Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-07028 '1'1':, ql !-I il'IJ " '~, ,>}'I,~J ""t" ' ,', i',l' " . " ,::" l '.'i'.~," ), ilj f.~I, , '<I f;)il I ~ ;,;~l!"~ /i,f' ";J~"'."" . I I fl" , '.II I I "" '" ~ ",~ ",\'-,'" ',I jF'-i j. I' ., 'I ,I I, I , , il! I , ii, ,II! , 1 , 'I " ,......' '-. ,I' ii' if" i!i, , i I I i\ "I " lOr ,,' I, " " " II " 'I I' , I i, J I ~ ['I 'I , I III, 'I , '; , , , " " , ,I " " I /' , II' I, I 'I I I " 'I I' , , ,I I, , I I , 'I I" 'it, " " , , ,', I" i' I' RICHARD COAKLEY and SUSAN COAKLEY, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-7028 CIVIL TERM v, BOYER CONSTRUCTION & l?001. SERVICE, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v, GOODALL POOLS, INC., NOTICE OF HEARING BY BOARD OF ARBITRATORS You are hereby notified that the Board of Arbitrators appointed by the Court in the above captioned case will sit for the purpose of their appointment in the Hearing Room, on the Second Floor, Old cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, pennsylvania, on Thursday, July 23, 1998 at 1100 p.m. Dale F, Shughart, Jr" Esquire Fred Hait, Esquire Charles l?, Mackin, ESqutr~ BY:~h(Z~~ ctai~an Board of Arbitrators DATE: May 19, 199B TO: Elizabeth B. Stone. Esquire STONE, LaFAVER & STONE 414 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Court Administrator Cunilierland County Courthouse One courthouse square Carlisle, l?A 17013 Rebecca J. Margerum, Esquire ALLEN SHAFFER & ASSOCIATES 129 Market Street Millersburg, PA 17061 Daniel J, pouruban, Esquire Law Office of Ralph F. Touch 401 Penn Street, suite 100 Reading, PA 19601 Charles p, Mackin, Esquire 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Fred Hait, Esquire 4 Liberty Avenue, Second Floor Carlisle, FA 17013 W/h'I'l' kllllu'ledt.:,. 1I1I'/II"''''t'l' 1""'llI//, , , . Su'ndrle3 . Wallpaper Date I 0(,-26-98 Tlmel lE>l4015'1 SOLD TO COAKLEYS RESTAURANT 305 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 332 South 10th Street Lernoyne, PA 17043 737.0485 I Salea Invoice ij SNYDER'S PAINT STORE 332 SOUTH 10TH STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 '717-737-0485 Home I Wo.'k I 774-5556 PO/JOB Employee: SCOTT S. DIy Unit Cit-5ku Product Codl Product Dlscrlption 2 GIl. I-~ 11lJ~ US Acryltc Wood Prim-Ext III 2 EOCH 4-383 :534-eJ5e34 .34 OUERSIZE TRAY LItER 2 E. 4-8m H820'l-9ll 9UIlllllWlSTER COUER I I' 4-71~9 9e:l89ee 9UJ8 MASTER COUER I E. 4-8914 ~-9Il 4U55 TAU PRO I EOCH 4-1 I 2 6lU.lJ/ EMPTY MIL ...-' your business! Te.'ms: Sugglllld 129.52 II.~ 14.76 12.08 * Reference I PagE' Numoer: Acct Numbe.': SHIP TO q'oO%.HPLI~~ SllIing Prier 124.3'1 11.12 14.28 13.~ SI.87 12.6~ Sub-Total M. TAl Sail Tolil SiI.ncl DUI 13775 1 130 Exllns i on 1J~e- 148.78 _\(O ~ 12.24 - f'&O Joe 18.:l6 _ HCc)'J 13.~>O 11.87 roO'..... 12.65 167.3~ IU3 171. J8 171. J8 WI",/,<. klllll""'d.~,' ,md H',,'/c't' ' 1'",,,,11,, . . Sundries . Wallpaper Yf~:l ~~7~~7~~ SOLD TO COAKLEYS RESTAURANT 305 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 332 Soulh 10th Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 737.0485 Ir Siilles Invoice ~ SNYDER'S PAINT STORE 332 SOUTH 10TH STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 717-737-0485 .I PO/JOB I Te.'me I Home! Wo.'k I 774-5556 Employee! DENNIS S. my Unit tit-Sku Product Codl 2 GIl. 1-46 11lJ~ I EJlCH H I 2 Ea 4-8972 H 4 EJlCH 4-383 S; * ReferllUCIl I Page N moe.'! Acct Numbe"1 136911 130 SHIP TO .?tcl-+- e -f\.o0~ ... Product Dlscriptlon Sugglstld Sllllng Prlcl US Acrylic Wood Prlur-Ext III 129.52 MINT TRAY I GIlLlJ/ 9UIllll IWlSTER UER 124.39 19.9~ 14.76 Il.~ We appreciate your business! Sub-Total M. TAX Sail Total Silane. DUI Exhnslon ,,: IItlU~V 148. 78"'tT' 19.9~ > /J 19.52 (~ I~.ee 173. 25 IMe 177.65 177.65 ~~'/II'H' ~/llIlI'h"''lt' I/Hd wl'I'in' 111'I''''/(' , . . Sundries . Wallpaper Datel 06-22-98 Timel 10142157 SOLD TO COAKLEYS RESTAURANT 305 BRIDGE STREET NEll CUMBERLAND PA 17070 332 South 10th Street Lernoyne, PA 17043 737.0485 r-sal~s Invoic~ SNYDER'S PAINT STORE 332 SOUTH 10TH STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 '717-737-0485 PO/JOB Homel Wo.'k I 774-5556 Terms: Employee: SCOTT S. DIy Unit tit-Sku Product Codt Ea H3llll e-10"/64-N EllH 4-:l~ 62'3-llllIlJ57 EllH 4-268 44He'l0Se la 1-~7 481~ Product Dlscrlptlon Sugglstld 2.5 PENH t2llC ADfLOI CONTRACTOR pt( 25EA 114.14 HYDE PIlE ~DER 125.64 DEFI-RUST ENL LTB FORMULA C-2 FORMULA D-lyle BATCH We appreciate your business! * Reference I Page N'Jmber: Acct NlJm be.' I SHIP TO SlUing Prict 112.34 112.73 121.79 129.~ Sub-Total PII, TAl Galt Total Balancl OUf 13656 1 130 " ~L- Exhnslon 112.34 112.73 121. 7~ 129.~ \76,36 H,58 188.94 188.94 Hili'" "'/l/ll'I'II~I' lInd wrr/l't' 1""'''1,,/.. , . Sundries . Wallpaper 332 South 10th Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 737-0485 * YtU i ~~:i~:2~ ~ 8~les Invoic~1 ~S.t:~"li\tlliiSer! 1359? Acgi Number: 130 SNYDER'S PAINT STORE 332 SOUTH 10TH STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 717-737-0485 SOLD TO COAKLEYS RESTAURANT 305 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 SHIP TO Employeel SCOTT S. Terms: Homel Work: 774-5556 Oly Unit tit-Sku Product Codt Product Dlscrlption Suggll hd Sill ing Prlcl Exttnsion I 2-132 4111112 1 EJlCH 4-1 I ZAR PT & UARNlSH REMOUER DT EMIlEE GUlZIET 123 16.89 . 17.95 16.89 17.95 Sub-Total PII. TAl Sail Total Balanct QUt 114.84 Ie. 89 115. 73 115. 73 We appreciate your business! Will'"'' k"ow/t',/gt' ,,11I1 H'n/t'.' /m'l'IH/, , , . Suntlrles . Wallpaper Dat e 1 0&-17-98 Time: 12138114 SOLD TO COAKLEYS RESTAURANT 305 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 332 South 10th Street Lernoyne, PA 17043 737.0485 [sales Invoice II SNYDER'S PAINT STORE 332 SOUTH 10TH STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 717-737-0485 Home I' Wo.'k: 774-5556 PO/JOB Employeel SCOTT S. Oly 1.\1 It tit-Sku Product Codl I 6ll 1-248 5 EJlCH H I aT 1-1288 W4724 I 1~.7748 EJlCH 4-12 EOCH H6 I I . Product Dlscrlption ~ DEFI-RUST PRIIER LT GRA SlETS 128 SIWD MlER W. FloM Acrylic S.G. DTB FORMUlA L-ly24 FORMUlA Kl-Iy BIlTDl 11-1 IDE ClEM GLOUE LARGE TIMlICO ACID BRU9l We appreciate your business! * Roference 1 Pago N~lmberl Acct NlJmbe.': 13380 1 130 SH I P TO 001- Termsl Suggnhd SlUing Prlct Exhnslon 131.45 126.28 Ie. 59 lie. 58 126.28 12.9~ "'.58 17.55 16.79 16.79 13.84 13.84 Sub-Total 149.48 PII, TAl 12.97 Sill Total 1~.45 Sil.nct Dut 1~.4~ WII.,,.,, 4111111'/,'dg,' (1I/,1.\linh'I' 1"'1,,,"1 " . Sundries . Wallpapar 332 South 10th Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 737.0485 * Yf~:l $~~~f.;~~ ~ Salea Invoice ~ Referenc" 1 Page NlJlnlJlH'1 Acc:t NlJmbe.' 1 13497 1 130 SNYDER'S PAINT STORE 332 SOUTH 10TH STREET LEMOYNE PA 17043 717-737-0485 SOLD TO COAKLEY8 RESTAURANT 305 BRIDGE STREET NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 SHIP TO ~ Homel Work: 774-555& PO/JOB EmployeR: DENNIS S. Te.'ms: Oly Unit tit-Sku Product Codl Product Dlscriptlon Suggnhd Stlllng Prlct I 001 hIM 687-1118621 ILB TSP CLEAhER 12. 75 4 EllCIl H I mTS SIVIDPIlPER IU5 I E. 4-8+16 e-16e55-llll J.Il ca INTIElT 15.46 I ~ 1-1888 118-114911 Dlfl-Rust Oil Enl OLa 129.9~ FDRIWl TlS8-8 " EKllnslon 12.75 ' 12.6e 1~.46 129.95 Custoltr Signaturl Sub-Total PII. TRI Salt Total Silancl DUI 1\11.76 12.46 1+3.22 143.22 We appreciate your business' " IJh ~',Ii I ')'J; I)'): <;~ 71 ~.71:,j<II/I.l '11:)1 Ir"l~t I. I,'j 11_1l', 111'- ,.'H'lt. 1,1';, lAND 1I1.AIITlIIQ /1,"PLlJI:8 1:t1B'I'O~llIllNl'rll rOOl,1I IlIlMtIU~LIN(J l'III1'J.tlt'AI.lI MAlN'ntNANCe: Boyer Construction & Pool Service 183 MOORE STREET e MILLERSBUIlC, PA 17061 I'HOIlf: (1/T) ....23M Novembe' i. 1996 1h>A \\,~ .' Goodall P~ole, Ino 3501 Simp.on Ferry Road camp Hill, Pa 17011 Dear Hr. G~odall: The wot'k Ilerformed at the re.ithm(;~ of Mr. Coakley was performed Ifor your oompany at Snm's specific requett. Woo were In.tr~oted to bill Goodall Pool. Cor all workl as Sam .tated, you intended to Ad~ additional charges to o~r bill tor t1r. Coakley. Our agreement, was with your. cOlllpany and not with Mr. Coakloy. , , Coaklev hae roleased all work " Hr h reaf , sition regarding 1'IIIod to am We are holUng your oompany rtlsponsible for all chargee a. agreed Jpon by youX' company. If pa~'ment. is /lot recieved by our ot~Lo. in 10 day. from receipt of this letter, we will have '\0 alternative but to submit thil matt'lr to the Di~triot JJetice Office for collections. Sincerely, ~; tf!JJ-ru Brent E. B>yor ____ Hanaqer -oc:;.-. 1 ) ) 1 ) ) ) ) !n The Court of Common Plaas of Cumberland County, ?ennsyl.,ania ~o. 19 OATH We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the C~nstitution of this Common- wealth and that we will discharge the duties of our orfica with fidelity. Chair.nan AWARD We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), ma~. the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) - ~ . Arbitrator, dissents. (!nsert name if applicable. ) Data of Rearing: Chair.nan Date of Award: IroTtC! OF ENTRY OF .\WARD Now, the day of award wae entered upon the doc~at partie. or their attorneys. ,l9 ,at , .li., the above and notice ~eof grv;n bY-mail to the Arbitrators' companaation to be paid upon appaal: $ Prothonotary By: - De\luty , I I I I I I I I COUNT 1 - BREACH OF CONTRACT COAKLEY. ET UX v BOYER CONSTRUCTION AND POOL SERVICE 4. Paragraph 1 through 3 above are incorporated by reference aa though fully set forth at length herein. 5. On or before May, 1996, plaintiffs contacted defendant Goodall, who originally built their swimming pool, to have their pool repainted. 6. Defendant Goodall advised that it did not specialize in re- painting of pool surfaces and advised plaintiffs that it would oontaot defendant Boyer. to repaint the pool for plaintiffs. 7. The oral oontract with defendant Boyer called for re-sanding, caulking, re-surfaoing and repainting of the kldney-shaped pool. 8. Defendant Boyer's repair work on plaintiffs' pool was com- pleted by June, 1996. 