate and prompt investigation and evaluation of the merits of Plaintiff Edwin Farver's claim for total disability benefits, despite repeated requests and demands. 55. Defendant Union Security did not attempt to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of Plaintiff Edwin Farver's claim for total disability benefits. 56. Defendant Union Security has utilized factors in assessing Plaintiff Edwin Farver's claim which are unknown to Plaintiff and not set forth in any policy documents. 57. Defendant Union Security has breached its duty to pay Plaintiff Edwin Farver total disability benefits under Certificates YBUA236006 and YBUA23601O. 58. Defendant Union Security has attempted in bad faith to circumvent its obligations under the above-referenced policies by paying Plaintiff Edwin Farver substantially less than the full benefits due and owing under the terms of the certificates. 59. Defendant Union Security compelled Plaintiff Edwin Farver to seek legal redress to obtain benefits due under the policy. 60. The conduct of Defendant Union Security in failing to pay Plaintiff Edwin Farver's claim for total disability benefits is unfounded, unreasonable, arbitrary, and in bad faith. 61. At all times material hereto Defendant Union Security had no reasonable basis for denying Plaintiff Edwin Farver's claim for total disability benefits under the policy 10 :-'1,__ . , ',,--,' 'C'"" " ." ,~" , ,'"", " ,'~' ,~ , . -", '"',=," , and knew and! or recklessly disregarded the lack of a reasonable basis for denying benefits to Plaintiff Edwin Farver. 62. As a result of the bad faith of Defendant Union Security, Plaintiff Edwin Farver is entitled to and seeks interest on the amount of the claim from the date the claim was made in November 1999 in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest plus three percent (3 % ). 63. As a result of the bad faith conduct of Defendant Union Security, Plaintiff Edwin Farver is entitled to and seeks punitive damages to deter Defendant Union Security and others similarly situated from such future bad faith conduct. 64. As a result of the bad faith of Defendant Union Security, Plaintiff Edwin Farver is entitled to and seeks costs and attorneys' fees. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and award compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the aIllount required for compulsory arbitration together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. COUNT VI - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW EDWIN C. FARVER VS. UNION SECURITY JLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 65. Paragraphs 1 through 64 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 66. Based on the above conduct of Defendant Union Security individually and through its agent, PNC, Defendant Union Security has engaged in fraudulent or deceptive 11 I,~ ! . ~.' ,;--< ,_"]'"," 0 _~,' "<" , ,', ,~,~ ' ~ ,', -" p "''' , ", > . conduct which created the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding of Plaintiff Edwin Farver. 67. Based on the above conduct of Defendant Union Security individually and through its agent PNC, Defendant Union Security misrepresented the nature and quality of the product or service it was providing, i.e. disability insurance. 68. The above-referenced conduct of Union Security, individually and through its agent, PNC, constitutes misfeasance within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, 73 P.S. ~201-1, et seq. 69. As a result of the aforementioned misfeasance of Defendant Union Security, Plaintiff Edwin Farver has suffered damages as set forth more fully above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company representing all outstanding benefits due, costs, attorneys' fees, treble damages, and all other allowable damages. COUNT VI - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT EDWIN C. FARVER vs. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 70. Paragraphs 1 through 69 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 71. Within the meaning of Defendant Union Security's disability certificates No. YBUA236006 and YBUA23601O, Plaintiff Edwin Farver was totally disabled between November 8,1999 and March 22,2000. 12 <i,o,""",", ~" ~" ,', ",' ,_0- - , ~ ^ , "". 72. Plaintiff Edwin Farver may become disabled in the future. 73. Plaintiff Edwin Farver is entitled to a monthly benefit of $400.10 under Certificate YBUA236006 for any period of disability. Plaintiff Edwin Farver is entitled to a monthly benefit of $506.50 for any period of disability under Certificate YBUA23601O. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver respectfully requests this Honorable Court to declare the following: (1) Plaintiff Edwin Farver was totally disabled within the meaning of the Certificates of Insurance for the period November 8, 1999 through March 22, 2000; (2) as a result of the aforementioned disability, Plaintiff Edwin Farver is entitled to a monthly benefit of $400.10 under Certificate No. YBUA236006 and a monthly benefit of $506.50 under Certificate No. YBUA23601O; (3) Plaintiff Edwin Farver will be entitled to a monthly benefit of $400.10 under Certificate No. YBUA236006 and a monthly benefit of $506.50 under Certificate No. YBUA236010 for any future disability period. 13 '''"~ --"1',""",,,:,,,,--,.' .~.. -" ~ ", COUNT VII - INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION EDWIN C. FARVER VS. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 74. Paragraphs 1 through 73 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 75. Plaintiff Edwin Farver was enticed to purchase and did purchase the above- referenced policies based on the material promises and misrepresentations of Defendant PNC, acting as agent for Defendant Union Security as set forth more fully above. 76. Defendant PNC as agent of Defendant Union Security, knew or should have known that material promises and representations made with respect to total disability benefits concerning both the de[mition of total disability and the maximum amount of coverages were false. 77. Plaintiff Edwin Farver justifiably relied on both the promises of Defendant PNC at the time he purchased the above-referenced policies and on the amounts of insurance set forth on Certificates YBUA236006 and YBUA23601O. 78. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional misrepresentations of Defendant PNC, Plaintiff has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in the future as set forth more fully above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and award compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. 14 '~1".,.,. ~ '., ".S''''' ~", ~,' ~ ,.,. ,. - ,,', ~".~ '! ,'" . -, , '" COUNT VIII - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION EDWIN C. FARVER vs. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 79. Paragraphs 1 through 78 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 80. Plaintiff Edwin Farver was enticed to purchase and did purchase the above- referenced policies based on the material promises and misrepresentations of Defendant PNC as agent of Defendant Union Security as set forth more fully above. 81. Defendant PNC, as agent of Defendant Union Security, negligently misrepresented the nature and extent of coverage to Plaintiff Edwin Farver as set forth more fuIly above. 82. Plaintiff Edwin Farver justifiably relied on the promises of Defendant PNC at the time he purchased the above-referenced policies and on the amounts of insurance set forth on Certificates YBUA236006 and YBUA23601O. 83. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional misrepresentations of Defendant PNC, Plaintiff has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in the future as set forth more fully above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and award compensatory damages in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. 15 "t~ _= ," 'H",". ., ,--" ,., COUNT IX - PROMISORY ESTOPPEL EDWIN C. FARVER vs. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 84. Paragraphs 1 through 83 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 85. Plaintiff Edwin Farver was enticed to purchase and did purchase the above- referenced policies of disability insurance based on the representation of Defendant Union Security as set forth on the certificates of insurance as well as on the oral representations and promises of Defendant PNC and Defendant Union Security. 86. Plaintiff Edwin Farver justifiably relied on the promises and representations of Defendant PNC, both individually and as agent of Defendant Union Security. 87. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff Edwin Farver's reliance upon the promises and representations of Defendant PNC as set forth above, Plaintiff has suffered damages and will continue to suffer damages in the future. 88. Defendant PNC should be estopped from paying only partial benefits under Certificate No. YBUA236010 and any benefits under Certificate No. YBUA236006. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and award compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. 16 -- _,,;,li; 0." ",',.' ,_C"'_ ~. '~.", 0'- COUNT X - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND PROTECTION LAW EDWIN C. FARVER vs. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 89. Paragraphs 1 through 88 are incorporated herein as if set forth more fully. 90. Based on the above conduct of Defendant PNC individually and as agent of Defendant Union Security, Defendant PNC has engaged in fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding of Plaintiff Edwin Farver. 91. Based on the above conduct of Defendant PNC individually and as agent of Defendant Union Security, Defendant PNC misrepresented the nature and quality of the product or service it was providing, i.e. disability insurance. 92. The above-referenced conduct of Defendant PNC, individually and as agent of Defendant Union Security, constitutes misfeasance within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, 73 P.S. 9201-1, et seq. 93. As a result of the aforementioned misfeasance of Defendant PNC, Plaintiff Edwin Farver has suffered damages as set forth more fully above. 17 !'". " '. ',-~'>""(':"~ ''-';,''-'''',,-> ",~~", "",.. ,!' WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Edwin Farver respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant PNC representing all outstanding benefits due, costs, attorneys' fees, and all other allowable damages. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL & HADDICK, P.C. Date: May 23,2000 es E. Ha dick, If., Esquire Attorney I. 0: 55666 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 Attorneys for Plaintiff ~ 18 t"'~r .-..,..__, ." ,,' ,"-'"""CO",," "e""',_.J,,,- " ,<, ~- AGENCY NO. CERTIFI(;ATE NO. 1485 0000 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE SCHEDULE YBUA 23 60 06 INSURED DEBTOR (Full Name and Address) EDWIN C FARVER 1314 STRAFFORD RD CAMP HILL PA 170116206 FIRST BENF.FI('IARY (CREDITOR) PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION SECOND BENEFICIARY (Estate of Insured Debtor if none other designated) DISABILITY COVERAGE RETROACTIVE - After waiting a period of ~ days. benefits will be payable from the first day. 400.1 s 16 527.0 s 8 9 4 15 02 48 Mos. , MAXIMUM . MAXIMUM AM:OUNT MAXIMUM ~RM AGE OF INSURANCE OF COVERAGE 65 ... $30,000 120 Mos. Yn;. 65 Yrs.-Unless ,$30,000 'Unle~s 1'20 M9nths Unless Otherwise Indicated Otherwise Indicated Otherwise Indicated --- THIS CERTIFIES THATthe Debtor0am . the Schedule. in connection with the Debtor's indebtedness to the Crednor. has become insured under a Group Term Disability Insurance Policy issued to ~~r by ;t7A/C ..64Q''? f Q. 'v.{ ......., . - UNION sfCURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY . .V' /.-J/2' Administrative Office: 3290 Northside Parkway, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30327 I ..I O~ r' ~?h C- 'is (J ify Home Office: Wilmington, Delaware ( . Herein Called the .'Company" . subject to all of the provisions, conditions and limitations contained in the Group Policy, herein and on the reverse side hereof. DISABILITY BENEFIT If the Debtor sustains total disability within the term stated in the Schedule and such total disability continues uninterrupted for the number of days stated in the Schedule as the Waiting Period, the Company will pay to the Creditor an indemnity equal to 1/30th of the Monthly Disability Benefit stated in the Schedule for the first day the Debtor became totally disabled and for each day thereaner of such continuous total disability. Provided, however, that in no event shall indemnity be paid for any day beyond the scheduled termination date of this coverage. Any excess:disability benefits shall be paid to the Debtor, if living, otherwise to the second beneficiary designated in the Schedule or, if none is designated, to the estate of the Debtor. TOTAL DISABILITY means that as a result of an injury or sickness, the Debtor is under the regular care and attendance of a duly licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy other than him (herl self, and, during the first twelve months of such disability and the term of coverage. is prevented completely from pertorming the duties of the Debtor's regular occupation (at the time of inception of such disability), and, for the balance of the period of disability aner the said twelve months, is prevented completely from performing the dutieS of any occupation for which the Debtor is reasonably fitted by education, training or experience. INJURY means bodily inlury caused by accident which causes the total disability of the insured Debtor. SICKNESS means illness or disease which causes the total disability of the insured Debtor. EXCEPTIONS TO DISABILITY COVERAGE. The insurance provided hereunder does not cover, and no benefit shall be payable for, disability to which a contributing cause, directly or indirectly, is the insured Debtor's (al intentional self.inflictionofinjurywhether sane or insane; (bl flight in non.scheduled aircran; (cl normal pregnancy, whether existing on the individual effective date or developing thereaner; or (d) disease, injury or physical condition which totally disabled the Debtor at any time during the six.month period Immediately preceding the individual effective date of coverage. GENERAL PROVISIONS The amount charged by the Creditor to the Debtor for the coverage provided herein shall not exceed the premium therefor paid by the Creditor to the Company. RENEWED OR REFINANCED INDEBTEDNESS. If this certificate covers a renewal or refinancing of an insured Indebtedness. the effective date of the coverage as it affects any prOVision herein shall be deemed to be the first date on which the Debtor became insured, at least to the extent of the amount and term 01 the Indebtedness outstanding at the time 01 renewal or refinancing. MAXIMUM AGE. A Debtor is not eligible for any coverage under this Certificate if the Debtor is older than the age Indicated in the Schedule: if a Debtor exceeds the eligibility age, has .