HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-01439
~
\l
\I
~
~
~
~
'"
8
c-
't .
u~
--Q
....
~
-)
Cl
~
i
1
i
/
f
I
I
I
,
i
i
I
I
i
I
,
I
I
-
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO '1llE PIU1lfOrU1'AR'i OF CUoIBERLAM> COUNI'Y
Please list the following casel
(Check one)
(
( x
for JURY trial at the next tenn of civil court.
for trial without a jury.
-----------------------------------------
CAPl'ION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
(check one)
(X) Civil Action - Law
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
( ) Appeal fran Arbitration
)
(other)
(Plaintiff)
vs.
THE BEISTLE COMPANY
The trial list will be called on
and June 15. 1999
Trials cannence on
July 12, 1999
(Defendant)
Pretrials will be held on June 23, 1999
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
(The party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.)
vs.
No. 97-1439 Civil
19 97
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipel
Melvin L. Moser, Esquire
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if knownl
Robert L. O'Brien for Defendant
This case is ready for trial.
J/!iL} !I~A---
Signed I
Date I March J ~
Print NaIre I Me 1 vin r,. Moser
, 1999
Attorney fori
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
PA 1.0.# 23595
,t~.
..- ,
'..
'0 \.0 'Gl
~ \.0
".. ~~
S2tr. '"tl
-~; ~
zy I
liJ _; - "0
~O '"tl :C3]
~8 :J: ':Jg
;;c: ' ~ ~
~ 0 ~
Q\
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COMPANY CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
VS. CIVIL ACTION _ LAW
. 97- /43q
.
THE BEISTLE COMPANY NO. CIVIL TERM
.
Defendant .
NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS
YOll have been sued hi cmll:t. 1 r you w.i.r.h to tlerc.IJ[J aa."J bm l I'IlC c]., ill~ set forth
in 1I~ folJow.ing pil!JCR, y\)U nu'":l Lill,!, acUon withlu hoJl'!nty (20) dilyn "neL" this
cmplnint and nolieo ~re setvcd, hy entering iI weilten IlPJX,arnnce pm:~;on<1]ly
or uy an attorney and filing ill HcLting wLth the cour:t your defenses or objec-
lions to the claims set rodll ag;Jir~;t you. You iIl:'D \',ll1lal U~'l: if }'OU fail
to do :;0 tJ\U ('.w'e n.,y procCl.:u without ,}'Ou illllJ a judr.ncnt nny he 'mtcrr~1 ilgninst
you hj' the court without [urUIC.J: Ix)tiCf' [01: dllY IInn'lY (~lilim:!d in the CUlplaint
or for imy other claim or raHef t:cqllC',stcd by I.he:, pJ11.inJ.:jrr. YOIl nay 10:;0 IIoney
or pmpurty or othm' 1.'i911t5 iuportant. to you.
YW SIJO(JW '.1'1\1<1:: nns PAI'Tm '10 Yam IJ\W'l1m l.'J' G.;m. IF Val [X) loUr HAVE A (X'liER
011 CANi-vr ^F'ml1/) eNE, co 'm on 1'Ef.EPI,JN": 'HIE OFl'1"m SET F\.lIrl1l um.cw '10 FIND
CUI' 1'1I11mB YOU ClIN (if,"(' U,X",...\I, 111,1.1'.
COUll'}' .\DMINIS'J'fI,vl'OIl
ClJHIJr-:nJ.AND co. COIJnT/JOUSE, olt.h PLoon
1 COUll'I'/JOU~;I:: SQ\JAlm
CARLISLE PA 17013-3387
(717) 240-6200
..--....~~~l'!:....-Al;:,:::,:!:.;:;....:'"'"'" >: . :"~"':'.':':''''':'':-';'':"",..,..::._. -'."...,....,..~r_.."...,......~=._~.~.~..~_.~._~.__..____...,"'
5. As set forth in the statement of account attached hereto as Exhibit · A.,
as of March 4, 1997, DeistIe owes $74,812 in past due premiums for coverage provided
beginning in 1991,
6. Despite Liberty Mutual's performance and demands for payments, DeistIe
has failed and refused to pay $74,812, the premium amount due and owing as of March 4, 1997
for coverage provided beginning in 1991, not including interest.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company demands that
judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and against
defendant The DeistIe Company for the sum of in excess of $25,000, t~gether with interest,
costs, and attorney's fees.