9. On or before June, 1996, plaintiff disoovered that the newly surfaced pool was dangerously and abnormally slippery, to the point where plaintiffs forbade the use of the pool by anyone. 10. On or before June, 1996, the plaintiffs contacted defendant Goodall, and requested that they contact defendant Boyer to do a site visit in order to determine the problem with the surface of the pool. 11. On the initial site visit, slight peeling of the paint was apparent, as well as the slippery condition of the pool bottom. -2- 12. As a result of that consultation, defendant Boyer sanded down the pool steps and part of the slope, adding sand to the paint to the steps and surrounding area to create traction for swimmers. 13. On or about July, 1996, plaintiffs discovered that the re- , surfacing of the steps and the slope was inadequate to solve what was an increasingly dangerous situation. 14. In addition to the slippery condition, it became apparent that not only was the newly painted pool peeling, but the pool showed hairline fractures where the paint was peeling. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant Boyer Construction for the sum of One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy- four and 10/100 ($1,674.10) Dollars, representing the refund of the monies paid by the plaintiffs to defendant Boyer under the contraot, plus interest and coats of suit and euch other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. COWIT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT 15. Paragraph 1 though 14 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 16. At all times relevant to this lawsuit the parties herein acted according to the terms of the oral contract. 17. At all times, both parties acted on the belief that the defendant Boyer would specifically perform tho service of re-surfacing -3- and r.epainting the plaintiffs' pool and that defsndant Boyer would be paid accordingly. 18. Plaintiffs aver that they hired the defendant Boyer to repaint the pool based on the recommendation by defendant Goodall that the defendant Boyer was the beat in the area and would perform the work in a profeasional manner, which it was not. 19. Plaintiffs aver that when they became aware that the pool re-surfacing and repainting was incorrectly done, they immediately contacted defendant Goodall to correct the problem, who allegedly then contacted defendant Boyer. 20. Defendant Boyer has continued to deny a problem, and refuses to visit the plaintiff's residence to view its unprofessional and inadequate performance. 21. Defendant Boyer has refused to honor the contract of the re- aurfacing and repainting of the pool, thereby breaching the implied contract between all the partiea. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant Boyer Construction for the eum of One Thoueand Six Hundred Seventy- four and 10/100 ($1,674.10) Dollarn, repreaenting the refund of the monies paid by the plaintiffe to defendant Boyer Construction under the contract, plus interest and costs of suit and such other relief as this Court deema just and appropriate. -4- COUNT III - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 22. Paragraph 1 through 21 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 23. On or about October, 1996, plaintiffs advised both defendant Boyer and defendant Goodall that there was still a problem with the pool. 24. Defendant Goodall determined that the plaintiffs should deal directly with the defendant Boyer cure the defects in the workmanship of the pool repainting and re-surfacing. 25. Plaintiffs have made numerous requests through both certi- fied and un-cer.tified letters, to have defendant Boyer remedy the problem caused by its inadequate and poor quality of workmanship. Copies of which are attached hereto made a part of the record thereof, and marked as Exhibit "A". 26. Defendant Boyer has refused to come to the site to see the problema caused by its failure to use the correct paint on the pool's concrete surface. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment againet the defendant Boyer Construction for the sum of One Thoueand six Hundred Seventy- four and 10/100 ($1,674.10) Dollars, representing the refund of the moniEos paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant Boyer Conatruction under the contract, plus interest and costs of suit and such other relief as this Court deems juat and appropriate. -5- ~OUNT IV - NEOLIGENC~ 27. Paragraph 1 through 26 above are incorporated by referenoe as though full.y set forth at length herein. 28. Defendant Boyer clearly failed to seleot the proper epoxy paint blend that would permanently adhere itself to the pool's oon- orete surfaoe. 29. Defendant Boyer's fallure to se1eot the proper paint caused the paint to bubble, peel and crack, thereby allowing air and water to aeep under the paint and make contact directly with the pool's under- lying concrete base. 30. Because defendant Doyer failed to visit the site for the last year, the pool paint, aurface, and ooping has progremsively peeled and deteriorated to the point where three seasons have passed without any uee of the pool becauee of the inherent dangere created by defendant Boyer's negligence. 31. Defendant Boyer's negligence in aelecting the proper epoxy paint has deprived the plaintiffs of the use and enjoyment of their pool for three seasons. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant Boyer Construction for the aum of One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy- four and 10/100 ($1,674.10) Dollars, representing the refund of the monies paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant Boyer Construction under the contract, plus interest and coats of suit' and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. -6- COUNLV - DAMAGES 32. Para~raph 1 through 31 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 33. An estimate of the costs to repair said damages caused by defendant Boyer to the pool include as followsl A. Pump water out of pool. B. Sandblast concrete bottom of pool to bare concrete. C. Acid bath concrete for additional adhesion purposes. D. Lightly sand or sandblast fiberglass walls and fiber- glass coping. E. Repair hairline cracks. F. Epoxy and grind for a smooth finiah. G. Apply two coats of epoxy paint with roller and brush. H. step area will be re-painted with a sand/paint mixture for slip-resistance. I. Pool will be caulked where fiberglass and concrete meet. J. The estimated coat of A through I will be Four Thousand Four Hundred and NO/IOO ($4,400.00) Dollara. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendant Boyer Construction in the amount of $4,400.00 in damages plus $1,674.10 representing the refund of the monies paid by the plaintiffs to defendant Boyer Construction under the oral contact, for a total in the amo~nt of $6,074.10, together with interests, costa of suit, and such other relief that the Court deems appropriate. -7- COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT COAKLEY. ET UX v GOODAt,L POOLS, INC. 34. P.aragraph 1 through 33 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 35. On or before May, 1996, plaintiffs contacted defendant Goodall, who originally built their swimming pool, to have their pool repainted. 36. Defendant Goodall advised that they did not specialize in re-painting of pool surfacea and advised the plaintiffs that they would contact defendant Boyer to repaint the pool for plaintiffa. 37. The oral contract between defendant Boyer and defendant Goodall called for re-aanding, caulking, re-eurfacing and repainting of the kidney-shaped pool. 38. Defendant Boyer's repair work on plaintiffs' pool was com- pleted by June, 1996, and defendant Boyer aubsequently billed defen- dant Goodall for the work. A copy of said bill is attached hereto made a part of the record thereof, and marked as Exhibit" B" . 39. On or before June, 1996, plaintiff discovered that the newly surfaced pool was dangerously and abnormally slippery, to the point where plaintiffs forbade the use of the pool by anyone. 40. On or before June, 1996, the plaintiffs contacted defendant Goodall, and requested that they contact defendant Boyer to do a site visit in order to determine the problem with the surface of the pool. 41. On the initial site visit, slight peeling of the paint was apparent, as well as the alippery condition of the pool bottom. -8- 42. As a result of that consultation, defendant Boyer sanded down the pool steps and part of the slope, adding sand to the paint to the steps and surrounding area to create traction for swimmers. 43. On or about July, 1996, plaintiffs discovered that the re- eurfacing of the steps and the slope was inadequate to solve what was an increasingly dangerous situation. 44. In addition to the slippery condition, it became apparent that not only was the newly painted pool peeling, but the pool showed hairline fractures beneath where the paint was peeling. 45. Plaintiffs once again instructed Defendant Goodall to contact defendant Boyer regarding the apparent defect. 46. On or before october 14, 1996, defendant Boyer apparently made eome minor superficial repairs that seemed to alleviate the problem, and the plaintiffs approved the repairs. 47. Defendant Boyer evidently contacted defendant Goodall to be paid for their performance, and defendant Goodall refused. 48. The disagreement and subsequent complaint filed by defendant Boyer against defendant Goodall at the diatrict justice has since been resolved betwsen the two defendants. 49. Plaintiff realized once they tried to open their pool for th~ apring senaon, 1997, that a serious problem still existed with respect to the bottom of the pool, the surface texture and the peeling of the paint. -9- 50. Theee defecte prevent the pla.intiffe from enjoying the uee of their pool until the repaire are completed in a eafe, professional and eatiefactory manner by either defendant herein named. WHEREFORE, pla.intiffs demand judgment against the Defendant Goodall Poole for the eum of One Thoueand six Hundred Seventy-four and 10/100 ($1,674.10) Dollare, repreaenting the refund of the moniee paid by the plaintiffa to defendant Goodall under the contract, plus interest and coete of euit and ouch other relief as thie Court deema juet and appropriate. COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT 51. Paragraph 1 though 50 above are incorporated by reference ae though fully Bet forth at length herein. 