~or- reclly stated his age in writing, and a certificate is issued to him In error, the Company may within 60 days from the date of the loan term mate coverage and refund the single premium paid, providing no ciaim was incurred prior to the date of termination. eno,.,,, V_D_I I SINGLE PREMIUM NON PARTICIPATING CREDITOR.DEBTOR GROUP RETROACTIVE TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE EXHIBIT A LlM ITS OF COVERAGE. No coverage under this Certificate shall be afforded for a term in excess of the maximum term Indicated In the Schedule. No coverage under.thls Certltl,ate and/or all other certificates.issued to the Debtor by the Creditor shall be afforded for an amouni of disability insurance in excess ohhe maximum amount indicated In the Schedule. The maximum monthly disability benefit available under this certificate shall be the maximum amount of insurance divided by the number of months in the term of coverage but not more than $500.00. The maximum limitations will not be used to deny or reduce liability under this Certificate; if the Debtor is issued insurance in excess of either of the aforementioned maximums in error, the Company has the right within sixty (601 days from the date ohhe loan to reduce excess coverage and refund the excess chargeorterminate coverage and refund the full charge paid by the Debtor, provided the Debtor has not become disabled and has not met the requirements of the waiting period on the adjustment or termination date. However, this will not preclude the Company from challenging a fraudulent misstatement concerning the amount of existing insurance during the two-year contestable period. INOIVIDUAl TERMINATION REASONS. The Company's liability shall terminate concurrently with the original scheduled maturity date of the indebtedness unless earlier terminated as provided in the following sentence. If, prior to the termination ohhe Debtor's term of coverage, the indebtedness is discharged by prepayment, renewal or refinancing; the obligation to pay is transferred to another; the evidence of indebtedness is transferred from the Creditor to another creditor; any property securing the payment of the indebtedness is repossessed; a judgement is entered in any court of record with respect to the indebtedness; orthe Debtor has been delinquent in any payment on the account for 120 days, the Company's liability shall terminate concurrently with the date of such discharge, transfer, repossession, judgement or delinquency. PREMIUM REFUND. In the eventohermination of coverage priorto the termination ohheterm of coverage, the unearned portion ohhe premium charged to the Debtor shall be refunded by the Company to the Creditor, to be paid to or credited to the account ohhe Debtor by the Creditor, without prejudice to any claim. Ihhe indebtedness is discharged as the result of pay. ment of proceeds of life insurance by the Company, the coverage shall coincidentally terminate and the unearned portion ohhe premium charged therefor shall be refunded as aforesaid. The unearned premium for the purpose of such refund shall be calculated according to the Rule of 78. No premium shall be refunded if the amount refundable is less than $1.00. INCONTESTA81L11Y. No statement made by or on behalfohhe Debtor relating to the Oebtor's insurability, age, employment, and amount of existing insuranceshall be used in contesting the validity of coverage hereunder with respect to which such statement was made after the coverage hereunder has been in force prior to the contest for a period of two (2) years during such person's lifetime nor unless it is contained in a written instrument signed by the Debtor and a copy of such instrument is given to the Debtor. NOTICE OF CLAIM. Written notice 01 claim, given by or on behall of the insured Debtorto the Company at its principal office in Atlanta, Georgia, or to any authorized agent of the Company, with information sufficient to identify the insured Debtor, must be given within 20 days after the occurrence or commencement of any loss, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible. CLAIMS FORMS. The Company, upon receipt of a notice of claim, will furnish to the insured Debtor such forms as are usually furnished by it fodiling proofs ofloss.lf such forms are not furnished within 1 5 days after the giving of such notice the insured Debtor shall be deemed to have complied w~h the requirements of this Certificate as to proof of loss upon submitting, within the time fixed in the Certificate for filing proofs of loss, written proof covering the occurrence, the character and the extent of the loss for which claim is made. PROOFS OF lOSS. Writtenproof of loss must be furnished to the Company at its said office in case of claim for loss for which this certificate provides any periodic payment contingent upon continuing loss within 90 days after the termination of the period for which the Company is liable. Failure to furnish such proof within the time required shall not invalidate nor reduce any claim if it was not reasonably possible to give proof within such time, provided such proof is furnished as soon as reasonably possible and in no event, except in the absence of legal capacity, later than one year from the time proof is otherwise required. TIM~ OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS. Subject to due written proof of loss, all accrued indemnities for loss for which this certificate provides periodic payment shall be paid monthly and any balance remaining unpaid upon the termination of liability will be paid immediately upon receipt of due written proof. PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONSAND AUTOPSY. The Comp/lJlY at its own expense shall have the right and opportunity to examine the person of the insured Debtor when and as often as it may reasonably require during the pendency of a claim hereunder and to make an autopsy in case of death where it is not forbidden by law. lEGAL ACTION. No action at law or in equity shall be brought to recaver on this Certificate priortothe expiration of 60 days after the written proofafloss has been furnished in accordance with the requirements of tllis Cehificate. No such action shall be brought after the expiration of three years after the time written proof of loss is required to be furnished. ). ,l'".,, .Ct ", F:( ,'." ,~,. ~~f '.. ,~c~';' (} \~' :/, ."~ .,' { FORM Y:Ii.U I~" '" (:'-~ , ~" AGENCY NO. U IHllll'~\lI.;";().' 1485 0000 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE SCHEDULE YBUA2=:~:J 1.U INSURED DEBTOR (FuJI NaUlt' and Address) EDvlIN C FARVER 1314 STHAF'PORD RD CAlif' HILL PA 1701.16206 FIRST BENE',F!( IARY (( REl)JTORI PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION SECOND BENEFICIARY (Estate of Insured Debtor if none other de~ignated) DISARII.ITY COVERAGE X RETROACTIVE _ After waiting a period of _J 4 days. benefits will be payahle from the first day. 250. Q; 60,779. S o 8 2 3 08 12(!}1os. MAXIMUM MAXIMVM AMOUNT MAxIMUM TERM AGE OF INSURANCE OF COVERAGE 65 $30,000 120 Mos. v",. 65 Yrs. Unless $30,000 Unless 120 Months Unless Otherwise Indicated Otherwise Indicated Otherwise Indicated THIS CERTI FI ES THAT the Debtor named in the Schedule, in connection with the Debtor's indebtedness to the Creditor, has become insured under a Group Term Disability Insurance Policy issued to the Creditor by UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Administrative Office: 3290 Northside Parkway. NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30327 Home Office: Wilmington, Delaware Herein Called the 'Tompany'. subject to all of the provisions. conditions 'and limitations contained in the Group Policy, herein and on the reverse side hereof. DISABILITY BENEFIT If the Debtor sustains total disability within the term stated in the Scheduleand such total disability continues uninterrupted for the number of days stated in the Schedule as the Waiting Period, the Company will pay to the Creditor an indemnity equal toJ 130th of the Monthly Disability Benefit stated in the Schedule for the first day the Debtor became totally disabled and for each day thereaher of such continuous total disability. Provided, however, that in no event shall indemnity be paid for any day beyond the scheduled termination date of this coverage. Any excess disability benefits shall be paid to the Debtor, if living, otherwise to the second beneficiary designated in the Schedule or, if none is designated, to the estate of the Debtor. TOTAL DISABILITY means that as a result of an injury orsickness, the Debtocis under the regular care and attendance of a duly licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy otherthan him (her) self. and, during the firsttwelve months of such disability and the term of coverage, is prevented completely from pertorming the duties of the Debtor's regular occupation (at the time of inception of such disability), and, for the balance of the period of disability aher the said twelve months, is prevented completely from performing the duties of any occupation for which the Debtor is reasonably fitted by education, training or experience. INJURY means bodily injury caused by accident which causes the total disability of the insured Debtor. SICKNESS means illness or disease which causes the total disability of the insured Debtor. EXCEPTIONS TO DISABILITY COVERAGE. The insurance provided hereunder does not cover. and no benefit shall be payable for, disability to which a contributing cause, directly or indirectly. is the insured Debtor's (al intentional selhnfliction of injury whether sane or insane; (b) flight in non.scheduled aircrall; (c) normal pregnancy, whether existing on the individual effective date or developing therealler; or (dl disease, injury or physical condition which totally disabled the Debtor at any time during the six.month period immediately preceding the individual effective date of coverage. GENERAL PROVISIONS The amount charged by the Creditor to the Debtor for the coverage provided herein shall not exceed the premium therefor paid by the Creditor to the Company. RENEWED OR REFINANCED INDEBTEDNESS.lithis certificate coversa renewal orrefinancing of an insured indebtedness. the effective date of the coverage as it affects any provision herein shall be deemed to be the first date on which the Debtor became insured, at least to the extent of the amount and term of the indebtedness outstanding at the time of renewal or refinancing. MAXIMUM AGE. A Debtor is not eligible forany coverage under this Certificate if the Debtor is older than the age indICated in the Schedule; if a Debtor exceeds the eligibility age, has cor. rectly stated.hls age in writing, and a certificate is issued to him in error. the Company may within 60 days from the date of the loan terminate coverage and refund the single premium paid, providing no claim was incurred prior to the date of termination. FORM Y-B-U SINGLE PREMIUM NON PARTICIPATING CREDITOR. DEBTOR GROUP RETROACTIVE TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE ~~mlT B iNSURED COPY lIMITSOF COVE-RAGE. No coverage under this Certificate shall,~~ aff~[ded lor a t~rm in,~~~~J1V~e. ma~im~mteLI1) in~icated in the Schedule. No coverage unde~this Certi~cate and/or all other.certilicate~ issued to the Debtor by the Creditor shall !>a aff~rdeflJ~L,an ~mqunl P\~!~abiiity !n,~u(an,cein.~xc.~soIJ~e. maximum amount indicated In the Schedule. The maximum monthly disability benefit available underthiscertificate shall be.the Illaximum amount 01 insurance divided by the number of months in the term 01 coverage but not more than $500.00. The maximum limitations win nOt be used iotlimyorre<tuceliabirrty uhder this Certilicate; il the Debtor is issued insurance in exc~s o( either of the alorementionedmaximums in, error, the Comp~ny hastlie rightwiihin si~j601 day~ fro~ ih'edateol the\OOn to.t~~cee~cess co~~rage a~d refund th~ eiicesscha~e ort~in;in~teh~erag~~nd relundthelUll c~argepaid bv the Debtor;piovided the Debtor has not beoolil. disabletfand has nbi met the 'requirements of the'waiiingperiOd onthealljustment or terminationaate. However, this 'will not preclude the Company Irom challenging a fraudulent misstatement concerning the amount 01 existing insurance during the two.year contestable period.. . , '''" , ^" -- ":, , : ',' , :-, ',c: : ~, ~"E, ; ',' , ", ",' , ,--' .- ,,,", " , ,~' ," ',' ," , ',-"',";: I: " "'" ", ',' ,',. INDIVIDUAL TERMINATION REASONS, The Company'sliability shall terminate concurrently with the original schedul~dlnatuirty date 01 thein~ebtednessunless earlierterinrnated as provided in the lollow;ngsentence. If, prior to the termination of the Debto(s term 01 Coverage, the indebtedness is discharged 'by prepayment, renewal or refinancing; the obligation to pay is transferred to another; the evidence 01 indebtedness is transferred froin the Creditor to another creditor; anyproperty securing the payment 01 the indebtedness is repossessed; a judgement is entered in any court of record with respectto the indebtedness; orthe Debtor has been delinquent in any payment on the accountfor 120 days, the Company's liability shall terminate Con,currently with the date 01 such discharge, transfer, repossession, judgement or delinquency. PREMIUM REFUND. In the event o!terminationof coverage prior to the termination o!the term 01 coverage, the unearned portion o!the premium charged tothe Debtor shall be relunded by the Company to the Creditor, to be paid to or credited to theaccouirt 01 the Debtor by the Creditor, without prejudice to any claim. 11 the indebtedness is discharged as the result of pay' ment 01 proceeds of Iile insurance by the Company, the coverage shall coincidentally terminate and the unearned portion o!the premium charged therelor.shall be refunded as aloresaid. The unearned premium for the purpose.ol such refund shall be calculated according to the Rule of 78. No premium shall be relunded if the amount relundable is less than $1.00.. . . ... , ..., .. . . ','" , ' , ,.': ' ,,' ,'" ,'--, , - INCONTESTABILITY. No Statement made by or on behalf o!the Debtorrelating to the Debto( s insurability, age, employment, and amount 01 existing insurance shall be used in contesting the validity 01 coverage hereunder with respectto which suchststelllent was rnsde alter the coverage hereun,derhas been in force prior to the contest lor a period of two 12) years durin9. such person's liletime nor unle.ss it is contained it1 a written instrument signed by the Debtor and a copy of such instrument is given to the Debtor. NOTICE OF qAIM.Wdtten n,oti~e 01 c1ai~: given bY9r on behallolthe insured Debtortotha Company at itsprincipal o!fice in Atlanta, Georgia, or to any authoiized agent of the Company, with. inlormation. sufficient to identify the. insured Debtor, must be given within 20 days alter the occurrence or commencement of any loss, or as soon therealter as is reasone~lypossible.. ... .. .. . . .. ...., .' , CLAIMS FORMS. The Company, upon receipt of a. notice 01 claim, will lurnish to the insured Debtor such lorms as are usually lurnished by it lor filing proofs 01 loss. If such lorms are not furnished within 15 days alter)he givi~g 01 such notice the insured Debtor shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements 01 this Certificat~ asto prool 01 loss upon submitting, within the'time fixed. in the. Ce~ifiqate lor fi,ling prools 011955, written prool covering the occurrence, the character and the extent of the loss for. which .claim is made. PROOFS' OF lOSS. Written proolol loss ~uS\befurn.ished to the Company at its said officein.case of claim for loss lor which this certilicate provides any periodic payment contingent upon continuing loss within 90 days alterthe termination of the period lor which the Company is lipble. Failure to furnish such proof within the time required shall not invalidate nor reduce any claim ~ it was not reasonably possible togive proof within such time, provided suchprool is furnished as soon as reasonably possible and in no event, except in the absence of legel capacity, later than one yearlrom the time proOfis.otherwise required... ..... . ' . ... TIM E OFPAYMENT OF CLAIMS. Subject to due written prool 01 loss, all accrued indemnities lor loss iorwhich this certificate provides periodic payment shall be paid monthly and any balance remaining unpaid upon the termination 01 liability will be paid immediately upon receipt of due written proof. . " co.," ,,', , ' ". 1-,' " ~" PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS AND AUTOPSY. The Company at its Ol'!n expense shall have the right aDO oPP9rtu.