GORR, MOSER, DELL & LOUGHNEY
e v. n L, Mo
Pa, ,D. #23595
Go ,Moser, Dell & Loughney
Attorneys for Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co,
437 Grant Street, 1300 Frick Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 471-1180
/tlC
By:
-2-
~ 04 '9? 0'3142 FR L IlERTY I'1J11A..
TO 1412471'31a12
P,02
LIBERTY fB
MUTUAL ~
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
AMOUNT PAID $
ACCOUNT NO,
426484 0000 00
ISSUE DATE:
03/04/97
THE BEISrL& COMPANY
1 BE!GTLE PLhZh, 1'.0, DOX 10
SHIPPr.NS9URG, PA 17257
LtBElltTl!' HUNAL
1',0, BOX 7517U
OHAatoTTl, NO 21275
70300~2b~a400000000000000000000000000DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000007~a1200Dl
l'U!MeDfT...cIr"'~D seND WTTIl CHeCK
LIBERTY
MUTUAL
.
'1'HB BBIS'l'LB COMPl\NY
ACCOUNT NO. 426484 0000 00
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
ISSUE DATE: 03/0'197
~ INVI!XH POUCYIEXPLANATlDN AMOUNT
01/061'7 40000008 WC7-019~ Dividond txH 00000591 6,261.00
08122/96 40000007 11C7-019~ ~ivldond txH 00001491 7,274.00ca
12/15/95 40000006 WC1-019~ Dividend S~i 00000491 21,850.00
12/19/94 40000005 WC1"'Ol'1 Divid.nd B~i 00000391 13,317.00CR
11/16/93 00000291 lIC7-0191 RQ:ro Adj, 55,638,00
11/16/93 00000291 WC7,0ln Divit!ent! 11,552,00
EXHIBIT
Total Due
74,812.00
I
A
FOR SERVICE WRITE OR CALL YOUR UBERTY MUTUAL OFFICE AT:
5021 LOUISE DRIVE, MECH?~I:CSBURG, PA 17055
OF.ll3
1-717-795-8703
~Q~
p '"
...s;:::-
...t.)
~
t:
~
.....
"
-
\...J
~
-.
f'-U
~
,'. .0
r- _I r'>
..-t
r::: . . :-1
..<1 ~ i:!l
"
i:.'.: 1"'0) .-
r: t:J ;~
' .
.i__tO, 2: . '1.)
'.11
,.. ~- ,-j='J
... .-0
.--, 'F!
..... .:.:)r11
.' :..', :-t
..; .""
-. '" ~J
-<
~
C""
~~
~
. .
~
NEW MATTER
7) The answers in paragraphs 1-6 are incorporated herein by reference.
6) The claim by the Plaintiff involves its handling of a worker's compensation
matter involving Paula Heinbaugh. It is the Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff had
mishandled the worker's compensation matter in a number of respects, spanning a
number of years.
9) The Defendant also alleges that the Plaintiff failed and refused to provide
information of the claim in a timely fashion. Much of the information that was forwarded
was misleading and did not address issues that had been specifically inquired into by
the Defendant.
10) Paula Heinbaugh was originally injured in a work related accident on April
16, 1991. The Plaintiff, during the management of the Heinbaugh claim, failed to
assign staff to the matter thereby increasing the exposure of the Defendant on the
claim
11) The Plaintiff, during the management of the Heinbaugh claim, repeatedly
failed to make reasonable inquiries of the treating physicians in reference to the
recommendations for treatment.
12) The Plaintiff, during the management of the case, failed to make
reasonable inquiry of the treating physicians in reference to Ms. Heinbaugh's retum to
work at the Defendant's manufacturing facility. The Defendant, at all times, stood ready
to provide work within the requirements of the treating physician for Ms, Heinbaugh,
,
,
!
,
Paula Heinbaugh in a number of respects, spanning a number of years, Liberty Mutual,
however, specifically denies that It ever mishandled the workers' compensation claim involving
Paula Heinbaugh, To the contrary, Liberty Mutual properly handled the workers' compensation
mailer involving Paula Heinbaugh at all times material and relevant hereto and fully performed
Its obligations under the workers' compensation insurance policies with Defendant,
3, The averments of paragraph 9 of Defendant's New Maller are denied as
stated, Liberty Mutual does not dispute that Defendant alleges that Liberty Mutual failed and
refused to provide information of the claim in a timely fashion. Liberty Mutual, however,
specifically denies that it did in fact fail and/or refuse to provide information of the claim to
Defendant in a timely fashion, To the contrary, Liberty Mutual provided relevant and pertinent
information of the claim to Defendant in a timely fashion and fully performed its obligations
under the workers' compensation insurance policies with Defendant at all times material and
relevant hereto, Liberty Mutual further denies that much of the information provided to
Defendant was misleading and failed to address issues that were specifically required into by the
Defendant. To the contrary, Liberty Mutual provided Defendant with accurate information and
fully performed its obligations under the workers' compensation insurance policies issued to
Defendant at all times material and relevant hereto.