52. At all timee, relevant to thie lawsuit, the parties herein acted according to the terme of the oral contract. 53. At all times, both partiea acted on the belief that the defendant Boyer would apecifically perform the service of re-surfacing and repainting the plaintiffa' pool and that defendant Boyer would be paid accordingly. 54. Plaintiffs aver that they hired the defendant Boyer to repaint the pool job baaed on the recommendation by defendant Goodall that the defendant Boyer waa the beet in the area and would perform the work in a profeesional manner, which it was not. -10- 55. Plaintiffs aver that when they became apparent that the pool re-surfacing and repainting was incorrectly done, they immediately contacted defendant Goodall to correct the problem. 56. Defendant Boyer has continued to deny a problem, and refuses to even look at their inadequate job at what allegedly ia their specialty. 57. Defendant Boyer has refused to honor the contract of the re- surfacing and repainting of the pool, thereby breaching the implied contract between the parties. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant Goodall Pools for the sum of One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-four and 10/100 ($1,674.10) Dollars, representing the refund of the monies paid by the plaintiffs to defendant Goodall under the contract, plus interest and costo of suit and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate., COUNT III - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 58. Paragraph 1 through 57 above are incorporated by reference as thou~h fully set forth at length herein. 59. On or about October, 1996, plaintiffs advised both the defendant Boyer and defendant Goodall that there was still a problem with the pool. -11- 60. It was determined that the plaintHfs should deal directly with the defendant Boyer to cure the defecta in the workmanship of the pool repainting and re-surfacing. 61. Plaintiffs have made numerous requests through both certi- fied and un-certified letters, to have defendant Boyer remedy the problem caused by its inadequate and poor quality of workmanship. Copies of which are attached hereto made a part of the record thereof, and marked as Exhibit "A". 62. Defendant Boyer has refused to come to the site to see the problems caused by its failure to ueo the correct paint on the pool'S concrete surface. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant Goodall poola for the sum of One Thouaand six Hundred Seventy-four and 10/100 ($1,674.10) Dollars, representing the refund of the monies paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant Goodall under the contract, plus interest and costs of suit and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. -12- COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE 63. Paragraph 1 through 62 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 64. Defendant Boyer clearly failed to select the proper epoxy paint blend that would permanently adhere itself to the pool'a con- crete surface, 65. Defendant Boyer's failure to select the proper paint cauDed the paint to bubble, peel and crack, thereby allowing air and water to Deep under the paint and make contact directly with the pool's under- lying ooncrete base. 66. Becauac defendant Boyer failed to viait the site for the laat year, the pool paint, surface, and ooping has progressively peeled and deteriorated to the point where three seasons have passed without any use because of the inherent dangers created by defendant's negligence. 67. Defendant Boyer's negligence in selecting the proper epoxy paint has caused plaintiff a to loae the use and enjoyment of their pool for three sessons. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant Goodall Pools for the sum of One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-four and 10/100 ($1,674.10) Dollara, representing the refund of the monies paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant Goodall under the contract, plus interest and costs of suit and such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. -13- COUNT V - DAMAGES 68. Paragraph 1 through 67 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 69. An estimate of the costs to repair said damages caused by , the defendant to the pool include as followa: A. Pump water out of pool. B. Sandblast concrete bottom of pool to bare concrete. c. Acid bath concrete for additional adhesion purposes. D. Lightly sand or sandblast fiberglaas walls and fiber- glass coping. E. Repair hairline cracks. F. Epoxy and grind for a smooth finish. G. Apply two coats of epoxy paint with roller and brush. H. Step area will be re-painted with a sand/paint mixture for slip-resietance. I. Pool will be caulked where fiberglass and concrete meet. J. The estimated cost of A through I will be Four Thousand Four Hundred and NO/100 ($4,400.00) Dollars. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment again~t the defendant Goodall Poole in the amount of $4,400.00 in damages plus $1,674.10 representing the refund of the monies paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant Goodall under the oral contact, for a total in the amount of -14- $6,074.10, together with costs of suit, and suoh other relief that the Court deems appropriate. STONE LaFAVER & STONE ) -, . ONE, Es.qui e E -15- RICHARD COAKLEY and SUSAN COAKLEY, husband and wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA v. NO. 97.'70agCIVIL TERM BOYER CONSTRUCTION & POOL SERVICE, t Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. GOODALL 'POOLS, INC., Defendant DEFENDANT BOYER CONSTRUCTION & POOL SERVICE'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 4. Paragraph of Incor~orationl No Response Required. 5. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the averments of paragraph 4. 6 , Denied. The Defendant was not contacted by the Plaintiffs. The Defendant was contacted by Goodall Pools. 7. Denied. There was no contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs. All recommendations and requests from the Coakleys were made through Goodall Pools. The Defendant was hired by Goodall Pools to repaint and recaulk only, 8. Admitted. 9. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny this averment. 10. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the nature and content of any contacts between the Plaintiffs and Goodall Pools. Defendant was contacted by Goodall Poola in mid-August, 1996. Defendant was not made aware of the allegations of slippery conditions until September 5, 1996. 11. Admitted in part I denied in part. It ia admitted that there was a very slight peeling of paint on the top edge of the coping band. It is denied that the slippery condition of the pool bottom was apparent. The Defendant did not check the pool bottom. 12. Admitted, The site visit took place in August, 1996, The work was actually done in October, 1996. The Plaintiffs would not allow the Defendant to do the, work until after the swimming season. 13. Denied. The resurfacing of th.e steps and slope were not done until October, 1996. 14. Denied. The slippery condition was never apparent, and any peeling was very minimal. COUNT II -- BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT 15. Paragraph of Incorporation, No Response Required, 16. Denied. There was no contract of any kind between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. 17. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the pool was to be repainted, It is denied that it was to be resurfaced, 18. Denied, The Plaintiffs did not hire the Defendant. The work was done in as professional manner as possible given the Plaintiffs requirements and constraints, 19. Denied. The Defendant's first contact regarding any problems with Plaintiffs' pool was with Goodall pools, on August 6, 1996. 20. Admitted in part I denied in part. It is admi tted that the Defendant ha~ refused to look at the job. The Plaintiffs' contract was with Goodall Pools, not the Defendant. 21, Denied. There was no contract between the parties I implied or otherwise, The Defendant was retained by Goodall Pools to repaint and recaulk the pool. COUNT III -- BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 22. Paragraph of Incorporation. No Response Required. 23. Denied. On October 4/ 1996/ Plaintiffs advised both the Defendallt and Goodall Pools that they were satisfied wit.h the work done by the Defendant. 24. Denied. The Defendant is not aware that such a determination was ever made, 25, Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant has received letters from the Plaintiffs. The Defendant denies any suggestion that his workmanshil;:> was inadequate and of poor quality. 26. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitt.ed that the Defendant refuses to return to the site. The Defendant denies any suggestion that any problems the Plaintiffs might be experiencing with his pool were caused by its negligence. ~ IV - - NEGLIGENCE 27. Paragraph of IncorporatIon. No Response Required. 28. Denied, The Defendant did not select the paint,. The Defendant used the type of paint r.equested by the Plaintiffs. 29, Denied. The Defendant used the paint requested by the Plaintiffs. 30. Denied. Non~ of the problems the Plaintiffs have allegedly been experiencing with 'their pool were caused by the Defendant's failure to visit the site. Only two swimming seasons have passed since June, 1996. 31. Denied. The Defendant applied a rubber-based paint per the Plaintiffs' instructions, COQNT V -- DAMAGES 32. Paragraph of Incol;poration. No Response Required. 