~ityto examine the person of the insured Debtor when and as olten as it may reasonably require during the pendency 01 a claim hereunder and to riiakean autopSy In case of d~ath. where it is not lorbidden by law. lEGAlACllON. No artion at la\V.or in equity shall,be broughttorecover on this Cert~icate priortothe expiration.ol 60daysatterthe.written proofoflosshas been turnishedinaccordance with the requiremen(sof this. Certificate. No such action shall be brought alter the expiration 01 three years alter the time written proof 01 loss is required to be lurnished. . FnRM V.R,II ">m,,," ~" PL-I08 Farver v. Union Security, et al. VERIFICATION I, Edwin Farver, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: #"7 7- z.. - -0 ..1& - ,'~ , ,~,-,' .^ 0, , ,"' \'~'O ,~,.. ~~ - "'" "I ',> 7 0,',",-,__' , ,"~'^ - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this~..ciay of May, 2000, I, Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested: UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 260 Interstate North Circle, NW Atlanta, GA 30339-2111 THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 1 PNC Plaza 249 5th Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2707 , .""",,11!1':" "...." -,0< ___.,_ .. -",,,,-,,., ",.-- -" ....A ...'\ EDWIN C. FARVER, Plaintiff, v. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, Defendants. ~, ~, ='''',' r '''',~,~,:" '''l.''~''""",__,,,,, _,0'" " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 2000-3213 TYPE OF PLEADING: PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Filed on Behalf of: Union Security Life Insurance Company Counsel of Record for this Party: Christopher 1. Soller Pa. J.D. No. 76614 REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 288-7286 Louis W. Schack Pa. J.D. No: 78864 REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY LLP 2500 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8100 ~ "- ,-- .J'" -101 EDWIN C. FARVER, Plaintiff, v. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 2000-3213 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company in connection with the above-captioned matter. Dated: June 7, 2000 <!"~~'~'" , ,~""'l'(",,,.,' ~,- ," , " "., ~" -"""0 <,"" " ",'0"-''''",' Christo he J . . No. 76 4 REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 288-7286 Louis W. Schack Pa. I.D. No: 78864 REED SMITI[ SHAW & McCLAY LLP 2500 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8100 Counsel for Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company -2- '" ~, ~~- n"-' ...... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance to be served via first class u.s. mail, postage prepaid, this 7"' day of June 2000, upon counsel addressed as follows: Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire 20 South 36"' Street Camp Hill, P A 17011 (counsel for pl' . ff) -3- " ~" . _.0 ~ _" ". ','""', _' ^,' '" <_. ..,lmI",,", ,"",. "-- . '"', -~ ~""" "" ~. ". ~,. .'~ ...." ..... 0 c:> 0 c: ,'~", ~ '1 <- L -OCJj c:: rn<'"T"" ~f: " Z:.l,; i= 2r-~- I -or1'1 en ).~.> co -.J9 -<::Z:" 0,", !;:::c,' --l j ;[;CJ -"l:J ~~~~ ::i:: :S-::Ci '~2 ern >c~ -;:"" --, =< c'- ?xJ (.,~ -< - '''" 'T'~','-""!"(""'i'", n - ~l"' V',". ..":" , , EDWIN C. FARVER, Plaintiff, v. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, Defendants. NOTICE TO PLEAD: To Plaintiff: You are hereby notified that you must respond to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days after s .ce of this Answer d New Matter. d t nion Security ompany . '''''''''''''--''"~11''l',"'"'<'U,~' - -"'--~~,"'~, ,. -',,", ,=,"~'i""~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 2000-3213 TYPE OF PLEADING: ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Filed on Behalf of: Union Security Life Insurance Company Counsel of Record for this Party: Christopher J. Soller Pa. LD. No. 76614 REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh,Pi\ 15219 (412) 288-7286 Louis W. Schack Pa. LD. No: 78864 REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY LLP 2500 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8100 , .- ~"-' , .." ,"'" -- "~", EDWIN C. FARVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, v. NO: 2000-3213 UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, Defendants. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW comes defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company ("Union Security") by and through its counsel, Reed Smith Shaw & McClay LLP and hereby responds to plaintiffs Complaint setting forth a complete factual and legal defense thereto by stating as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether PNC is a Pennsylvania Corporation in the business of banking and insurance as set forth in paragraph 4 of plaintiffs Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Union Security admits that PNC lists as its principal place of business the address set forth in plaintiffs Complaint. 5. The averments of paragraph 5 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments of paragraph 5 are denied. To the contrary, PNC and Union Security are wholly separate and distinct corporations. -2- 'C1!,"":~' \ <'~,--:-- --', ~"",~""",'-><'",-, '" ,,"..0,' '" ";' "","" :'~~lr, "''::c' _ -", ,~ ~ ','c:"', ,0.., > ,,,",,0' "e,""' "'" ~ .' ~, , , 6. The averments set forth in paragraph 6 ofthe Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. Union Security denies that it issued to plaintiff a policy of disability insurance as alleged. To the contrary, upon application by the plaintiff, Union Security issued to the plaintiff a Certificate ofInsurance with a Certificate Number ofYBU A236006 providing for disability coverage as set forth in the Certificate. Union Security did not issue a policy of disability insurance to the plaintiff. Union Security admits that a copy ofthe disability insurance Certificate issued to plaintiff is attached as "Exhibit A" to the Complaint. 7. The averment of paragraph 7 purports to characterize a document which is in writing and therefore, speaks for itself. By way of further response, Union Security admits that prior to the cancellation of Certificate YBU A236006 by the plaintiff, the monthly disability benefit was $400.10 per month. 8. The averments set forth in paragraph 8 of the Complaint are denied in part and admitted in part. Union Security denies that it issued plaintiff a "second" policy of disability insurance as alleged in paragraph 8 of the Complaint. To the contrary and by way of further response, when the plaintiff refmanced loans that the plaintiff kept with PNC in or about December 1998, including the loan that was associated with the disability insurance for which Certificate YBU A236006 was issued, Certificate YBU A236006 was cancelled pursuant to the terms of the Certificate. Plaintiff then applied for disability insurance and was issued Certificate YBU A23601 0 which became the only effective Certificate of Insurance. Union Security, therefore, did not issue a "second" Certificate to the plaintiff. Further, Union Security did not issue a policy of disability insurance to the plaintiff. Union Security admits that a copy of Certificate YBU A236010 is attached to plaintiffs Complaint as "Exhibit B". 9. The averments of paragraph 9 purport to characterize a document which is in writing and therefore, speaks for itself. Further, the averments of paragraph 9 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response is required, Union Security denies that the monthly disability benefit under Certificate YBU A23601 0 is $506.50. To the contrary, and as set forth on the face of Certificate, the -3- '," . . -' ,- (, - ",' '. - ~~"'- ,"'~,i" -'''''_<,_J'''-"0~.''~'''C" , ,,' ,~ ,~,,=, ,~ - ,~____"'- H_. P_ . monthly disability benefit is $250.00. 10. The averments set forth in paragraph 10 of the Complaint are denied as stated. To the contrary, the plaintiff did not receive policies of insurance, but only received a Certificate of Insurance which was issued by Union Security. Further, Union Security denies the suggestion in paragraph 10 of the Complaint that the Certificates issued to the plaintiff were concurrent Certificates of Insurance. To the contrary, when the plaintiff refinanced loans that the plaintiff kept with PNC in or about December 1998, including the loan that was associated with the disability insurance for which Certificate YBU A236006 was issued, Certificate YBU A236006 was cancelled pursuant to the terms of the Certificate. Plaintiff then applied for disability insurance and was issued Certificate YBU A23601 0 which became the only effective Certificate of Insurance. II. The averments set forth in paragraph 11 of the Complaint are denied as stated. To the contrary, the plaintiff did not receive policies of insurance, but only received a Certificate of Insurance which was issued by Union Security. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the location where the plaintiff applied for disability insurance, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, the amount of disability insurance that would be paid monthly if the plaintiff qualified under the terms of the Certificate ofInsurance is set forth in the Certificate. 13. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Further, the averments of paragraph 13 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. -4- ",",--<<, -. ,,~"- -',-,,~, "~", ,,' ",l'",p,'. ~~~"\,,~,,,. -.~. ,. ,...."" , - ,,,~ ,.- __,c , " ,I 14. The averments set forth in paragraph 14 of the Complaint are denied as stated. By way of further response, the plaintiff paid the premium due for Certificate YBU A236006 when the Certificate was issued. When the plaintiff cancelled this Certificate, the unearned premium was refunded to the plaintiff and no premium was due or owing after that time as the Certificate was not longer effective. Union Security admits that the plaintiff paid the premium for Certificate YBU A236010. 15. The averments set forth in paragraph 15 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, when the plaintiff refinanced his loans with PNC, pursuant to the terms of the Certificate, Certificate YBU A236006 was cancelled and the unearned premium was refunded to the plaintiffs account. 16. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Further, the averments of paragraph 17 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. 18. The averment of paragraph 18 is not a factual averment that Union Security can admit or deny as it would require Union Security to speculate about events that may or may not occur in the future. 19. Union Security admits that the plaintiff has demanded that he receive disability benefits under both Certificates. As previously stated, however, Certificate YBU A236006 was cancelled by the plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the Certificate. Any claim to Union Security for disability benefits therefore was treated only to the effective Certificate, Certificate YBU A23601O. 20. The averments set forth in paragraph 20 of the Complaint are admitted. -5- :,- "'-_!;',_,-""O"-_' '-_,'" ---~ __" c' C';~'i-__~ .",~,.,,~-"~,_ e l'"'.." ',''> ',"'_' _c, " " ~- ,. . - -' ~ " j' :1 " Ii " Ii I' Ii i! I! II I! I i I I I I i I I i:._,,_n, 21. Union Security admits that it has not paid any disability benefit under Certificate YBU A236006. By way of further response and contrary to the remaining allegations of paragraph 21, the plaintiff validly cancelled Certificate YBU A236006, pursuant to its terms, when the plaintiffrefinallced loans that the plaintiff kept with PNC in or about December 1998, including the loan that was associated with the disability insurance for which Certificate YBU A236006 was issued. 22. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph ~2 ofthe Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, Union Security denies that any benefits are due and owing to the plaintiff. 23. The averments of paragraph 23 set forth, a series of legal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent that a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 23 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted appropriately, promptly and in good faith in investigating the plaintiff's claim, communicating with the plaintiff and/or his attorney and responding to the plaintiff's claim. Union Security has explained to the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff's attorney, that the plaintiff may not receive disability benefits pursuant to a Certificate ofInsurance that the plaintiff cancelled and that the monthly disability payment for the Certificate that was not cancelled is set forth plainly on the face of the Certificate. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to whether the plaintiff has been caused "great financial hardship", and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Further, Union Security denies that any "great financial hardship" allegedly suffered by the plaintiff was caused, in any way, by Union Security. 24. The averments of paragraph 24 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent that a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 24 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted appropriately, promptly and in good faith in investigating the plaintiff's claim, -6- ,", -,~ ;, ~.. -",>,",_,. _'.r,o,'" ,," ,,!,-; , c' ~ ~_' ~- ',- - ,- --~< ^ ,~ - -- --'.- '",,'- '" .~-~ ..-' communicating with the plaintiff and/or his attorney and responding to the plaintiff's claim. Union Security has explained to the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff's attorney, that the plaintiff may not receive disability benefits pursuant to a Certificate of Insurance that the plaintiff cancelled and that the monthly disability payment for the Certificate that was not cancelled is set forth plainly on the face of the Certificate. 25. The averments of paragraph 25 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent that a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 25 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted appropriately, promptly and in good faith in investigating the plaintiff's claim, communicating with the plaintiff and/or his attorney and responding to the plaintiff's claim. Union Security has explained to the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff's attorney, that the plaintiff may not receive disability benefits pursuant to a Certificate of Insurance that the plaintiff cancelled and that the monthly disability payment for the Certificate that was not cancelled is set forth plainly on the face of the Certificate. 26. The averments set forth in paragraph 26 of the Complaint are denied as stated. By way of further response, there are no benefits that are due and owing to the plaintiff from Union Security. Union Security is without information necessary to form a belief as to why the plaintiff filed this suit, however, Union Security denies that its conduct has "forced" plaintiff to file suit. As stated, there are no benefits that are due and owing to the plaintiff from Union Security, and the plaintiff is attempting through this lawsuit to collect benefits from a Certificate of Insurance that the plaintiff cancelled. COUNT I -- BREACH OF CONTRACT 27. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 26 as if set forth in full. 28. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Further, the averments of paragraph 28 set forth a series -7- ~,---'" ':,-, ,'~' - ", ' -7"" - ,~ ",~, ," ,,", ,,,, " ,~-y-- -"^, ~ ~, " " oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. 29. The averment of paragraph 29 purports to characterize a document which is in writing and therefore, speaks for itself. 30. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 30 of the Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Further, the averments of paragraph 30 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. 31. The averments of paragraph 31 set forth a series of legal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 31 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security is not in breach of any contract with the plaintiff. 