4, The averments of paragraph 10 of Defendant's New Maller are admilled
in part and denied in part, Liberty Mutual admits that Paula Heinbaugh was injured in a work-
related accident on April 16, 1991, The remaining averments of paragraph 10 of Defendant's
New Maller are specifically denied, Liberty Mutual specifically denies that during the
management of the Heinbaugh claim it failed to assign sufficient staff to the claim thereby
-2-
increasing the exposure of the Defendant on the claim, To the contrary, Liberty Mutual
properly handled the Heinbaugh claim, fully performed its contractual obligations, assigned
sufficient staff to the Heinbaugh claim, and did not in any way increase the exposure of the
Defendant on the Heinbaugh claim,
S, The averments of paragraph II of Defendant's New Maller are denied in
their entirety, It is specifically denied that Liberty Mutual during the management of the
Heinbaugh claim repeatedly failed to make reasonable inquiries of the treating physicians in
reference to the recommendations for treatment, To the contrary, Liberty Mutual fully
performed its obligations under the workers' compensation insurance policies issued to
Defendant and made reasonable inquiries of the treating physicians in reference to the Heinbaugh
claim.
6, The averments of paragraph 12 of Defendant's New Maller are denied as
stated. Liberty Mutual specifically denies that during the management of the Heinbaugh claim
it failed to make reasonable inquiry of the treating physicians in reference to Ms, Heinbaugh's
return to work at the Defendant's manufacturing facility, To the contrary, Liberty Mutual fully
performed its obligations under the workers' compensation insurance policies issued to
Defendant and made reasonable inquiries of the treating physicians in reference to Ms,
Heinbaugh's return to work at the Defendant's manufacturing facility, Liberty Mutual does not
dispute that Defendant contends that it stood ready to provide work within the requirements of
the treating physician for Ms. Heinbaugh, Liberty Mutual, however, specifically denies that the
Defendant was willing to provide work to Ms, Heinbaugh at all times within the requirements
of her treating physician,
-3-
7, The averments of paragraph 13 of Defendant's New Maller are denied,
Liberty Mutual specifically denies that it failed to follow the recommendations of the allorney
retained to represent the Defendant's interest in the Heinbaugh claim, To the contrary, Liberty
Mutual fully performed its obligations under the workers' compensation insurance policies issued
to Defendant and reasonably followed the recommendations of the allorney assigned to represent
Defendant's interest in the Heinbaugh claim, After reasonable investigation or lack of
opportunity to investigate, Liberty Mutual is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a beliefas to the truth or falsity of the remaining averments of paragraph 13 of Defendant's New
Maller, Therefore, the same are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial,
8, The averments of paragraph 14 of Defendant's New Maller are denied as
slated, Liberty Mutual admits that Defendant switched workers' compensation insurance
carriers. Liberty Mutual specifically denies that It failed to manage the Heinbaugh claim as part
of its contractual duty to the Defendant. To the contrary. Liberty Mutual properly managed the
Heinbaugh claim and fully performed its obligations under the workers' compensation insurance
policies issued to Defendant at all times material and relevant hereto, The remaining averments
of paragraph 14 of Defendant's New Maller are conclusions of law to which no response is
required,
9, The averments of paragraph 15 of Defendant's New Maller are denied as
stated, Liberty Mutual specifically denies that it mishandled the Heinbaugh claim, To the
contrary, Liberty Mutual properly handled the Heinbaugh claim and fully performed its
obligations under the workers' compensation insurance policies issued to Defendant at all times
-4-
material and relevant hereto, Liberty Mutual further specifically denies that it was advised by
counsel assigned to represent Defendant in the Heinbaugh claim that Liberty Mutual's handling
of the Heinbaugh claim constituted bad faith and would result in the imposition of attorney's fees
and penalties against Defendant. To the contrary, counsel assigned to represent Defendant in
the Heinbaugh claim did not advise Liberty Mutual that its conduct constituted bad faith and
would result in the imposition of attorney's fees and penalties against the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, demands that
judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendant, The Beistle Company, in an amount in
excess of $25,000, together with interest, the costs of this suit and attorney's fees.