33, Denied. The Plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement for work that far exceeds the scope of the work Goodall Pools had the Defendant do on their behalf. Paragraphs 34 through 69 are against another Defendant, and are not responded to herein, NEW M,ATTER 70. Paragraphs 1-69 are incorporated herein by reference. 71. In May, 1996/ the Defendants were contacted by Goodall Pools regarding the repainting and recaulking that needed to be done on the Plaintiff's pool. 72. The Defendant was hired by Goodall Pools to repaint and recaulk the pool, He advised the Plaintiffs that the old paint should be removed prior to repainting or his new paint job would only be as good as the old one. He was advised to paint on top of the old paint anyway, 73, The Plaintiffs advised the Defendants and Goodall Pools as to the kind of paint that was to be used and which areas of the pool were to be painted. 74. Pursuant to the Plaintiff's request, the Defendant used a chlorinated rubber-based paint on the pool and not an epoxy paint as they stated in their complaint. 75. The Defendant advised the Plaintiffs not to paint the fiberglass and that the type of paint they were requesting was not recommended for the sides of the pool, They told him to proceed as they had requested and that they would be responsible for any subsequent problems. 76. The Defendant expressly refused to warranty the work done on the Plaintiffs' pool because the Plaintiffs had ignored hili! recommendations. 77. The Defendant had comFleted work on the Plaintiffs' pool by June, 1996, It was not advised of any problems or complaints until mid August, 1996, and then was not permitted to commence repair work until late September. 78. In December, 1996, Goodall Pools paid the Defendant in full for the Coakley job. WHEREFORE, Defendant, BOYER CONSTRUCTION AND POOL COMPANY, respectfully requests that the Compalint against it be dismissed. , Respectfully submitted, ~6~ttl ~ Barbara . Patton, Esquire ALLEN FFER & ASSOCIATES 129 Market Street Millersburg, PA 17061 (717) 692-2345 DATE: /-:2./- r</ RICHARD COAKCE;Y and SUSAN COAKI,EY, husband antl wife, Plaintiffs v. IN TilE COURT OF CmlMON PLEAS OF CUHUEI\LAND COUN'CY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-7028 CIVIL TERM 1998 BOYER CONSTRUCTION & POOL SERVICE, Defendant v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GOODALL POOLS, INC. RULE 1312~1. The Petici.:>n f.:>~ App.:>intm~nt of ,\~bit~ato~s shall be substantially in the foliowing Co~m; PETITION FOR ,\PPOUITIIENT OF ARUITRATORS TO THE HONOMBLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: ELIZABETH B. STONE, Esquire . counsel for the pLlintHU~K~IU~ in the above 1. 2. action (o~ accions), respflctfull%.~~~resenes that: The above-captioned actionXMX.tM."O~lfj( is (M.JS clt issue. The claim of the plaintiff Ln the action is $ under $10,000 nle counte~claim of the defendant in the action is nl a The following atto~l\sys are interested Ln the case(s) as counsel o~ are othe~- wise disqualified to sit as arbit~ators: DAVID H. STONE, Esq. CHARLES H. STONE, Esquire, GERALD SKEKLETSKI, Esq., JON LaFAVER, E'!fq. WlIEREFORE. your petitioner prays your Honorable Cou~t to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectful+y submitted, / ORDER OF COURT ~-' ./ -.- L-.--- --~ ..lL c.. '-'>-,\ AND NOW, 2,1- , 19 , in consideration of the :fi-l~ /I)A// C}) ;,' );[{l,c/~_iL to ugo ing petition. Esq. , ( /fft-Jk~ -1;((/ (I Esq., and , Esq., 3re appointed arbit~ators in the above~captioned aceion (or actions) aa p~ayed for. P. J. , pd\.l.\l..rvl~..a.r CERTIFICATE OF SIm!m.lJj I, Elizabeth B. Stone, Attorney at Law, of the law firm of Stone LaFaver & Shekletski, attorneys for Plaintiffs, Riohard L. Coakley and Susan P. Coakley, do oertify that on this date I served a true and oorrect oopy of the within instrument on Defendante' counsel of reoord by first claes mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows I Daniel J. Poruban, Esquire Law Officea of Ralph Touoh 401 Penn Street, Suite 100 Reading, PA 19601 Rebeoca J. Margerum, Esquire Law Offices of Allan Shaffer 129 Market Street Millersburg, PA 17061 & Aseociates / ./ ~ / ---~ .-- ~.-/' Stone Law Id. 1160251 DATE I LI- \'1- '1~ 2, Denied, To the exlenlthe ullegatlons of the corresponding pllrngl'llph constitule factullluvennenls, the sume ure deemed to be denied due to the Iilclthllt IIller II rellsonuhle investigution, Answering Defendllnt is without sullicient inlormlltion or knowledge to lormu belief as to the truth \11' Iillsity of such ulleglltion, Proof of slime is hereby dennmded lit the time of trilll. 3. Admitted. ~OUNT 1- IJREACH 011 CONTRACT COAKLEY. ET lJX V. IJOYER CONSTRUCTION AND POOL SE~VICE 4. Answering Defendant hereby incorporales by reference prior paragraphs I through 3 above as though more fully set forth hereinaller, 5. Denied, To the extent the allegalions of Ihe corresponding paragraph conslitute factualuverments, Ihe same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that aller a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sullicient information or knowledge 10 lorm a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same i3 hereby demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied, To the extent the allegations oflhe corresponding paragraph constilute factual averments, the same arc deemed to be dellied due to the fact that aileI' a reasonuble investigation, Answering Defendant is without sullicient information or knowledge 10 form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded ut the time of lrial. I I I I 7, Denied, To the extent thl) allegations of the corresponding pllrngrnph constitute leglll conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursullnllo Ihe applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the IIl1eglltiuns of Ihe ' corrcsponding parngrnph constitutc lilctual avermcnts, the Sllmc lire dcemed to be denied due to thc tllctthllt litleI'll rCllsonllble investiglltion, Answe:ring De:fcndllnt is without sutlicient informlltion 01' knowledge to form II belief liS 10 the truth or llllsity of such llllegation, Proof of same is hereby de:nlllnded at the lime of trial. 8. Denied, To the extent the IIl1egations of the corresponding pllrngrnph constitute factual averments, the slime lire deemcd to be dCllied due: to thc Iilctthllllltler II rellsonllble investiglllion, Answering Defendllnt is without sutlicicnt infonlllltion or knowlcdgc to form II bclicf liS to the truth or Iillsity of such alleglltion, Proof of slime is hcreby demanded lit the time of lrial. 9, Denied, To the extent the IIl1eglltions of the corresponding paragmph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied withoutlitrthcr response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegalions of the corresponding pamgraph constitute fllctulIl averments, the same lire deemed to be denied due to the factthllt after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sullicient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 10, Denied, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the f.1ct that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sull1cient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. II, Denied, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sullicient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allcgation, Proof of same is hereby dcmanded at the time of trial, 12. Denied. To the exlent the allegations of the corresponding pnl'llgl'llph constitule , factual averments, the same are deemed 10 be denied due to the lact Ihat aileI' a reasOllllble investigation, Answering Defendant is without sutlicient information or knowledge to forma belief as to the trulh 01' lalsily of such allegation. Proof of same is hereby demanded at the lime of trial. 13. Denied. To the extenl the nllegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without lurther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To Ihe extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, Ihe slime are deemed to be denied due to ,the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is wilhout sullicient information or knowledge to form a belief as to Ihe truth or lalsily of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at Ihe lime of Irial. 14. Denied. To the extent the allegations of the corresponding pal'llgraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without lurther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To Ihe extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sullicient , information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiffs, and thus prays that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, COUNT 11- BREACH OF WARRANTY 15. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference prior paragraphs 1 through 14 above as though more fully set forth hereinaller, 16, Denied, To the extent the allegalions oflhe corresponding pnrugraph constilute legal conclusions, the same arc deemed to be denied without lhrlher response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To Ihe extent the allegnlions of the corresponding paragruph constilute tilclualaverments, the same lire deemcd to be denied due to the fllCllhat after 1I reasonable invesligation, Answering Defendant is wilhout sullicienl informal ion or knowledge 10 forma belief liS to the Iruth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demllnded at the time of trial. 17, Denied, To the extcnt the allegations of the corrcsponding paragraph conslitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be dcnied without Ihrther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Proceclure, To the extcnt Ihe allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sulliciel1t information or knowledge to lonn a belief as to the lruth or falsity of such 1I11egation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at Ihe time oflrial. 