32. The averments of paragraph 32 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth ill paragraph 32 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security is not in breach of any contract with the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of the alleged damages set forth in paragraph 32 nor has the plaintiff sustained such alleged damages. 33. The averments of paragraph 33 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth ill paragraph 33 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security is not in breach of any contract with the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not sustained any damages that are the result of conduct by Union Security, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery attorneys' fees or court costs. 34. The averments of paragraph 34 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 34 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has not unjustifiably failed to pay benefits and instead, is justified in not paying benefits -8- i\-;-,~- -" -. ~, ---'-'~"->, -~- "'-.~"-f -,,' ,~",.,,~,,-j-__ .-~.. " , ','< ,~-_ _ . _, J-__. _ ", ~ - ,." q- on a Certificate that was cancelled by the plaintiff and another Certificate that specifically sets forth the monthly disability payment. Union Security further denies that ifthe plaintiff has been unable to meet his fmancial obligations at great hardship, such an alleged damage (which is denied) is attributable to conduct by Union Security. The averments ofthe Wherefore clause of plaintiff's Complaint following paragraph 34 set forth a legal conclusion to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments are denied. By way of further response, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested and has not set forth a claim in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration. COUNT II -- INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION 35. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 34 as if set forth in full. 36. The averments of paragraph 36 set forth a series of legal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 36 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did not make any material promises or misrepresentations to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 36 of the Complaint. 37. The averments of paragraph 37 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 37 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did not make any false representations to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 37 of the Complaint and Union Security and PNC are wholly separate and distinct corporations. 38. The averments of paragraph 38 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 38 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did not make any promises to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 38 ofthe Complaint. Further, any alleged reliance was unjustified as it was contrary to the specific language of the -9- " ", ,', -. ""~",-,, ,""'~- c',".' __v -~ " , '... "', =. " Certificate. 39. The averments of paragraph 39 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 39 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did not make any intentional misrepresentations to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 38 of the Complaint and Union Security denies that the plaintiff has sustained any damages that are the result of conduct by Union Security. Union Security denied that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery attorneys' fees and court costs. Further, Union Security denies that the plaintiff is continuing to suffer damages. The averments of the Wherefore clause of plaintiffs Complaint following paragraph 39 set forth a legal conclusion to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments are denied. By way of further response, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested and has not set forth a claim in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration. COUNT III -- NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 40. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 39 as if set forth in full. 41. The averments of paragraph 41 set forth a series of legal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 41 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did not make any material promises or misrepresentations to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 41 ofthe Complaint. 42. The averments of paragraph 42 set forth a series of legal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 42 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did not make any representations, negligent or otherwise, to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 42 of the Complaint and Union Security and PNC are wholly separate and distinct -10- ,~ , ,,~ " ".", ,."",-, ,'"',...--- "' ",P "~" .'" .'_M ,,' -". corporations. 43. The averments of paragraph 43 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no reSponse by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 43 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did not make any promises to plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 43 of the Complaint. Further, any alleged reliance was unjustified as it was contrary to the specific language of the Certificate. 44. The averments of paragraph 44 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 44 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did not make any negligent misrepresentations to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraphA4 ofthe Complaint and Union Security denies that the plaintiff has sustamed any damages that are the result of.conduct by Union Security. Union Security denies that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery attorneys' fees and court costs. Further, Union Security denies that the plaintiff is continuing to suffer damages. The averments of the Wherefore clause of plaintiff's Complaint following paragraph 44 set forth a legal conclusion to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments are denied. By way of further response, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested and has not set forth a claim in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration. COUNT IV -- PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 45. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 44 as if set forth in full. 46. The averments of paragraph 46 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. 47. The averments of paragraph 47 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the -11- 1,- '. .", <._'__-.,,_ 'l"",'- .,~ -- c ~, ~, _"_,<_,,,~~,,,,' ~, "- ,-, " , ._,... ..0, averments set forth in paragraph 47 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did not make any promises or representations to the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 47 ofthe Complaint. Further, any alleged reliance was unjustified as it was contrary to the specific language of the Certificate. 48. The averments of paragraph 48 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 48 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, the plaintiff has not sustained any damages that are the result of conduct by Union Security and Union Security did not make any promises or representations to the plaintiff as alleged in the Complaint. Further, Union Security denies that the plaintiff has suffered or is continuing to suffer damages. 49. The averments of paragraph 49 set forth a series of legal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 49 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, the plaintiff has been paid all ofthe benefits to which he may be entitled. The averments of the Wherefore clause of plaintiff's Complaint following paragraph 49 set forth a legal conclusion to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments are denied. By way of further response, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested and has not set forth a claim in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration. COUNT V -- INSURANCE BAD FAITH. 42 PA.C.S.A ~ 8321 50. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 49 as if set forth in full. 5!. The averments of paragraph 51 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 51 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has not acted in bad faith and has acted properly and within the terms of the Certificate -12- !',.rr, ~,~-<, i~~",-,' __,,"-,' _,,_ -,'<,'',_,".' ,<. o<,__n<, ", of Insurance at all times. 52. The averments set forth in paragraph 52 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted appropriately, promptly and in good faith in investigating the plaintiff's claim, communicating with the plaintiff and/or his attorney and responding to the plaintiff's claim. Union Security has explained to the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff's attorney, that the plaintiff may not receive disability benefits pursuant to a Certificate of Insurance that the plaintiff cancelled and that the monthly disability payment for the Certificate that was not cancelled is set forth plainly on the face of the Certificate. 53. The averments set forth in paragraph 53 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted promptly and in good faith in investigating the plaintiff's claim, communicating with the plaintiff and/or his attorney, and responding to the plaintiff's claim. Further, the plaintiff has been paid all ofthe benefits to which he may be entitled. 54. The averments of paragraph 54 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 54 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has performed a prompt and adequate investigation into the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits and has properly and appropriately evaluated the merits of his claim. 55. The averments of paragraph 55 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 55 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted properly at all times with regard to the plaintiff and no benefits are due and owing to the plaintifffor which there would be an "equitable settlement". 56. After reasonable investigation, Union Security is without information and knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of para graph 56 of the Complaint, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Further, the averments of paragraph 56 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 56 of the Complaint are denied. -13- !:~-> - - '--"";^"'''/'~'_,.-"",<A''',__, ~:, '~ - '" ~'"--,-,,,''''- - .- ' ,',- "'"....y" " -, - ,-~ ~- - ' .- .' '. ' 'c _ ,,,",~, " " ' ~ ,- ".. , - > To the contrary, Union Security has not utilized any "unknown" factors not set forth in the "policy documents". Instead, Union Security has acted properly within the provisions of the Certificates at issue. 57. The averments of paragraph 57 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 57 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has not breached any duty owed to the plaintiff, does not owe any duty to the plaintiff to pay disability benefits to which he is not entitled, and no disability benefits are due and owing to the plaintiff. 58. The averments of paragraph 58 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 58 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has not attempted to "circumvent its obligations" and has paid to the plaintiff all ofthe disability benefits to which he may be entitled. 59. The averments set forth in paragraph 59 ofthe Complaint are denied as stated. By way of further response, there are no benefits that are due and owing to the plaintiff from Union Security. Union Security is without information necessary to form a belief as to why the plaintiff filed this suit, however, Union Security denies that its conduct has "compelled" the plaintiffto file suit. As stated, there are no benefits that are due and owing to the plaintiff from Union Security and the plaintiff is attempting through this lawsuit to collect benefits from a Certificate that the plaintiff cancelled and for which he is not entitled to any further disability payment. 60. The averments of paragraph 60 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 60 ofthe Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted properly, in good faith, promptly and reasonably at all times. -14- "'"' _', ,... ',__r"_ '.<<"''''~_ _, _~.~ ,,~,'X, _',' _,"_"_ ,_,r_>, > , ' ,"_c-~_ -- - ~ ' ," .. -,- 61. The averments of paragraph 61 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 61 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security's actions have been reasonable and in accordance with the provisions of the Certificates that were issued to the plaintiff. Union Security has not acted recklessly or unreasonably in this matter. 62. The averments of paragraph 62 set forth a series of legal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 62 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted in good faith at all times and the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the statutory remedies sought in this case. 63. The averments of paragraph 63 set forth a series of legal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 63 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted in good faith at all times and the plaintiff is not entitled to the award of punitive damages in this case. 64. The averments of paragraph 64 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 64 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has acted in good faith at all times and the plaintiff is not entitled to the award of costs or attorneys' fees in this case. The averments of the Wherefore clause of plaintiff's Complaint following paragraph 64 set forth a legal conclusion to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments are denied. By way of further response, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested and has not set forth a claim in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration. -15- i,!!lIl!I'f'J!!I! '--P:'- '~.'"'~';, h~,-:,,~,__h_~J~_'-", eO" 'V;-,,~,-, '"_. -"~ ", ~,. -~- , , - ", ~- ~ .~- COUNT VI -- UJSFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 65. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 64 as if set forth in full. 66. The averments of paragraph 66 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 66 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security has not engaged in any fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding to the plaintiff. 67. The averments of paragraph 67 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 67 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, Union Security did mot make any misrepresentations as to the nature and quality of the Certificate of Insurance issued to the plaintiff. 68. The averments of paragraph 68 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. 69. The averments of paragraph 69 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 69 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, the plaintiff has not sustained any damages that are the result of conduct by Union Security. The averments of the Wherefore clause of plaintiff's Complaint following paragraph 69 set forth a legal conclusion to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments are denied. By way of further response, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested and has not set forth a claim in excess of the amount required for compulsory arbitration. COUNT VI -- DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 70. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 69 as if set forth in fulL -16- "- ; ,,~- ''',' <'~~""'~ N_" "'. ^'J ""'-_ _,1 y_H~" -:"_ "-"'~' ,,-_ ',,!, ->, ,..,' "_ N" .'''' _ --,--~""" ~ , ",,[--. " 71. The averments of paragraph 71 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. 