REPLY AND NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM
10, In response to paragraph 16 of Defendant's Counterclaim, paragraphs 1
through 9, inclusive, of Liberty Mutual's Reply to New Matter are incorporated by reference
with the same force and effect as if fully set forth at length herein,
11. The averments of paragraph 17 of Defendant's Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no response is required,
12, The averments of paragraph 18 of Defendant's Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no response is required, To the extent a response may be deemed
required, Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff avers that Liberty Mutual has acted in bad
faith and that Defendant requests that the provisions of 42 Pa, C,S,A, ~837I be applied, Liberty
Mutual, however, specifically denies that it acted in bad faith tOwards Defendant at any time
material and relevant hereto, To the contrary, Liberty Mutual acted in good faith, in a
reasonable manner and fully performed its obligations towards Defendant under the workers'
-5-
compensation insurance policies issued to Defendant at all times material and relevant hereto,
Liberty Mutual further specifically denies that the provisions of 42 Pa, C,S,A, fi8371 are
applicable to this action and that Defendant can recover interest, punitive damages, court costs
and attorney fees thereunder, To the contrary, 42 Pa. C.S.A. fi8371 is not applicable because
Liberty Mutual acted reasonably, in good faith and fully performed its contractual obligations
under the workers' compensation insurance policies issued to Defendant at all times material and
relevant hereto, Liberty Mutual further specifically denies that 42 Pa, C,S,A. fi8371 is
applicable because Defendant's Counterclaim does not involve a refusal to provide benefits under
an insurance policy, and, accordingly, this action does not arise under an insurance policy within
the meaning of 42 Pa, C,S,A, fi837I.
NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM
FIRST DEFENSE
13, Paragraphs I through 12, inclusive, of Liberty Mutual's Reply to New
Malter and Reply to Counterclaim are incorporated by reference with the same force and effect
as if fully set forth at length herein,
SECOND DEFENSE
14, Defendant's Counterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted,
THIRD DEFENSE
15, Defendant's Counterclaim does not involve an insurer's refusal to provide
benefits under an insurance policy.
-6-
0 ,0 f")
~.:~ :.:J "n
'..- j
";.. Il;J
"
!",' ,-,I"'n
';f')
tJ:J ))
.-~ ~ .: 1
.-,:'J
.... -;'. -)
::! :'Jrn
.. :.~J
I ,,.. ~~1
CO ....
6) Th' D.,,,,,,.nl do" nol admll!hot 42 Pa. C.S.A. S.clion 5524 .pph"
.nd Ih.1 PJ.inhW, ,.Ilum 10 dl"'''' """IIlulad ",noealm.nl and Ih"afora, loll.d ""
running of the statute of limitations.
7) In ra'Pon" to Pla,nhW, paragmph' 19 and 20 ;n ita R"pon,J" p;.adlng
the Defendant Incorporates the response in paragraph 6 herein.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, The Beistle Company, respectfullY requests that
judgm.nf b. ant".d In ", ,,,or tog.lh" wilh ;nl""I, ",ta and allornay'. ,,,..
Respectfully Submitted,
\
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER
B; ~,,)..t..
Robert L, O'Brien, Esquire
1.0.#28351
17 West South Street
Carlisle, pennsylvania 17013
717-249-6873
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
: IN n-tE COURT OF COM\1ON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CMLACTlON-LAW
: NO. 97-1439CMLACTlON
Plaintiff
\IS.
n-tE BEISllE COMPANY
Deferdant
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
.1 hereby certify that 00 Febn.ay /9 , 1900, I, Robert L OBrien, Esquire, ci O'Brien,
Baick & Scherer, aid 5eIV9 a copy ci the Ca.I1ly Reply to pJaintjffs New Matter, by first class U.S. mail,
(X)Slage p-epaid, to the p;:rty listed I:leIo.v, as foIloM;:
Scxllt A Matthews, Esq,Jire
AJJ.aretfa' Plaintiff
Goo; M:lser; Dell & Loujney
437 Gra1l Street
1300 Frick Buikfrg
Pittsb..rgl, PA 1521900)2
.
~~
Robert L OBrien, Esq,Jire
AJJ.aret fa' Def81 da1l
Date: Febn.ay /9 1900
~mEWS9:R
i
i
I
I
I
I'
,"
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
THE BEISTLE COMPANY,
Defendant
NO. 97-1439 CIVIL TERM
AND NOW, this
ORDER OF COURT
I ~ ((day of May, 1998, upon consideration of
Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Discovery, a Rule is hereby issued
upon the Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should
not be granted.
RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service,
BY THE COURT,
of!
J.
Melvin L. Moser, Esq.