18, Denied, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding parllgraph constitule legal conclusions, the same arc deemed to be denied without thrther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constilute factual averments, the same arc deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 19, Denied, To the extenl the allegations of the corresponding paragl'aph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegalions of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to Ihe fact Ihat after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient , inlbrmatlon or knowledgc to form a bclicf a~ to thc truth or Iill~ity of ~uch IIl1egalion, Proof of ~allle i~ hereby demanded at the Iimc oftrilll. 20. Denied, The llllegation~ contained In the corre~ponding pnragrnph pertllinto II Defendant other Ihan An~wering Defendllnt. 21. Denied. The IIl1eglllions contlllned in the corresponding pllrllgrllph pertain to II Defendant other than Answering Defendllnt. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment be entered in Iheir lavor IInd against Plainlill's, and thus prays Ihat PlaintilTs' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT III- BREACH OF lMPLlEO WARRANTY 22. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by referencc prior partlgrnphs 1 through 21 above as though more fully set lbrth hereinafter, 23. Denied, To Ihe extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable Investigation, Answering Delendant is wilhout sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the lime of trial. 24. Denied, To the extent Ihe allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without lllrther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To Ihe extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitutlJ factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient , inlbrmation or knowledge to form a belief as to Ihe truth or falsity of such allcgation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 25. Denied. To the extentlhe IIl1eglltions of the corresponding plll'llgrllph constitute leglll conclusions, Ihe slime nre deemed to be denicd wilhout t\lrlher response pursullntto the opplicllble Pcnnsylvllnill Rulcs of Civil Procedure, Tllthe extentlhe III1L~glltlons of thc corrcsponding pllrllgrllph constitute Iilctulllllvermcnls, thc sllmc IIrc dcemc(llo be dcnicd due to the lllctthlllllller a rcasonable invcsliglltion, Answcring Dcfcndllnt is without sutlicient inlormation or knowledgc to form II belief liS to the truth or Iillsity of such IIl1eglltion. Proof of same is hereby demanded lit the time of trial. 26, Denied. To the cxtenllhe allegations of the corresponding paragrllph constitute legal conclusions, the Slime are decmed to be denied wilhoullltrther rcsponse pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extcntthe allegalions of thc corrcsponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemcd to be denied duc to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sutlicient informalion or knowledge to form II belief as to the tmth or f.1lsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answcring Defendllnt dcmands judgment be cntered in their favor and against Plaintilr.~, and thus prays that Plaintills' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, COllNT IV - NEgLIGENCE 27, Answering Defendant hercby incorporates by refercnce prior paragraphs I Ihrough 26 above as though more fully set forth hereinaller, 28. Denied, The allegations contained in thc corresponding paragraph pertain 10 a Defendant othcr thlln Answering Defendant. 29, Dcnied, The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph pertain to a Defendant other than Answering Defcndant, 30. Dllnied. The nllllgatlons contllined in thll corresponding purugruph pertuin to u Defendunt other Ihun Answllring Delcndant. 3 I. Denied, The ullegutions contuined in the corresponding pllrugruph Pllrtain to II Defendant othllr than Answllring Dlltcndllnt. WIIEREFORE, Answering Defendant demandsjudgmllnt be entered in their tlwor and against Plaintitls, und Ihus prays thai Plaintitls' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT V - DAMAGES 32, Answering Defendunt hereby incorporules by referllnce prior paragl'nphs 1 through 31 above as though more fully set forth hereinafter, 33. (A - 1.) Denied. The allegations contained ill the corresponding parugruph pertain to a Defendalll other than Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiffs, and thus prays that Plaintitls' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRAC'[ COAKLEY. ET UX V. GOODALL POOLS. INC, 34, Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference prior paragraphs I through 33 above as though more fully set forth hereinafler, 35. Denied, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute faclual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due 10 the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sutlicient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth 01' thlsity of such allcgallon. Proof of same Is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 36. Dcnied, To the cxtenllhe allegations of the corresponding parllgrllph conslitute faclual lIvcrmenls, the same are deemcd to be dcnicd duc 10 thc tacllhat IIller a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without suflicicnt information or knowledge to tann II belief liS to the trulh or I1llsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded lit the time of trial. 37. Denied, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same lire deem~d to be denied without thrthcr response pursuant to the lIPplicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent the allegalions of Ihe corresponding paragraph conslitute thctualaverl1lents, the same are deemed 10 be denied due to the fact that aileI' a reasonable invesligation, Answering Defendant is without sutlicient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 38, Denied, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant 10 the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegalions of the corrr.sponding paragraph constitute tactual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due 10 the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sutlicient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 39. Denied, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuantm the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To Ihe extent the allegations of the cOn'esponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sutlicient infbnl1ation or knowledge 10 form II belief liS 10 the tnllh or Illlsily of such IIl1eglltion. Proof of slime is hereby demanded lit Ihe time oftrilll. 40, Denied. To the extenl the IIl1eglltions of the corresponding pllrngrnph constitute leglll conclusions, the same lire deemed to be denied without Illrther response pursullnt to Ihe applicable Pennsylvllnill Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the IIl1egations of the corresponding pllrngrnph conslilule fnctulllllverments, the slime lire deemed to be denied due to the fnct thllt liner II reasonllble investiglllion, Answering Defendllnt is without sutlicient informlltion or knowledge to form II belief as to the tntth or lillsity of such alleglltion, Proof of slime is hereby demllnded at the time of Irial. 41. Denied. To Ihe extent the allegalions of the corresponding parngrnph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied withoutlurther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To Ihe extent the allegations of the corresponding paragrnph constitute factual averments, the same arc deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable invesligation, Answering Defendanl is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the Intth or fnlsity of such allegation. Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 42, Denied, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicuble Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same arc deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sutlicient informalion or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial, 43, Denied, To Ihe extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the exlent the allegations of the corrcsponding pllragraph constltulC Inctulllaucrmcnts, thc sllmc arc dccmcd to bc dcnicd duc to , the tact tllllt IIncr II rCllsonllble invcstiglllion, Answcring Dcfcndllnt is without sulllcicnt information or knowlcdgc 10 IllI"IlllI bclicf liS to Ihc lmth or lillsity of such ullcgatloll. Proof of sume is hereby demundcd ulthc limc of trilll. 44. Denied, To thc cxtcnllhc IIl1cgations ofthc corrcsponding puragrnph conslitutc legul conclusions, the sumc ure decmcd to bc dcnied withoutlurthcr rcsponsc pursuunt 10 the applicable Penn sylvan ill Rules of CivilProcedurc, To thc extclll thc IIl1egutions of thc corresponding paragraph conslitutc Iilctual avermcnts, the slime lire decnwd 10 be dcnicd duc to Ihe fllct thut aner a rellsonllblc investiglllion, Answering Defendant is without sullicicnl inlormation or knowledge to tonllll belief liS to till: tmth or llllsity of such allcglltion. Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 45, Dcnied, To the cxlent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph conslilute legal conclusions, the same are deemcd to be denied without tlll1her responsc pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the cxtent thc allegations of thc corresponding paragraph constitute faclUal avcrmenls, the same are deemed to be denied due 10 the fact that after a reasonuble investigalion, Answering Defendant is without sullicient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the IMh or lalsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial, 46, Denied, To Ihe extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the samc are deemed to be denied withoutlurther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegutions of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed 10 be denied due to the fact that after a reusonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sulTIcient information or knowledge to formu belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 47. Denied, To the e:'(tent thc IIl1eglllionN oflhc corresponding pllrl\grnph constitute leglll conclusions, Ihe slime lire deemed to hc denied without Ilmher response pursullntlo the IIpplicllble Pennsylvllnill Rules of Civil Procedure. To the exlcntthe IIl1cglltionN of Ihe corrcsponding pllrngrllph conslilute lactullllluerments, the slime lire deemed to be denicd due to the Iilctlhat allcr II reasonllble Investiglltion, Answering Defendllnt is without sufllclent Inlannalion or knowledge to tann a belicf liS 10 the lruth or Iillsity of such allcglllion, Proof of samc is hcreby demanded at the time of trial. 