72. The averment of paragraph 72 is not a factual averment that Union Security can admit or deny as it would require Union Security to speculate about events that may or may not occur in the future. 73. The averments of paragraph 73 set forth a series oflegal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response may be required, the averments set forth in paragraph 73 of the Complaint are denied. To the contrary, the plaintiff is not entitled to either of the amounts alleged in paragraph 73 under the Certificates alleged for any period of disability, and the amount to which the plaintiff may be entitled is governed by the terms ofthe Certificate, which Union Security has properly followed in this matter. The averments ofthe Wherefore clause of plaintiff's Complaint following paragraph 73 including subparagraphs (a) through (c), inclusive, set forth legal conclusions to which no response by Union Security is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments are denied. By way of further response, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested. COUNT VII -- INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION 74. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 73 as if set forth m fulL 75.-78. Count VII, including paragraphs 74 through 78, inclusive, ofthe Complaint is directed against PNC and not Union Security. Accordingly, no responsive pleading is required by Union Security to the averments contained in paragraphs 74 through 78, inclusive, of the Complaint. As Count VII ofthe Complaint is directed against PNC and not Union Security, no response is required by Union Security to the averments contained in the unnumbered "WHEREFORE" paragraph immediately following paragraph 78 of the Complaint. -17- ~ _-."'_"___~_,'" e_ _? _,__ - <-, "~,-,,, ,. -'".''"'9_~r, , -~~~'- -'''-- __,,~d '_~.;. ,. ,,- ,--.' ,- -->-1 COUNT VIII -- NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 79. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 78 as if set forth in full. 80.-83. Count VIII, including paragraphs 79 through 83, inclusive, of the Complaint is directed against PNC and not Union Security. Accordingly, no responsive pleading is required by Union Security to the averments contained in paragraphs 79 through 83, inclusive, of the Complaint. As Count VIII of the Complaint is directed against PNC and not Union Security, no response is required by Union Security to the averments contained in the uunumbered "WHEREFORE" paragraph immediately following paragraph 83 of the Complaint. COUNT IX -- PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 84. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 83 as if set forth in full. 85.-88. Count IX, including paragraphs 84 through 88, inclusive, ofthe Complaint is directed against PNC and not Union Security. Accordingly, no responsive pleading is required by Union Security to the averments contained in paragraphs 84 through 88, inclusive, of the Complaint. As Count IX of the Complaint is directed against PNC and not Union Security, no response is required by Union Security to the averments contained in the unnumbered "WHEREFORE" paragraph immediately following paragraph 88 ofthe Complaint. COUNT X -- UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND PROTECTION LAW 89. Union Security incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 88 as if set forth in full. 89.- 93. Count X, including paragraphs 89 through 93, inclusive, of the Complaint is directed against PNC and not Union Security. Accordingly, no responsive pleading -18- ~ '~, ,o~~, ,"~'--' ,",""",~ '."'__ ;_~,_"o. ~"._.~__,_ ,_~ - '-c_.,_ H~"~""~_ ,~__ ., is required by Union Security to the averments contained in paragraphs 89 through 93, inclusive, ofthe Complaint. As Count X ofthe Complaint is directed against PNC and not Union Security, no response is required by Union Security to the averments contained in the unnumbered "WHEREFORE" paragraph immediately following paragraph 93 of the Complaint. AND NOW comes Union Secnrity and by way of fnrther defense sets forth the following as its New Matter against Plaintiff: NEW MATTER 1. The plaintiff cancelled Certificate No. YBU A236006 pursuant to the terms ofthe Certificate ofInsurance. 2. The plaintiff is not entitled to any disability benefit under Certificate of Insurance No. YBU A236006. 3. The plaintiff is not and was not totally disabled, as defined in Certificate of Insurance No. YBU A2360l0. 4. If the plaintiff was totally disabled as defined in Certificate of Insurance No. YBU A23601 0, the plaintiff is only entitled to a monthly disability benefit payment of $250.00. 5. Certificate of Insurance No. YBU A236010 provides that the monthly disability payment under that Certificate ofInsurance is $250.00. 6. The Plaintiff has been paid all of the disability benefits to which he is entitled, if the plaintiff was totally disabled as defined by the Certificate of Insurance for the period alleged. 7. At present, the plaintiff is not totally disabled as defmed by Certificate No. YBU A2360l0. 8. The plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because they are moot -19- ., - '," -,~,~?.",__";!,__o ___ '_::""~' "___^_'",_0~,, C_~"__'" ,"",__~,~ p_'_1.>'," __,'_ --,- ,~ ., "," ," ,-,--"-,--"" --"" , -. or do not present a justicable case or controversy to the Court. 9. The plaintiff cancelled Certificate of Insurance No. YBU A236006 prior to claiming benefits under the Certificate ofInsurance. 10. Union Security has acted properly, lawfully and in good faith with respect to the plaintiff at all times and has not acted in bad faith as defmed by the Courts. 11. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested in this case because the Certificate ofInsurance issued by Union Security was cancelled. 12. If the plaintiff were granted the relief requested, including the award of what the plaintiff alleges is "full benefits", the plaintiff would realize an unreasonable windfall and would be unjustly enriched. 13. Under the Certificates of Insurance at issue in this action, there are no monies due and owing to the plaintiff for the alleged disability. 14. The plaintiff failed to satisfY all conditions precedent for obtaining benefits under the Certificates of Insurance at issue in this action. 15. The plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel, unclean hands and waiver. 16. The plaintiffs own actions contributed to and/or caused the damages alleged in the Complaint. 17. The plaintiff has not suffered any harm or damages and has not suffered any harm or damages that were caused by or may be attributable to the actions of Union Security. 18. The plaintiff has received all benefits to which he may be entitled. 19. Union Security has acted in accordance with the provisions ofthe Certificates of Insurance at issue at all times. 20. Union Security has not breached the terms of the Certificates ofInsurance at issue in this action and the plaintiff is not entitled to benefits or further benefits under the Certificates of Insurance at issue. -20- ,''',.p" '"", '-"., -- "~'?"-'''!: ~".,..*,'-" ." .," ~ ''''' _, .0' ..', . "" '"', "',,, '",.-- ' ~ " .~ . , ,',,'" ,~ , - ,- - ,'~'- .., ,< .0 ~ .". I ,~ " , " 21. The plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of attorneys' fees, interest or court costs, and cannot recover attorneys' fees for his claim of breach of contract. 22. Union Security did not make any material misrepresentation of fact which was false and was made with the knowledge of falsity and that was intended to entice reliance by the plaintiff and upon which the plaintiff relied. 23. Any reliance by the plaintiff was unjustified as a matter oflaw. 24. Union Security has not acted negligently in this matter and did not make any negligent misrepresentation of fact intending the plaintiff to rely and upon which the plaintiff relied. 25. The plaintiff is not entitled to and may not recover any of the relief prayed for in the Complaint and there is no factual or legal basis for an award of either compensatory damages or punitive damages. 26. Union Security had a reasonable basis to deny the insurance proceeds demanded by the plaintiff. 27. The plaintiff's claim fails because 42 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 8371 is unconstitutional and should be declared void. 28. The plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial on his statutory claims. 29. Union Security's denial of the plaintiffs claim for insurance proceeds was not motivated by dishonest purpose, self-interest or ill wilL Rather, Union Security's actions were based upon a well-founded belief that the Certificate of Insurance had been cancelled by the plaintiff and the plamtiff was paid all of the benefits to which he may be entitled under the effective Certificate of Insurance. 30. Award of the relief sought by the plaintiffin this case is against public policy and applicable law and regulations, as it would improperly and unlawfully reward the plaintiff for allegedly obtaining duplicate insurance coverage on the same loan or loans. 31. The plaintiff has failed to mitigate alleged damages. , I I -21- - ~",-" ~",'" -~" ,''<-- '." , ,-,--"'" ,__.," "",-CO,,,, ~_," ,__ " ,~- _~ _, . , - , " , 32. Union Security acted reasonably, justifiably, promptly, appropriately and in good faith in handling plaintiff's claim, communicating with the plaintiff and/or his attorney, investigating the plaintiff's claim, evaluating the plaintiff's claim and outlining to the plaintiff and/or his attorney the reasons for denial of plaintiff's claim. 33. Union Security did not act arbitrarily in denying plaintiff's claim. 34. The plaintiff is not suffering any continuing damages as alleged and is not suffering any continuing damages due to any conduct by Union Security. 35. The plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the plaintiffs failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 36. The plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a declaratory judgment. 37. The plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial on his claim for declaratory judgment. 38. Union Security has not engaged in any fraudulent or deceptive practice as alleged. 39. " No action or statement by Union Security has or did create a likelihood of confusion or a misunderstanding to the plaintiff. 40. Union Security has not misrepresented the nature and quality of any insurance product sold to the plaintiff. 41. The plaintiff's claims of violation of73 P.S. 9201-1,42 Pa.C.S.A. 9 8371, breach of contract, negligent and intentional misrepresentation and declaratory judgment against Union Security fail as a matter of law. 42. Union Security has not engaged in any misfeasance and did not make any fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of insurance to the plaintiff. 43. IfPNC is an agent of Union Security, the alleged actions ofPNC were beyond the course and scope of such agency and cannot be attributed to Union Security. -22- ---,",,-, ---, - ":' ,~",_, ~",-",",,,,,.,, _ '-:: ~. C," ,__~ ,~ -"- -'. " "--~~" >< ~, ~ ,~ .. . Dated: June 14,2000 ,""",'''' - - ' _~_ 0"'- ' _,,~,'1'" - "~',;' -- ,," Louis W. Schack Pa. LD. No: 78864 REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY LLP 2500 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8100 Counsel for Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company -23- '<,'- ,^-, "-~-- ~ - ,",,- -" -,,' " , _~__, -1 _.., ., JUN-12-2000 10:54 REED SMITH PGH 7UL 412 288 3053 P.02 VERIFJCA TlON NOW COMES C fl't-P :5 h lp he ('-J( who verifies that the undersigned is the C Ill; MS MAlt ~ 'I e.r of Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company; that, as such, the undersigned .is authorized to make this Verification on its behalf; and that the facts contained in the foregoing Answer and New Matter are true and correct upon the undersigned's personal knowledge, infonnation, and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities which provides for criminal penalties if a person with mtent to mislead makes a wri . which he does not believe to be true. Date: f)b -Ii -,J()t() TnTClI D 01-:1 ,~-~- ''I' ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter to be served via first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 14th day of June 2000, upon counsel addressed as follows: --- --. "",!,"'~ --1 ;', __::-j_,;", ,.,',' _ _", _<~_','__v. _,' " ~, f r 0 C-::J ~;:~ ,:;: ,-''', -, ~t ::::; ---j (: ~'j-- "1 -, - I ~. " -C .-:'.. (/',j c;. C-~ '---' " ~~ r:--) -' C-: C,~) ~~ ?:: ~.J c. --I --; ""- C.: -< ","" "'";'~-!-' ,I , ., EDWIN C. FARVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff NO. 00-3213 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE : COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver, by and through his counsel, Marshall & Haddick, P.C., by Charles E. Haddick, Jf., Esquire, and responds to Union Life Insurance Company's New Matter as follows: 1. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff cancelled Certificate No. YBUA236006 pursuant to the terms of the Certificate ofInsurance. 2. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any disability benefit under Certificate of Insurance No. YBUA236006 as set forth more fully in Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, denied as stated. It is admitted only that the Plaintiff is not presently disabled. 1 ',~ _'~_'~",<_,' - - , _._"^ - . < c,~,' -. ,'<' ,_ ," '_'''''_" '. _ , . 'I ," However, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff was not disabled as defined in Certificate of Insurance No. YBUA236010 as set forth more fully in Plaintiffs Complaint. 4. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that if Plaintiff is disabled as defined in Certificate of Insurance No. YBUA23601O, Plaintiff is only entitled to a montWy disability benefit of $250.00. To the contrary, as set forth on the face of the Certificate of Insurance, drafted by Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company, the original amount of insurance is $60,779.77 with a maximum coverage term of 120 months for a monthly benefit of $506.50. 6. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff has been paid all of the disability benefits to which he is entitled, if the Plaintiff was totally disabled as defined by the Certificate of Insurance for the period alleged. 7. Denied as stated. It is admitted that at present Plaintiff is not totally disabled. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff was not previously disabled as set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, or in the future may not become again disabled. 8. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because they are moot or do not present a justifiable case or controversy to the Court. 2 '-"-,-,, ~, , ,-.- ~ 'c --'I 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff cancelled Certificate of Insurance No. YBUA236006 prior to claiming benefits under the Certificate of Insurance. To the contrary, Union Security Life Insurance Company did not properly cancel the Certificate as set forth more fully in Plaintiff's Complaint. 10. Denied. It is denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company has acted properly, lawfully, and in good faith with respect to the Plaintiff at all times. It is further denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company has not acted in bad faith as defined by the Courts. 11. Denied. It is again denied that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested because the Certificate of Insurance issued by Union Security Life Insurance Company was cancelled. By way of further answer, Plaintiff incorporates its response to No. 9 herein above. 12. Denied. It is .specifically and unequivocally denied that if the Plaintiff were granted the relief requested, including the award of "full benefits", the Plaintiff would realize an unreasonable windfall and would be unjustly enriched. 13. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that under the Certificates of Insurance at issue in this action there are no monies due and owing to the Plaintiff for the alleged disability. 14. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy all conditions precedent for obtaining benefits under the Certificates of Insurance at issue in this action. 3 '~1~ '''-''-' . , ,,,,,";, ,- --"'- . , . 15. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel, unclean hands and waiver. 16. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Plaintiff's own actions contributed to and! or caused the darnages alleged in the Complaint. 17. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff has not suffered any harm or damages and has not suffered any harm or damages that were caused by or may be attributable to the actions of Union Security Life Insurance Company. 18. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Plaintiff has received all benefits to which he may be entitled. 19. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Certificates of Insurance at issue at all times. 20. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company has not breached the terms of the Certificates of Insurance at issue in this action. It is further specifically and unequivocally denied that Plaintiff is not entitled to benefits or further benefits under the Certificates of Insurance at issue. 4 "","P.'I~ -" "-"""- '0 <'<" - I , < 21. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff is not entitled to the recovery of attorneys' fees, interest or court costs, and cannot recover attorneys' fees for his claim of breach of contract. 22. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company did not make any material misrepresentation of fact which was false and was made with the knowledge of falsity and that was intended to entice reliance by the Plaintiff and upon which the Plaintiff relied. 23. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affIrmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that any reliance by the Plaintiff was unjustified as a matter of law. 24. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company has not acted negligently in this matter and did not make any negligent misrepresentation of fact intending the Plaintiff to rely and upon which the Plaintiff relied. 25. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff is not entitled to and may not recover any of the relief prayed for in the Complaint and there is no factual or legal basis for an award of either compensatory damages or punitive damages. 5 1",,"'- ',- -, <~-' '.", '-"',,? , , 26. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company had a reasonable basis to deny the insurance proceeds demanded by the Plaintiff. 27. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Plaintiff's claim fails because 42 Pa. C.S.A. ~8371 is unconstitutional and should be declared void. 28. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial on his statutory claims. 29. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company's denial of the Plaintiff's claim for insurance proceeds was not motivated by dishonest purpose, self-interest, or ill will. It if further denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company's actions were based upon a well-founded belief that the Certificate of Insurance had been cancelled by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was paid all of the benefits to which he may be entitled under the effective Certificate of Insurance, as set forth more fully in Plaintiff's Complaint. 30. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be 6 ,'''Jl''''''''f , ' - 'f', ~.', , ,-. ,--, -',~ ,- '- required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the award of relief sought by the Plaintiff is against public policy and applicable law and regulations, as it would improperly and unlawfully reward the Plaintiff for allegedly obtaining duplicate insurance coverage on the same loan or loans. 31. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff has failed to mitigate alleged damages. 32. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company acted reasonably, justifiably, promptly, appropriately, and in good faith in handling Plaintiff's claim, communicating with the Plaintiff and/or his attorney, investigating the Plaintiff's claim, evaluating the Plaintiff's claim and outlining to the Plaintiff and/or his attorney the reasons for denial of Plaintiff's claim. 33. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company did not act arbitrarily in denying Plaintiff's claim. 34. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff is not suffering any continuing damages as alleged and is not suffering any continuing damages due to any conduct by Union Security Life Insurance Company. 35. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be 7 1"l1l'Ol11 ,-- , " ", ~, "." ",', '" required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Plaintiff's claillls are barred, in whole or in part, by the Plaintiff's failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 36. Deuied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a declaratory judgment. 37. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied. 38. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company has not engaged in any fraudulent or deceptive practice as alleged. 39. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that no action or statement by Union Security Life Insurance Company has or did create a likelihood of confusion or a misunderstanding to the Plaintiff. 40. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company has not misrepresented the nature and quality of any insurance product sold to the Plaintiff. 41. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Plaintiff's claims of violation of 73 8 ,~" ,~^--" ., , ,~'"' , ,~ ,r <,' , . " P.S. ~201-l, 42 Pa. C.S.A. ~8371, breach of contract, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and declaratory judgment against Union Security Life Insurance Company fail as a matter of law. 42. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Union Security Life Insurance Company has not engaged in any misfeasance and did not make any fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of insurance to the Plaintiff. 43. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied as after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests This Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Defendants. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL & HADDlCK, P.C. Date: June 30, 2000 9 ~" ,,' .~." , I ~ \" , . .. " VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. l024(c) I, Charles E. Haddick, Jr. Esquire, state that I am the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that I make this affidavit as an attorney, because the party I represent lacks sufficient knowledge or infommtion upon which to make a verification and/or because I have greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom I make this affidavit; and/or because the party for whom I make this affidavit is outside the jurisdiction of the court, and his verification cannot be obtained within the time allowed for the filing of the foregoing document; and that I have sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon my investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification of authorities. Date; (0' Sf) ,,~-:) , 10 '1',~, """"',,,",, ,.,,~ "'-^ , . . , , " . , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, thiS~aY of June, 2000, I, Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Response to New Matter of Union Security Life Insurance Company upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Maii Christopher J. Soller, Esquire REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (Counsel for Union Security) Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for PNC) 11 ""'~.'""! , "'!;'f', ",'0 . ""',' " - "0__ ',,__ - ';" ~- >, " , I. SAlOIS. SHUFF & MASLAND ATI'ORNEYSIAT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisie, PA ~,1!Di 'i < ~ ~ll II . EDWIN C. FARVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO.: 00-3213-CIVIL TERM v. CIVIL ACTION - .LAW j UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, : INC. , Defendants ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP AND NOW, comes Defendant, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "PNC") by and through its attorneys, Saidis, Shuff & Masland, and answers Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted. 2-3. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraphs 2-3 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation and its principal address is One PNC Plaza, 249 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. By way of further answer, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is a diversified financial services company and not the banking - . -. SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND ATI'ORNEYSeAT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carll.le, PA II institution identified in Plaintiff's Complaint. It is explicitly denied that The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. had anything to do with the transactions alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. All answers contained in this pleading shall be construed to be the answers of PNC Bank, NA, which will hereinafter sometimes be referred to as "PNC". All other allegations are denied. 5. The averments of Paragraph 5 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments of Paragraph 5 are deemed factual in nature, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that PNC, its agents, servants and employees acted in its individual capacity and as agents and/or ostensible agents of Defendant Union Security. And further, it is denied that PNC is an "agent" as that term is used in the laws of the Commonwealth of pennsylvania to describe persons required to register as insurance agents. 6-9. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraphs 6-9 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, although PNC has in its possession true and correct 2 '~1'L7;__"':r~) '1'''',"'\', ,____ 'c. ~""",."'-]!!r,D': ~','. -I" ,', SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND ATfORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carll.le, PA l;qJ" ," ,,~~ " copies of Exhibits "AU and "Bu, strict proof of the averments of Paragraphs 6-9 are demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff applied for and received both policies of insurance through PNC. By way of further answer, as part of the two loans, the Plaintiff did purchase credit insurance and PNC Bank, NA did finance the purchase of the credit insurance. 11. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 11 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, see Answer to Paragraph 10 above, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 12. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 12 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. See answer to Paragraph 12 above, which is hereby incorporated by reference. 14. Denied. See answer to Paragraph 10 and 11 above, which are hereby incorporated by reference. By way of further answer, Plaintiff did borrow money from PNC Bank, NA to purchase the insurance. While the carrier has been paid, 3 ~, ' - r- .~ ' ~, "'''- "" ~ SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND A~A"'LAW 26 W. IIIgh Street Carlisle, PA !:~\; ''l _ c .0,;' II Plaintiff has not repaid the December 1998 loan which included the cost of the premiums. 15. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 15 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, while PNC cannot speak for the carrier, Exhibits "An and "Bn attached to Plaintiff's Complaint does state that a discharge by pre-payment will terminate coverage and a discharge by pre-payment did take place in December 1998. By way of yet further answer, the December 1998 loan was a consolidation of two previous loans from March and April of 1998, and the payment records for those loans show a rebate of unearned credit insurance that was used to reduce the payoff amount. 16. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 16 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. The averments of Paragraph 17 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. The averments of Paragraph 18 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 4 - - ,~h" , ~ - " , ~ SAIDlS, SHUFF & MASLAND ATIORNEYS'A"'UW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. PA c'","" _, _~ _ ., "_,' .~,,'?' !^'_" "",= _ 1__ II 19. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 19 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 20 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 21. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 21 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 22. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 22 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 23 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 5 " ~ e "'. .- SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND A1TORNEYS.AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA ;:~. ,.." ~, '1~ ,"r II r- truth of the averments of Paragraph 24 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 25 and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 26. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 26 and strict proof i! thereof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT EDWIN C. FARVER Y....... UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 28-34. The averments of Paragraph 28-34 pertain to another party and no response is required of PNC. To the extent that an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. 6 ,- SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND A~ATItJ..AW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA " II COUNT II - INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION EDWIN C. FARVER ~ UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 36-39. The averments of Paragraphs 36 through 39 pertain to another party and no response is required of PNC. To the extent that an answer is deemed required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that PNC at any time acted as an agent for the Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company. WHEREFORE, Defendant, PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT III NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION EDWIN C. FARVER ~ UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 41-44. The averments of Paragraphs 41 through 44 pertain to another party and no response is required of PNC. To the extent an answer is deemed required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that PNC at any time acted as an agent for the Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company. 7 . ~, ..,' ,,' SAID IS, SHUFF & MASLAND ATI'ORNEYS-AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA i,~:~.. '~p_ c< I! WHEREFORE, Defendant, PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT IV PROMISORY ESTOPPEL EDWIN C. FARVER Y... UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 46-49. The averments of Paragraphs 46 through 49 pertain to another party and no response is required of PNC. To the extent an answer is deemed required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that PNC at any time acted as an agent for the Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company. WHEREFORE, Defendant, PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT V - INSURANCE BAD FAITH, 42 PA.C.S.A ~ 8371 EDWIN C. FARVER Y... UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 50. Paragraphs 1 through 49 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 51-64. The averments of Paragraphs 51 through 64 pertain to another party and no response is required of PNC. To the 8 ,_ II., .,~".e '" ~, ".. <0,."'