437 Grant Street
1300 Frick Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorney for Plaintiff
_ Q.,.~()'~LJ. 5/.1.'0/ q8,
II ~.l".
n .~ n
, -~.. ."
',- ..,
, 'J
- . '.
i:.: ,
')
:4..
, .,
,
- ,il
.. '....'
I :"7) .,
-, ''; '<
Robert L. O'Brien, Esq.
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Defendant
:rc
II. INTERROGATORIES
I, Set forth the names and current addresses of any person(s) who have
knowledge of any facts, events, conditions or circumstances concerning the cll\,ims or any
defense of the claims in this case as known to defendant Beistle and defendant Beistle's
allorneys, agents, and/or other representatives.
ANSWER:
-4-
.
.
3. Set forth the name and address of each person whom Beistle expects to call
as an expert witness on the issue of liability or damages at trial, and for each such expert
"
witness, please state precisely:
a, The subject mailer which the expert is expected to testify;
b. The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is
expectcd to tcstify;
c, A summary of thc grounds for cach expert opinion;
d, The background, training, experience and other qualifications of
each person named; and,
e,
Attach a copy of any report receivcd by Beistle from each such
expert witness to your answers to these interrogatories,
,
."
ANSWER:
.6.
..
9, Identify each and every document which evidences, records or otherwise
relates to Beistle's allegation that Liberty Mutual failed and/or refused to provide information
of the Paula Heinbaugh claim in a timely fashion,
ANSWER:
-12-
II. Identify each and every document which evidences, records or otherwise
relates to defendant Beistle's allegation that much of the information provided to it by Liberty
Mutual was misleading and did not address issues that had been specifically inquired into by
; ,
Beistle,
,
!
ANSWER:
i i
i
,
-14.
12, Set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for Beistle's claim that Liberty
Mutual failed to assign sufficient staff to manage the Paula Heinbaugh claim as alleged in
paragraph 10 of Beistle's New Maller.
','
ANSWER:
,
i
,
I
I
I
I'
!
I
f
I
I
!
. .~
-15-
.
IS. Identify each and every document which evidences, records, or otherwise
. relates to Beistle's allegation that Liberty Mutual increased the exposure of Beistle on the Paula
Heinbaugh claim.
ANSWER:
-18-
23. Set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for Beistle's claim that Liberty
Mutual failed to follow the recommendations of the attorney assigned to represent Beistle's .
interest regarding the Paula Heinbaugh claim as alleged.in paragraph 13 of Beistle's New
Matter.
ANSWER:
-26-
26. Set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for Beistle's allegation that
Liberty Mutual mishandled the Paula Heinbaugh claim as alleged in paragraph 15 of Beistle's
New Matter.
ANSWER:
-29-
. .
34. State all persons whom Beistle intends to call as witnesses at trial in this
case. For each such person, state:
a. Name, address and home telephone number;
b. Current employer, work address and telephone number;
c. Date of birth; and,
d. The substance of the individual's proposed testimony.
ANSWER:
;I
i.
!.
!(
-37-
!
I
ii
I'"'
"
_ ~ t
"
"
; ,.,f~
I ~,".:
~:"-';;..
. i:.',-
..
-,
. . I .
35. Identify by name, address, title and business relationship with defendant
Beistle, each and every individual who Participated in preparing the responses to these
interrogatories. For each individual so identifi~, specify Which response(s), or portion thereof,
such individual Participated in preparing.
ANSWER:
-38-
(') '0 ~
s.~ ;:::)
- ~~1
~.. ...
~{1~ ".. ."'ii:!J
rtlf', : -<
-i.f, -,-,hi
........ r
-7r'
(;1'; - J7' "g
,:'r
~~!~. :!? . -j':j
:I.-.j
-'J..
'-0
~;c~ "srn
~. t.__ :r;!
~'4 ~.) .~
-'
-<, '0
.
.
,
,
~'"
(") '.f.) 0
,~ CO i'l
:":. t-. =i!
""!)r..i:l r..:: ~~
tlt.-f~ --
"'-
;?:,.
i~~. N :06
'-"1
e:C) ':J .
.,., '3:/
'~'"1'
;:;n - g~
~
t~c) -
"''''c .. :;;!
=3 c:- ~
. C:J
(") ~ ~-
c: ~
;;::: '- ,~
-rJ{LI c:: C~:o
mr.' ;z:
-'.:0 I '-n~
21" :0
~ ~. eN ~
-,..
!'2C;' ~
~n - ~!
.-=Q - ~
;Pc: ..
~ en c~
N