48. Denied, To the e:'(tent the IIl1cgations oflhe corresponding pllrngn\ph constitute legal conclusions, the same arc deemed to be dcnied without lurlher response pursulIJltto the applicllble Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the alleglltions of the corresponding pllragmph constitute factulllllverments, Ihe slime lire dcemed to be denied due to the fllct Ihataller II reasonable investiglllion, Answering Defendant is wilhout sufticient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or flllsily of such alleglltion, Proof of same is hereby demllnded at the time of trial. 49, Denied, To the exlentthe allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuanlto the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the exlcntthe allegalions of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufllcient informalion or knowledge to lonn a belief as to the trulh or falsity of such allcgation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 50. Denied. To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph conslitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To Ihe extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute tactual averments, the same arc deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is wilhollt sufllcient inforllllltlon or knowledge to forlll II belief liS to Ihe truth or fillslty of such IIl1eglltion. Proof of SlIllle is hereby delllllnded lit the time oflriul. WIIEItEI10ItE, Answering Del'endlllll delllllnds judgment be entered in their tilvor und uguinst PllIintillil, und thus pl'llys thut PllIlnlill's' Compluint be dismissed with prejudice. COllNT II . Im~~ACII OI1IMI'LIED CONTRACT 51. Answering Defendllnt hereby incorporutes by reference prior purngl'llphs I through 50 IIbo'le liS though more tlllly set forlh hereinllller. 52, Denied, To the extent the IIl1eglltions of the corresponding plll'llgl'llph constitule legal conclusions, the sume are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extelll the allcglltions of the corresponding paragl'llph constitute filctualaverments, the same are deellled to bl1 denied due to the facl that after a rellsonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to forl11 a belief as to the tmth or 1:1lsity of such IIl1egation. Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 53, Denied, To the extenl the alleglltions of the corresponding pllragraph constitule legal conclusions, the same lire deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the IIpplicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the tMh or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 54, Denied, To the extent the ullegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed te) be denied without fllrther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding pnrngn\llh constllute lactunlnvennents, lhe snme lire deemed to be dl>nied due 10 lhe IIICI thnlntler n rensonnble inucsllgnlion, Answering Ddcndllnl is wlthoUl sullicient informlllion or knowledge 10 form II belief 115 10 Ihe tnuh or IIllsily of such IIl1eglllion, Proof of slime Is hereby delllllnded nlthe time of trilll. 55, Denied. To Ihe extenllhe IIl1eglltions of the corresponding (lnrllgn\ph constitute leglll conclusions, the slime lire deem cd to be denied without Illrthcr response pursullnt to the applicllble Pennsylvnnia Rulcs of Civil Proccdurc. To the exlent thc allegations of the corrcsponding parngn\ph constitute IIIClUlIl averments, thc slime lire deemcd 10 be denied due to thc fact Ihat atler a reasonnble invcstigation, Answcring Dcfendanl is without sullicicnt informlltion or knowledge to form a bclicf liS to the truth or talsity of such allegallon, Proof of slImc is hereby dcnlllnded at the time of trial. 56. Denied. To the extentlhc IIl1cgations of thc corresponding pnrllgrnph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to bc denied without furthcr response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To lhe extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the Slune are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defcndant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the tmth or falsity of such allegation. Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 57, Denied, To the extent the allcgations of the corresponding paragraph conslitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that aller a reaso!.able investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufiicient information or knowledge to form a belief as 10 the tmth or falsity of such allcgation. Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of lrinl. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendnnl denlllndsjudgment be entered in their fiwor and IIgninst Plaintitl's, IInd Ihus pmys thai Pluintil1i;' Complulnl be dismissed with prejudice, COUNT III- D1U3ACIl ('I1IMI'I,IEI) WAlmANTY 58. Answering Defendllnt hereby incorpomtes by reference prior pnrngmphs 1 through 57 nbove liS though more tully set forth hereinal\er. 59. Denied, To Ihe ex lent the ullegations of the corresponding pnmgmph constitute legnl conclusions, the same arc deemed to bc denied without turther response pursuant to the IIppllcuble Pennsylvunia Rules of Civil Procedure, To the exlent the allegutions of the corresponding pUl'llgraph constitute tactual averments, the sume arc deemed 10 be denied due to the fact that after II reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without suflicient informalion or knowledge to form a belief as 10 the tmth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at Ihe time of trial. 60. Denied, To the extent the ullegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same arc deemed to be denied without tllrther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constilute f.1ctual averments, the same arc deemed to be denied due to the fact that nfter a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without suflicient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the tmth or falsity of such allegation, Proof of same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 61, Denied. To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constilute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to he denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without suflicient infonnlllion or knowledge to form II belief liS to the truth or Iitlsily of such IIl1eglltion, Proof of slime is hereby demllnded III the lime of trilll, 62. Denied. To Ihe extent the IIl1eglltlons of Ihe cOlTesponding pllnlgrllph constitute leglll conclusions, the SlIme lire deemed to be denied without lllrther response pursullnlto the IIppliCllble Pennsylvllnill Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the IIl1eglltions of the corresponding pllrllgraph constitute IiIClulllllverments, the slime lire deemed to be denied due to Ihe fllct that lifter a reasonable investiglllion, Answering Defendlult is without suflicient information or knowledge to form II belief liS to the truth or talsity of such allegation, Proof of slime is hereby demanded at the lime of trilll, WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment be entered in their favor IInd IIgllinst Plaintiffs, and thus pmys thllt PlaintitlS' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE 63. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference prior paragraphs I through 62 above as though more fully set forth hereinafter. 64, Denied. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph pertain to a Defendant other than Answering Defendllnt, 65, Denied, The allegations contllined in the corresponding paragraph pertain to a Defendant other Ihan Answering Defendant. 66, Denied, To the extent the alleglltions of the corresponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without turther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual avermcnts, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact Ihllt aftcr a reasonablc investigalion, Answering Defendant is without suflicicnt 82. Answering Dcfcndant atalltimcs uctcd rcasonubly, pnldcnlly, propcrly, conscientiously and with thc tullcal due care, 83. The accidenl dcscribed inl'laintitl's' Complaint may huuc been cuused by the abuse, misuse or non-intendcd abnol'lllal use of Ihe product in questionntler itletl the possession Ilnd control of the Answering Defendant. It is thrther IlvelTed thutany such ubuse, misuse or abnormul use of this product was unforesecllble by the Answering Defendant. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment be entered in their IIIVor und against Plaintiffs, and thus prays that Plaintill's' Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 22521d) Goodllll Pools. IlIe.. v. Dover Construction & Pool Sel'Vice 84. Answering Defendanl hereby incorporntes by reference prior paragrnphs I through 83 above as though more fully set forth hereinatlcr, 85, Answering Dctendant denies any liability to thc Plaintill's on the claims of the Plaintitls as set forlh In their Complaint againslthe Answering Delendants, 86, If it judicially determined that the allegations in the Plllintiff.