- , " ,,",- SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND ATI'ORNEYS.AT-uW 26 W. High Street Carlisle. PA Ii extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof there is demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT VI - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW EDWIN C. FARVER L- UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 65. Paragraphs 1 through 64 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 66-69. The averments of Paragraphs 66 through 69 pertain to another party and no response is required of PNC. To the extent an answer is deemed required, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that PNC at any time acted as an agent for the Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company. WHEREFORE, Defendant, PNC demands judgment in its favor I I and against Plaintiff. COUNT VI - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT EDWIN C. FARVER L- UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 70. Paragraphs 1 through 69 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 9 ;,~" ~- ,eo " ^,'~" ~r '_',~",,"__->-<_~~ <"'"""" ~I" ' ,-,-- " c,.. ~_"1 _ -..,,..,," ,~,- , SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND A~A""LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA ,'" -"" 11 I 71-73. The averments of Paragraphs 71 through 73 pertain to another party and no response is required of PNC. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial WHEREFORE, Defendant, PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT VII - INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION EDWIN C. FARVER Y..... THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 74. paragraphs 1 through 73 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 75. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 75, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 76. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 76, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that PNC was acting as agent of Defendant Union Security. 77. The averments of Paragraph 77 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the 10 t e:, ",'"',- '1 ,~, --- -,,'J~ '=, ~". ' - SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND ATIORNEYS'AT-IAW 26 W. High Street Carllsie, PA ~" ~"~-, II extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 78. The averments of Paragraph 78 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT VIII - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION EDWIN C. FARVER V. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP. INC. 79. Paragraphs 1 through 78 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 80. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 80, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 81. The averments of Paragraph 81 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11 " , '~,' ~" ~-' ~ - r:'_<<," -,-, -, - . SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND A'ITOIlNRvs-ATIII.A'W 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA '''f1@(ll ~ II 82. The averments of Paragraph 82 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 83. The averments of Paragraph 83 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, Paragraph 83 alleges intentional misrepresentations despite the fact that Count VIII is a claim for negligerit misrepresentation. PNC denies that it made any misrepresentations either intentional or negligent. WHEREFORE, Defendant, PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT IX - PROMISORY ESTOPPEL EDWIN C. FARVER Y...... THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 84. Paragraphs 1 through 83 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 85. After reasonable investigation, PNC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 85, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12 _,~ ',~ - ,_ I! _" = , ,< " - ~, _f,_,', r _" SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND A~Ar-LAW 26 W. Hlsh Street Carlisle. PA ;{~," "l" II 86. The averments of Paragraph 86 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that PNC ever acted as agent of Defendant Union Security. 87. The averments of Paragraph 87 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 88. The averments of Paragraph 88 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, PNC has no obligation to pay the benefits under either of the documents attached as Exhibits A and B to Plaintiff's Complaint. COUNT X - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND PROTECTION LAW EDWIN C. FARVER L. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 89. Paragraphs 1 through 88 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 13 " ," ~ ''"":'''' i'"' f'1!, 1.., "" , ^.- --~,-? ,",,' " '" -. "---~"' SAID IS, SHUFF & MASLAND ATI'ORNEY8'AT-UW 26 W. High Street Carlisie. PA 'C'"" ,..,''''''' _,_, '''It, , II . 90. The averments of Paragraph 90 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that PNC ever acted as agent of Defendant Union Security, or that PNC engaged in any conduct in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 91. The averments of Paragraph 91 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that PNC ever acted as an agent of Defendant Union Security, or that PNC engaged in any conduct in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 92. The averments of Paragraph 92 constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally 14 L'h'.,"",- __'. ,,~~ , _ ," .' SAID IS, SHUFF & MASLAND ATI'ORNEYSeAT'l.AW 26 W. HIgh Street Carlisle, PA :1':,'" , , ~ II denied that PNC ever acted as agent of the Defendant Union Security, or that PNC engaged in any conduct in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 93. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff suffered any damages as a result of any conduct alleged on the part of PNC, or that PNC engaged in any conduct in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. WHEREFORE, Defendant PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 94. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendant, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. or PNC Bank, NA ':,1 i,l; 'ii I, 95. Plaintiff has incorrectly named The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. as a Defendant in this matter when all transactions alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint relate to a separate entity, PNC Bank, NA. 96. Defendant, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. did not make any of the loans and did not and does not own, service or manage any of the loans identified in Plaintiff's Complaint. 97. At no time material hereto did PNC act as an agent for Defendant Union Security 15 !'II '^' ~,".., _,'.. . ,.. SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND AlTORNEYS-AT.LA.W 26 W. High Slreel Carlisle, PA -';:if1'lJ111 II NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 98. Paragraphs 1 through 97 hereof are incorporated by reference as if same were more fully set forth at length herein. 99. If it is determined that Plaintiff is entitled to recover any or all of the damages set forth in his Complaint which are specifically denied, then it is asserted that Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company is solely responsible and liable to Plaintiff. 100. In the event that PNC is found liable as an agent or ostensible agent of Co-Defendant Union Security, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover any or all of the damages set forth in his Complaint, which is specifically denied, then Defendant Union Security is jointly and severally liable on the claims asserted by Plaintiff. 101. In the event that PNC is found liable as an agent or ostensible agent of Co-Defendant Union Security, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover any and all of the damages set forth in his Complaint, which is specifically denied, then Defendant Union Security is liable to Defendant PNC for contribution and/or indemnification. 16 ..ce-, 0 . ~ _' Il!!,..." < ' ". 7-'. , " ,,.,~, ,- ,<~ SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND An'ORNEYStAT.L\W 26 W. High Street Carllsle, PA "-, ' ~- !I WHEREFORE, Defendant PNC demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. In the alternative, if it is determined that Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery against PNC by reason of it being an agent or ostensible agent of Co- Defendant Union Security, which is specifically denied, then Defendant PNC demands that judgment be entered solely against Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company or find Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company jointly and severally liable and/or liable for contribution, indemnification or both. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND DateY~). kOD J. seph L. Hitc ings, Attorney I.D. No.: 65 1 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (71 7) 243 - 6222 Attorney for Defendant PNC 17 .11- -r, '1' ~-" '" ""'''r. o,~, >,- , '",< ' "~ VERIFICATION I, Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire, attorney for Defendant, The PNC Financial Services Group, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct and certify that I am authorized to do so, and that the person's having knowledge of matters alleged in the pleading are outside the jurisdiction of the Court and their Verification cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing the pleading. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Date: ,?-~I-tJo By ings, ire S preme Court Id # 655 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 (telephone) Counsel for Defendant '--''6'''W~ -....-.. , II!IIII!Illl r--- "~O ^ SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND AlTORNEVS.ATeUW 26 W. High Street Carli.le, PA " ,-~ II . , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On Chi" ~ day of 01 ttaf hereby certify that I served a tr e and correct , 2 o db. , I, copy of the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim upon all parties of record via united States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Charles Haddick, Jr., Esquire 20 South 36ili Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Christopher J. Soller, Esquire 435 6th Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND -~ ,. "n ~ . ", '~ ',- , I ~I 1,1 Ii , [ 'I 'I 1 II !, II I I , I j ii' n 1,1 (T 5':, - . "'"",,'~ i) !T! ,/~ (r; '. :'''';:-';''' -",,', ., ~-:-C) ~' ~~; -"':1 -<; ~____, ~~!__ma-~~_~ _~,~~__ ,;;t,1I.ll'!fl_ () ~ f::'i c::::' 'i :-;j l~-h ;I1 -~:,--i'-! ::.~;CJ '-', I ~.~ -.', "< : ~JlO _;'J i"v .':) :.',) ,-- .- , SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-63213 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND FARVER EDWIN C VS UNION SECURITY LIFE INS CO R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of ALLEGHENY County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE 16th , 2000 , this office was in receipt of the On June attached return from ALLEGHENY Kline of Cumberland County Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep. Allegheny Co 34.00 Allegheny Notary 3.00 74.00 06/16/2000 MARSHALL & HADDICK Sworn and subscribed to before me this t. ~ day Of~ .20-zr0 A.D. ~f2~# Prothonotary' I"'"", ,~~ ~""" _', . 1n The Court of Common Pleas IOf CumbeJr!and County, PenEllsylvania Edwin C. <}'arver VS. -~ tJjI Union Security Life Insurance CN~,~~~~~21~~~l-;il'5 ':,'",,,,,,,,,,, " ~:..:-- Now, 5/25/00 , 200 {J , I, SHERIFF OF CUlvlBERLA.l\1D COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Allegheny County to execute this Writ, this . deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. \""E'..'-.......:\ZNc:b--~. ~~~"""('~rt~ ~~....... '~,f ,.,,",... r\~AICJrl<'7"'ii\....4i-...\ c:>'>):SI,G 'f. ~f~ ':~"':':'- D~\::::.' .~~~--~ - ---- . .~.. .:tl1.........'. TQ1.'. SherrffofCurnbeTlandCounty, PA . ~~~ ~=~._- -.....~~ _ ,m, . ' .' , ,,,,,,,,,, , '-;,~'~..s':" -'.. ~~~---~ A:ffidavit of Senrice & ~ ~~,.~ """"' ~::'::':::"'" ----- -d!!!::::::':'.........,/:''':::::, :: ,,____------~ ',t:..:..;,.,':'".-----:;:::-...::"_, &l1;;j/L~/,J ,.,.,0" v ..........,.~ ~~'~c:'" """,,",~,5 ,,""'2027D':.:~tb-:,:':"~tf~ck ( ~icNCserved 'tfle" -- --;:',,~==-' 'X,;?-" . Now, withm at "::-&?A'i/'-</;<1 ^ .e/.,.J.srL ~.:'::,:.. , ' '...:-;::/ /7 :?- / J d ~C:j /i ? r I'd- /'1V/'z- ,",:/::..-';;;;/-/"vr4- ? A- /,..-z./ 4-<- ",~ /~ C ~;"--K- , upon /Sd'-d-<r- by handing to ~""",-="",,-- "7:.:".',"i:i,:,,?:,:,:..,~""=7 /. '_~ copy ofthe origihal'= '=- L-!-v. "ffffi~f~ a and made lmown to ",;;;:--- v c u SHERIFF OF ALLEGHENY CO HTY COSTS SERVICE ~ ,CJt) $ MILEAGE AFFLDA VIT -;2.,. OD I Nota';'JI Seal Sheila-A. Q'Bn0f, Hota Public I Pittsbw9h, Ailegheny 2'ounty . My CommisSion cxoires June 19, 2000 Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries Sworn and subscribed before me this _ day of JUN 1 2 900@_ vihdt k~61 ~ ...... $ ~11cD , ~', .- .. EDWIN C. FARVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff NO. 00-3213 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver, by and through his counsel, Marshall & Haddick, P.c., by Charles E. Hac!pick, Jr., Esquire, and responds to the New Matter of The PNC Financial Services Group as follows: 94. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraphs are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial if deemed material. In the altemative, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff" Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendant, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc;. or PNC Bank, NA. 95. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraphs are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial if deemed material. In the altemative, it is specifically denied that - Plaintiff has incorrectly named The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. as a Defendant in this matter when all transactions alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint relate to a separate entity, PNC Bank, NA, which allegation is also specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial if deemed material. 96. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial if deemed material. 97. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the New Matter of Defendant The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., and judgment thereon be entered in favor of Plaintiff with all allowable costs and attorney's fees. Respectfully submitted, MARSHAI.L & HADDICK, P.c. Date: August 24, 2000 r ';c0J ~ Charles E. Haddick, ., E . Attorney I.D. No: 55666 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Attorney I.D. No: 78565 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 Attorneys for Plaintiff . . VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1024(c) I, Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire, state that I am the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that I make this affidavit as an attorney, because the party I represent lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because I have greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom I make this affidavit; and/or because the party for whom I make this affidavit is outside the jurisdiction of the court, and his verification cannot be obtained within the time allowed for the filing of the foregoing document; and that I have sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon my investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification of authorities. Date: :;." "'\. CJZ) ChSf, ~~'J"G Pa. I.D. No. 55666 ~ ," 'l - ~_ ~, J'..i;, , . CERTIFICATE OF SIERVICE AND NOW, this ~~ of August, 2000, I, Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Christopher J. Soller, Esquire REED, SMITH, SHAW & MCCLAY, LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (Counsel for Union Security) Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire SAlOIS, SHUFF & MASLAND 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for PNC) G ire ." ' r -, ~ - . EDWIN C. FARVER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 00-3213 VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants WITHDRAW OF APPEARANCE Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver in connection with the above-captioned matter. MARSHALL & HADDICK, P.C. Date: June 12, 2001 Cliares E. H ddick Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. 0: 55666 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 Attorneys for Plaintiff ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff Edwin C. Farver in connection with the above-captioned matter. MARKOWITZ & KREVSKY, P.C. Dated: 6 (11 (Ol Lawrence S. Markowitz Attorney 1.0. No: 208 East Market Street York, Pa 17401 (717) 843-2876 k~, . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this 20th of June, 2001, I, Lawrence S. Markowitz, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing Withdrawal and Entry of Appearance by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at York, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Christopher 1. Soller, Esquire (Union) Reed Smith Shaw & McClay 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh PA 15219 Louis W. Schack, Esquire (Union) Reed Smith Shaw & McClay 2500 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia PA 19103 Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire (PNC) Saidis, Shuf & Masland 219 Market Street CampHill PA 17011 Respectfully submitted, MARKO~KREVSKY P.C. By: ~ Lawrence S. Markowitz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 208 E. Market St., P.O.Box 392 York Pa 17405-0392 (717) 843-2876 Supreme Ct. LD. #41072 liIiJllllliolilifillitil; ""~'i"_""""1_,,,~;;Y;i;j,~~_tiIlIliIitldlliifj" ~,~ ,~ "' ~,' .. ~~llj~~ ~ .H~_ ._~". ~~ Ill! C) (=~. c:: ~~.... ~--= -Oft::; I~f -~.-,'" , ,~ ;'0 ;-r- ~, (" --"j ,'-, "'.- -.' v '.,-' '" -,., Co' c.... -"',," --c, ~(< ~" --'--, ,----, Pc c) 1''[''1 ~l o-J ,,- :5 -<, ID -< . "I .' il . -~ ,~~. ,"" ~ " . EDWIN C. FARVER, Plamtiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants NO. 00-3213 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company's Motion To Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, a Rule is hereby issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. BY THE COURT, Lawrence S. Markowitz, Esq. 208 East Market Street P.O. Box 392 York, PA 17405-0392 Attorney for Plaintiff . .~ ~ q.;L'I.O.l..J Christopher J. Soller, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 9-. ,-., ""-- ~-'" ~." _" ,'"~ L.I,~ FlL8)-OfFICE OF 1w:: r:qj"POiN"'T'nv , r.., ! '". I I~. :u t\rIl 02 SliP 24 PM 2: 52 CUM8EHlJ:ND COUN1Y PENi'\lSYLVANIA _ "'~~, yo ~..IRtilll!!IJl'!iI!~.'\l\!rR\~.i1iIj1!!~~'T,wmWll:~"",,}~.~ ~~ ~,^"' ~1I!l~ . - I" . Louis W. Schack, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 2500 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendant Union Security Life Insurance Company Joseph L. Hitchings, Esq. Suite 201 203 West Caracas Avenue Hershey, P A 17033 :rc ~ . ,', ,,- di - - ,--, '''I , . ! ' SEP 2 0 2002 EDWINC.FARVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, vs. NO. 00-3213 CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, to-wit, this _ day of , 2002, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that the aforementioned Motion will be and is hereby GRANTED, and that Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver shan serve fun and complete answers and responses, without objection, to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories of Defendant Union Security and produce documents in response to this discovery within twenty (20) days of the date ofthis Order or suffer sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. BY THE COURT, PGHUB-1OOS367- Seplember13.2002 12:31 PM - ,",' ,! EDWIN C. FARVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, Defendants. NO. 00-3213 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS vs. UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Filed on Behalf of: Union Security Life Insurance Company Counsel of Record for this Party: Christopher J. Soller Pa. LD. No. 76614 REED SMITH LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 288-7286 Louis W. Schack Pa. LD. No: 78864 REED SMITH LLP 2500 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, P A 19103 (215) 851-8100 PGHLlB-l005367- September 13. 2002 12:31 PM .J. ',', ~ "-- l "d:-I EDWIN C. FARVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, vs. NO. 00-3213 CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants. MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company ("Union Security"), by its counsel, Reed Smith LLP, hereby moves this Honorable Court for an Order compelling Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver to respond to written discovery and produce responsive documents to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories ofDeferidant Union Security Directed to Plaintiff, which have been served upon Plaintiff and to which no answer nor responsive documents have been provided. In support of this Motion, Union Security respectfully represents as follows: 1. On October 12, 2000, Union Security forwarded their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories directed to Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter. A true and correct copy of the notice of service ofthe First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories of Defendant Union Security Directed to Plaintiff is attached hereto at Exhibit A and is incorporated herem by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 2. To date, Union Security has not received a response to said Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents despite the thirty-day limitation period provided under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure having lapsed. PGHUB-l005367- September 13. 2002 12:31 PM ,'~ ,",,-,' d ,;" ~ ' ,,.: : 3. No extension has been sought or granted justifying Plaintiffs' unilateral delay in filing responses to these legitimate discovery requests. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide full and complete answers and responses to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of InteITogatories of Defendant Union Security Directed to Plaintiff and produce all responsive documents by the date of response. Respectfully submitted, Louis W. Schack Pa. I.D. No: 78864 REED SMITH LLP 2500 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8100 Dated: September 13, 2002 Counsel for Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company -4- - ''I: c () (\) '.. C; " 'L. EDWIN C. FARVER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, vs. NO. 00-3213 CIVIL ACTION - LAW FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES OF DEFENDANT UNION SECURITY DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants. Filed on Behalf of: Union Security Life Insurance Company Counsel of Record for this Party: Christopher J. Soller Pa. I.D. No. 76614 REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 288-7286 Louis W. Schack Pa. I.D. No: 78864 REED SMITH SHAW & McCLAY LLP 2500 One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 851-8100 PGHUIHJ65862a.Ol-CJSOLlER Octobet122000 11;31 AM > , -"Ii CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading to be served via first class U.s. mail, postage prepaid, this lib day of October 2000, upon counsel addressed as follows: Charles E. Haddic~ Jr., Esquire 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, P A 17011 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND 26 West High Street Carlisle, P A 171 03 (Counsel for PNC) PGHUB-O~628,Ol-CJSOLlER Qcloberl2.2000 11:3.1 AM -.. ,",",",..J~ L-<_ , , ,,,,,"-' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading to be served via facsimile and first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 13th day of September 2002, upon counsel addressed as follows: Lawrence S. Markowitz, Esquire Markowitz & Krevsky P.C. 208 East Market Street P.O. Box 392 York,PA 17405-0392 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Joseph L. Hitchings, Esquire 203 West Caracas Avenue Suite 201 Hershey, P A 17033 (Counsel for PNC PGHUB-1005367- SeplemberI3.:1002 12:31 PM " ""~." "~~.,~~~'~..~..-- . j iIilIIiilli'\l/""o,"~"",~,,~~illiiOf!.~l!!tI!bi1.l- i7o<-., ~'J[. "iIlMiIla-' ~""""-'~'ru~'~'~~Jii1li ",,,,,,"=~" "..-..."""....~IWlIIlli (") Q 0 C N ;:.- -n "1:' ,k,', U) c';! rTI ~I; i"Tl ;-:: " :i -:n r-" ,7 " , (;" 'J;) 0 ,--< , ,1 f"-. - - '-;) -, \.~} /; -" C') .....:'~ "', :0 .~ u '-'- " :1:", ~~ t'.) - i"/"l ~ -'; r.;- -< I ~ :n -< -- ,''''-', . EDWIN C. FARVER, ocrr IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . Plaintiff, vs. NO. 00-3213 CIVIL ACTION - LAW UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants. STIPULATION AND NOW, LAWRENCE S. MARKOWITZ, ESQUIRE, Counsel for Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver, and CHRISTOPHER J. SOLLER, ESQUIRE, Counsel for Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company, on behalf of those Parties, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On or about September 13, 2002, Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company, by its Counsel, Christopher 1. Soller, Esquire, sent to Plaintiffs counsel a Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant sought that Plaintiff serve full and complete answers and responses, without objection, to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories of Defendant and produce responsive documents within twenty (20) days ofthe date of the proposed Order of Court. Defendant's Motion was also filed with this Honorable Court. 2. In response to the Motion, on September 24, 2002, this Honorable Court issued a Rule to Show Cause upon Plaintiff, retumable within twenty (20) days of service, to show cause why the reliefrequested in Defendant's Motion should not be granted. 3. The Parties hereby stipulate to the entry of an Order of Court compelling the discovery requested in Defendant's Motion. 4. In particular, the Parties hereby stipulate that LAWRENCE S. MARKOWITZ, Counsel for Plaintiff, shall serve upon CHRISTOPHER J. SOLLER, Counsel " . # 111111! _.~!!llllIllI>~...".,.. F-if,EU->OFf'lc': ,.-." 'C-, !,'~ (-;r",,'"\-n 'I'-"\~ :"e'lAR' Y uF - --".T'j;~: ..)'1\) a/A arT" ", -- ,.., t..~ {,. M1Jl}:53 CUMBEf:~i,l\iJ COUt{i'{ PENNSYLVANIA ~~I\Il""iIlJ ,m""?" ,~~""'l'i;::,,*,"""~''''i]'!H''''''''''I~;~''''$'!'ft'''''''''1W< 'TO" F~ ~~m~"" ~,O< - -~ ~ J= t:1 , for Defendant, full and complete answers and responses to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set ofInterrogatories of Defendant and produce documents in response to this discovery within forty-five (45) days of October 8, 2002, or suffer sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. ~ . .D. No. 6 14 REED SMITH LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 288-7286 ~ Lawrence S. Mar Pa. I.D. No. 41072 MARKOWITZ & KREVSKY P.C. 208 East Market Street York,PA 17405-0392 (717) 843-2876 Counsel for Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver Counsel for Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company '-YU'J' ~ /0..)3-0.l> ~. SO ORDERED: , J. , !m:t=~-""'''~~~/;lMIlI!IiIHIllli,,~ '~r~\rhJWll;"r!0""Jl'-1:bil'.i.z"t;lki"'AW;~~~'''''''~-'''"ilIIIiit -"~~~' '~,' -~....",-ill.-""'''' . ro ,~xlI "~ ',- . 0 D C) c: f",.J -n ~ OJ -j vlT n ~<~ '---n rnp, -4 ;,~ ~~~" ,'-,(~n 0' ~~ CJ -<' ~S~ r:;;O "'" )>0 ~ ;S(") '-P. Ocn >e: z """ ~ =< ()'l -< " - ;, ~ klfG 1 8 2002 EDWIN C. FARVER, < Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs No. 00-3213 UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. Civil Action - Law STIPULATION AND NOW, Lawrence S. Markowitz, Esquire, Counsel for Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver, and Christopher 1. Soller, Esquire, Counsel for Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company, on behalf of both parties hereto stipulate as follows: 1. On or about October 16, 2002 Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company, by its counsel, Christopher J. Soller, Esquire, and Plaintiff, Edward C. Farver, by his counsel, Lawrence S. Markowitz, Esquire, entered into a Stipulation requiring Plaintiff to serve full and complete answers and responses to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories of Defendant within 45 days of October 8, 2002 or suffer sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. 2. In the interim, circumstances developed, including but not limited to, the death of Plaintiff, which prevents Plaintiff from answering discovery within the tilneframes established in the earlier stipulation. 3. Counsel for Plaintiff requested, and counsel for Defendant concurred, for an additional extension to answer and serve Defendant's discovery Requests. 4. The parties hereby stipulate to the entry of an Order of Court compelling the discovery requested in Defendant's Motion. " ~_. ...co. ~"'""" . .. , , 5. In particular, the parties hereby stipulate that Lawrence S. Markowitz, counsel for Plaintiff shall serve upon Christopher J. Soller, counsel for Defendant full and complete answers and responses to the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and First Set ofInterrogatories of Defendant and produce documents in response to discovery within 30 days of November 22, 2002, or suffer sanctions as the Court deems appropriate. cj)7 Lawrence S. Markowitz, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 41072 MARKOWITZ & KREVSKY P.C. 208 East Market Street York,PA 17405-0392 (717) 843-2876 ~~~ ~ ~- ~... ~<,- Christopher J. Soller, Esquire Pa. J.D. No. 76614 REED SMITH LLP 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 288-7286 Counsel for Plaintiff, Edwin C. Farver Counsel for Defendant, Union Security Life Insurance Company SO ORDERED: ,J. .. TRUE COpy FRC.f<1 RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. This .................. day of......................, ........ .....~.......................,....................._.......................... Prothonota~ k. '. - " ~J "n_ ~~~~_~ " ~1loi.",*Jiaij_'k~l.k."~'.'~ " ~~"" . ~'~.....~ ~ .. (') c v;;;:: fn}'::;~ ~~L~1 (n_... ~~; "'" =3 ._, ~li..IiI "'....~ Cl N o f11 n r) ~::n -,-l -1-' ,'~ Tl Ill::=--:: ~~J E9 .~~ cSrn -I >: =< -' :c,-. N ~ . , . Af/j'" . EDWIN C. FARVER, Plaintiff vs UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. .1 ' ~ " , 'ii;itlt", IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY No. 00-3213 Civil Action - Law PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND SATISFY Please mark the above-captioned case settled, satisfied and discontinued with prejudice. Date: I hI, ) Respectfully submitted, MARKOWfTZ & KREVSKY P.C. By If) ~ Lawrence S. Mar 'tz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 208 E. Market St., P.O. Box 392 York PA 17405-0392 (717) 843-2876 (717) 843-1821 fax Supreme Ct. J.D. #41072 1-, , r '" '"=-__ '-. '-\__" '" ,.,,~~.-,,'" , It':;: """ ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, TO WIT, this ;k/ o~, 2003, I, Lawrence S. Markowitz, Esquire, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid at York, Pennsylvania, addressed to counsel of record as follows: Christopher J. Soller, Esquire Reed Smith Shaw & McClay 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, P A 15219 Joseph 1. Hitchings, Esquire 203 West Caracas Avenue, Suite 201 Hershey, PA 17033 Respectfully submitted, MARKOWITZ & KREVSKY P.C. By 1)J Lawrence S. Markowitz, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 208 E. Market St., P.O. Box 392 York PA 17405-0392 (717) 843-2876 (717) 843-1821 fax Supreme Ct. J.D. #41072 --:.. ~~. "-" jLMtilI~W'lII6IU-ril* ", ~,'"^,., ~ - -'-iIIiiiiI'-i:J -"" ',"'- "~,= I. p~ " '~ r ~ - ""... ...... (') C 0 C 0-' -n $: en --I -'Ol-;J rn ;~~ p:-~ (nrr; --0 Z~';-' , '~~S t3 0):; OJ i~f) r;:tc::: -'"4~ :P> "'''''1 -< :~5--rl )>" ::!: ~""{~ Z~-": '2 [5m 5-'(:: -l z, ,:..:> "'> ::0 =< --' C<