~' Complaint permit a rccovery, then In such event, (Co )-Defendant, Boyer Construction & Pool Servicc, is alone liable to thc Plaintitls and no liability rests with Answering Defendant, Goodall Pools, Inc, 87, Ifit is determined that Answering Dclendant, Goodall Pools, Inc" is in any way liable to the Plllintitl's for any damages which PlaintitlS may havc sustained, the existence of any such liability being expressly denied, then in such event, Answering Delendant, Goodall Pools, Inc" avers that (Co )-Defendunl, Boycr Construction and Pool Servicc, is jointly liable with Answering Defendant, Goodall Pools, Inc" to the Plaintiffs, or is liable over by way of contrihution and indemnification to Answering Defendant, Goodall Pools, Inc" for any verdict recovernble by Plaintiffs, VERIFICATION The undersigned, being duly sworn according to IIIW, deposes und suys Ihut he is counsel for the part} or purtieE indicated on the preceding page liS being represented by slIid counsel, Ihllt he has examined the pleadings IInd the entire invesligalive tile made on behlllf of said pllrty or parties, that he is taking this verificatiol1to assure compliance with Ihe pertinenl rules pertaining to limely filing of pleadings and olher documents described by said rules; and that the facts set forth in the tbregoing document are lrue and correct to the best of his knowledge, intormlltion and belief The undersigned understands thai the slatements therein are made subject 10 the penalties of 18 PA C.S.A, SECTION 4904 relating to unsworn falsificlllion to authorities. The Verification of the attorney is being IIttached hereto because the Verification of the Defendant(s) cannot be obtained in the time allowed tor filing of the subject pleading with the Court. The executed Verification of the Defendant(s) will be filed liS soon as it is obtained, Date:~ \ Dame .. ~ ~ . LAW OFFICES OF RALPH F. TOUCH BY: Daniel J. Poruban, Esquire 401 Penn Street, Suite 100 Reading, PA 19601 610-320-4780 Atty. 10 # 64604 Attorney for Defendants, GoodalI Pools, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Richard Coakley anc\ Susan Coakley, ) husband anr! wife, ) CNIL DIVISION ) PLAINTIFFS, ) NO. 97-7028 ) VS. ) ) Boyer Construction & Pool Service, ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ) VS. ) ) GoodalI Pools, Inc., ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ) ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance In the above-entitled matter on behalf of the Defendant, Goodall Pools, Inc.. Dated~J Q Daniel J. Po u Attorney for De dants, Goodall Pools, Inc. .JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PANEL OF lWEL VE JURORS REQUESTED >, o;\J -- ''1';' "'. le- ~; 8 :'i W:~? , - ~ , .-- .': : ~ii' .~_: -, ;(:, In l I.L . , ~~~ -"':.1.; _.. !'-JI.U ...-r. t.,'..: IJ.. ' 'i!-' -; -- ..;~ t5 co .~") <:n u , .., , RICHARD COAKLEY and SUSAN COAKLEY, husband and wife, plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA v. NO. 97-702B CIVIL, TERM BOYER CONSTRUCTION & POOL SERVICE, Defendant I CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. GOODALL POOLS, INC., Defendant I, BARBARA J. PATTON, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Defendant Boyer Construction & Pool Service's Answer to plaintiff's complaint, and New Matter, was forwarded by first class mail, postage pre-paid, on this 5th day of February, 199B, to the following: Elizabeth B. Stoner Esquire Stone, LaFaver/ & Stone 414 Bridge Street P.O. Box E New Cumberland, PA 17070 Daniel J. poruban, Esquire Law Offices of Ralph F. Touch 401 Penn Streett suite 100 Reading, P~/;~k601-? Ii/V:t<'~ if)'/ " V,it'~jtid >, tt. '-- Barbar~J. Patton, Esquire ALLEN SHAFFER & ASSOCIATES 129 Market Street Millersburg, PA 17061 (717) 692-2345, Attorney for Defendant Boyer Construction & pool Service DATE: February 5/ 199B tions of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be donied due to the fact that after a reasonable I : I I,' , I I investigation, Plaintif.s are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief ae to the truth or faleity of such allega- tion. Proof ie hereby demanded at time of trial. 72. Denied. To the extent that the allegatione of the corre- sponding paragraph cone':itute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without fUl:ther reeponee pureuant to the applicable penneylvania Rules of C~vil Procedure. To the extent that the allega- tions of the correspond:.ng paragraph constitute factual avermente, the same are deemed to be d"nied due to the fact that after a reaeonable inveetigation, Plaintif~s are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a bel~ef as to the truth or faleity of such allega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 73. Denied. To the extent that the allegatione of the corre- sponding paragrap~ constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without fu:"t.her reeponse purBuant to the applicable penneylvania Rules of C~vil Procedure. To the extent that the allega- tions of the correspond:.lIg paragraph constituts factual ave,rments, the same are dsemed to be donied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Pl~intif~B are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 74. Denied. To the extent that the allegations of the corre- sponding par.agraph const.itute legal conclusione, the same are deemsd -2- to be denied without fu~ther response purauant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of c:.vil Procedure. To the extent that the allega- tions of the correspond~ng paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be dnnied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintif~s are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a bel~ef as to the truth or falsity of such allega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 75. Denied. To the extent that the allegations of the corre- sponding paragraph cona~itute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without fur.ther response pureuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of C:.vil Procedure. To the extent that the allega- tions of the correspond~ng paragraph constitute factual averments, the sarne are deemed to be dnnied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintif~s are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a beL.ef as to the truth or falsity of such allega- tion. Proof is hereby (~emanded at time of trial. 76. Denied. To t~e extent that the allegatione of the corre- sponding paragraph cons~:itute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without further response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of C~vil Procedure. To the extent that the allega- tions of the correepond~ng paragraph constitute factual averments, the eame are deemed to be dnnied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintif~s are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a bel:.ef as to the truth or falsity of such aJ.lega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. -3- 77. penied. To the extent that the allegations of the corre- sponding paragraph cona~itute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without fu~the~ response pursuant to the applicable Pennaylvania Rules of c:.vil procedure. To the extent that the allega- tiona of the correspond~ng paragraph constitute factual avermenta, the sarno are deemed to be dnnied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, 1:>laintiEs are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a bel:.ef as to the truth or falsity of such allega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 78. penied. To the extent that the allegations of the corr.e- sponding paragraph cons~itute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without fu~ther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of C~vil Procedure. To the extent that the allega- tiona of the correspond~ng paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be dnnied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintif::s are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a bel~ef as to the truth or falsity of auch allega- tion. Proof ia hereby demanded at time of trial. 79. Denied. To the extent that the allegations of the corre- sponding paragraph cons~itute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without fur.ther response pursuant to the applicable Penneylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that the allega'. tiona of ,the correspond:.ng paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be dnnied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintif:s are without sufficient information or -4- knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 80. Denied. To t~e extent that the allegations of the corre- sponding paragraph cons~itute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without; fu::ther response pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rulee of c:.vil Procedure. To the extent that the allega- tions of the correspond:.ng pl.l.ragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a bel~ef as to the truth or falsity of such allega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 81. Denied. To the extent that the allegations of the corre- sponding paragraph cons~itute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without fu"<:.her reaponse pursuant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of c~vil Procedure. To the extent that the allega- tions of the correspond:.ng paragraph consti.tute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintif~s are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a bel~ef as to the truth or falsity of such allega- tion. Proof i8 hereby demanded at time of trial. 82. Denied. To the extent that the allegatione of the corre- sponding paragraph constitute legal conclusions, the same are deemed to be denied without fUc.ther response purauant to the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of c..vil Procedure. To the extent that the allega- tions of the correspond:.ng paragraph constitute factual averments, the -5- same are deemed to be donicd due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintif::s are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as 1;0 the truth or falsity of ouoh allega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 83. Denied. To the extent that the allegations of the corre- sponding paragraph cons~:itute legal conclu8iono, the oame are deemed to be denied without fUl:ther reoponae pursuant to the applicable Pennoylvania Rules of C~vil Procedure. To the oxtent that the allega- tions of the correopond~ng paragraph constitute factual averments, tho same are doomed to be donied due to the fact that after a reaaonable investigation, PlaintiEs are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a beL.of as to the truth or falsity of lIuch allega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. PLAINTIFFS' REpLY TO DEFENDANT GOODALL'S NEW HATTER P~RSUANT TO Pa.C.R.P.2252(d) 84. Paragraphs 1 ;;hrough 83 are incorporated herein above as though more fully set forth hereinafter. 85. Denied. The nl1egations contained in the cor.responding paragraph portain to De::endant Boyer Construction; therefore, no re- sponse is required by t',e answering Plaintiffs. If an answer is required by the Court, then it is denied that defendant Goodall Pools, Inc. is not jointly li.able to the Plaintiff, and it ia further averred that both co-defendants are jointly liable to the Plaintiff for the any and all damages tha': may be recoverable. -6- 86. Denied. The ~llegations contained in the corresponding paragraph pertain to De~:endant Boyer Construction; therefore, no re- sponse is required by t~e answering Plaintiffs. If an answer is required by the Court, then it is denied that defendant Goodall Poolsl Inc. is not jointly liahle to the Plaintiff, and it is further averred that both co-defendants are jointly liable to the Plaintiff for the any and all damages tha': may be recoverable. 87. Denied. The nllegations contained in the corresponding paragraph pertain to De::endant Boyer Conetruction; therefore, no re'. sponse is required by the answering Plaintiffs. If an answer is required by the Court, ~hen it is denied that defendant Goodall Pools, Inc. is not jointly liable to the Plaintiff, and it is further averred that both co-defendants are jointly liable to the Plaintiff for the any and all damages tha~: may be recoverable. 88. Denied. The nllegations contained in the corresponding paragraph pertain to Defendant Boyer Conetruction; therefore, no re- sponse is required by the answering Plaintiffs. If an answer ia required by the Court, then it is denied that defendant Goodall Pools, Inc. is not jointly liahle to the Plaintiff, and it is further averred that both co-defendants are jointly and aeverally liable to the Plaintiff for the any and all damages that may be recoverable. WHEREFORE, plainti::fs demand judgment against defendant Goodall Pools, Inc. and defendant Boyer Construction and Pool Service, jointly and severally, in the aMount of $4,400.00 in damages plus $1,674.10 representing the refund of the moniea paid by the plaintiffs to the -7- preparation and completion of repainting the Plaintiffs' pool. It is denied that the Plaintiffs, in any way, advised, instructed, or insisted that Defendant Boyer paint over the old paint. Plaintiffs deny that they have any knowledge as to the choice of paint that Defendant Boyer chose for this particular job. 73. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs in any way advised the Defendant Boyer as to what kind of paint should be used, and which areas of the pool were to be painted. By way of further answer, Plaintiffe had no contact with Defendant Boyer other than to occasion- ally eee and talk to them while the repainting \~as taking place. Any diacussione as the kind of paint selection would have been between Defendan~ Goodall Pools, Inc. who hired Defendant Boyer to what they sUpposedly know how to do well, paint. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 74. Denied. It is expressly denied that Plaintiff requeeted Defendant Boyer as to what kind of paint, either chlorinated rubber- baeed paint or epoxy paint to use on the pool. Plaintiffs' complaint cites the epoxy paint because the bill reflects that type of paint being used in the repainting process. Plaintiffs have no knowledge as to paint types. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 75. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Boyer ever instructed, advised, warned or recommended the Plaintiffs about the paint selec- tion. It is further denied that the Plaintiffs in any way ever instructed, insisted, suggested or demanded that Defendant Boyer use any particular paint for this job. It is expresely denied that -2- Plaintiff ever stated that they would accept any responsibility for Defendant Boyer'e choice in paint selection. Proof is heraby demanded at time of trial. 76. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Boyer ever refused to warranty th~ir job. By way of further answer, it is denied that the Plaintiffs e7er had any discussions with Defendant Boyer concerning the warranty of the work done. Further, it is expressly denied that Defendant Boyer ever advised or recommended the Plaintiffs as to the choice of paint. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 77. Neither Admitted nor Denied. To the extent that the allegations of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual aver- ments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient informa" tion or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allegation. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. 78. Neither admitted nor Denied. To the extent that the allega- tions of the corresponding paragraph constitute factual averments, the same are deemed to be denied due to the fact that after a reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of such allega- tion. Proof is hereby demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendant Goodall Pools, Inc., and defendant Boyer Construction and Pool Company, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,400.00 in damages plus -3- I !dl 'I ,-(\,\ .. "', ( l( " ',- ('1 " lI'. " ~' ('.. ~ 1-: {:~ .' LJ ! (:~ <.. , . , , r' " "-.' l'l.. 1'1 U, lO' (I II' C...; , , t:.! , C, 'I(,j , 1.11 ,',}q. .' t>, ~ .~ IJ U:) .,J 0 IJ' 0, " . (~cJV\Y( , tn The Court of Common Pl.ss of Cumberland County, ?ennsylvania ~o. '-77, 7())-J) 19 c' : u' I ljC Ii v"., -' J..-jJ vV OATIl that we will sup~ort, obey and defend r , It t~, c... AWARD We. the undersigned arbitrators. having bden duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) ere ,I) 1 ro/ (' ~. r.'" 1"<' lNQ '.\1"\11 IV\ ,/()c/R r)\ Y l--(llyvl,f.'!''S Ab.JJI'NCjf' 60lH Dfl~f-NDJl.vJ-) J(')I~t(~1 (^V'ct~)eurw1!ij! lD.jL,~ '-)(\vv\ c{d;/I 717, }~,1t>?rtAr'(( /v:th J'V\\-{ifl.{l'J! tR.vm hJotJe\iV'\J\'~_ \)Ithb ('~V\(A (,vsTs ",[ 'SlI1:l, pr; b(twerV) ,'fh o/V'r(i 6Qqu<, COvlS\;2l~t'r'l'rJ:5 I2li/V1r;(( I I, lC lJ ,~ G.o CJ() iJ Ij-.. pr} /)c. '/:s (- _{Ill~ c<.. (2,?{ . () [V\C eyv,v\ I I (q 10 IH.J..ClI V1 'Ci . Arbitrator, di sents,' (Ins.ort0' am if y,>vyy applicable.) ~ I Date of !l~aring: "1 A "7 /f (l ..JJ;.2:..t( t. .5k:l " o&<oofAw."', 7/? '7 !'i ~ ' ,.' / '%, C/b2"'A ,'~ "'-.-)TT"- '- ~~.~ -- (Au, (, , .)2 Ie:, (, . ~OTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD ",,,' 'T ' ~ow, the 0< ') day or ..J'.' '''j award ~as nntered upon the docket parties or their attorneys. , 19L. at~, -E..a., the above ~nd notice thereof given by mail to the By: \. \ he,. ~.. , ~ ,,0',' , FtothonotatY- C) V Y \():l~f'\(l\ I() '~~.)lJ-' De~ucy . II Arbitrators' co~.nsation paid upon appeal: $ ,;)</CJ.<..,(.> to be (\ " ,\,- ! "u In tr; ~:: r.~~ r~;,j '-'_II",} Co. (~~ j,::\"/ :::: ' .'~ 'll: I I', ('-I :/1' ":.r) St Le, " .~.. IL~ r", ('J <.II , I:': ':) U y (, ( .. , ~'.,. , 4 "2 () t 8 I:'i' , . I o ~, ~' ,1'r,l.I !:--" IIJi ''l rf(J" ~ 2 9 C" -;I ~ jet.: P-"c.J\t:lYl0 ~'S-.(Jtl~'\ CorJ'II\/ JC PL PI NI I (-'~) '?lJ'jl?l'l. C(IYl1Jf2ll{'f'llh) 't POO I ~')e r{ 0/ i('P (\ \,\ '_ iDI)[,L (.IN:) D"r/ c/(i, i:n The Court of COllllllon Pleas of" Cumberland County, ?ennsylvania :-10, (.i '7, C~' ~ \_,: I , 70';,'8 19 IJcI)fl", ";",j]W OATH We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will sup~ort, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutioa of this Common- wealth and that we '"ill discharge the duties of our :;.,tfi~e ',.(it~ f~e\ty, ,~p ,~ 0/,rf~~~ J'4I' t. '~ " ",-.- .....,. 'f.. .)- + AWARD We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make che following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awardcld, they shall be separately stated,) (A)", '~'I"'/ II' \"1)110,' \,).~ JIL.,IIII, '-\1'" <' '~(,.I,11,t;<':" e,()'Ti'l [)(,},vJ)/,./' . , I ' ! ' , ^ . \;..'I".,tl\f "\\"LI ")t'L/~""(I, 1" /.!..lJL'\1 ':)'(V~" ,1; ~l) /.7) '7 )/1, -1i.'1>' !kr;./t/! I : ,7, I ,- .I 'I . ' ' I " r' r '-'1- 't ~\:t"II'r I <R,/Iy'r-, (rVDVt'vv\\J"ro:: \,II((ib 1\,'.(iI (,<Is:') cd <:~(~I ,!:J:) 1)~"v8I)q , -,.< ( :J f- t ' I, I / "~' 'f h \ ON I 1:7(J\ \1 (<, C (lVl ') 1/2 (It' I! [lrv :;. 'Rii/'vJ;'r< I' l C ~J G.c\ u()tJ(..~ PG'IJL~ S 1(< \(\t!~ I~ (2,;<, r ()' {V\c eWI{\, 1,(1'1 lor! ./.)(;I,(~I"'S , Arbitrator, di senes, (Insert ~am~ i: f5-vyf;(. applicable.) ^ / l / / ' , Date of Hearing: '1 A ,~/~;,/ J.) 'J.j!! l ,1:>~</;)/ ) I, 7. ''',,'i~; .f'- ~." " y 'TJi~ Gh~ ' ;V.......J Date of Award: /<. ' I; Co 1/ ;.:...,......' r-r'Y' ,.",..'"7"r:'":.....;;;.;r- ,. ~:"II - -- eX,.,/.; I I ' )/ !~. C. :-IOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD Now, eheJ;,"'day of J".,) award was ~ntered upon the docket parties or c~ei~ attorneys, , 19 (: , at ' ',., , J::...:1" che above and notice ~eof gIV;U by mail to the Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ J'fU. U:.., (.\ I. ....\ \",,_~ By: \ ' \ . \.' J'._,- ~. , ~,.n,~ , . P,rothonotaJ? L) ~ llU}\\~\("i )().~ .).itr' Deputy