Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-0354 SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY J.D. NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET - 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 299-4354 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE 1 Kemper Drive Long Grove, IL 60049-0001 vs. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. 435 Park Place Circle, Suite 100 Mishawaka, Indiana 46546 & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. 101 South Hanley Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63105 & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION 2000 North M-63 Benton Harbor, MI 49022-2692 & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: 2000 North M-63 Benton Harbor, MI 49022-2696 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 0:1 - :3 '::;-4f PRAECIPE TO ISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Writ of Summons against the above named defendants in the above captioned matter. SWARTZ,\C PBELt & DETWEILER '-- . SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT L.AW 01601 MARKET STREET "34TH FLOOR. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 ~ , ~f\ ~ - ~ ......... ~ l> L,j L.J\ 0..' <>(l () . \ ~ '- l.i "'", \". " Ql\ (') 0 r.: (,..) ri? tii "':;7n- zp. S);t ,->,E ~~ ~Cj ~a $() ::t~ c: - S .. -< Co) , ."-- .!....- :;;:: N G_' ~'~~) -:-1 ~ _:f_:~J,~ ;..jn. ~-_1 ~,: :.:I:J -< SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET - 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 299-4354 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE 1 Kemper Drive Long Grove, IL 60049-0001 vs. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. 435 Park Place Circle, Suite 100 Mishawaka, Indiana 46546 & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. 101 South Hanley Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63105 & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION 2000 North M-63 Benton Harbor, MI 49022-2692 & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: 2000 North M-63 Benton Harbor, MI 49022-2696 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: ((:):3 ~ 3-S'~ WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: INTERNATIONAL WIRE, formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. 101 South Hanley Road, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63105 WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. 435 Park Place Circle, Suite 100 Mishawaka, Indiana 46546 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION 2000 North M-63 Benton Harbor, MI 49022-2692 SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET .34TH FLOOR. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION 2000 North M-63 Benton Harbor, MI 49022-2696 You are hereby notified that plaintiff has commenced an action against you. DATED: /-d.3 / 03 C~A~ I( /~ PROTHONOTARY v 1J;-j~7J1~ SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW "1601 MARKET STREET "34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 ~ ~ ~ SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQillRE ATTORNEY LD. NO: 50688 1601MARKETSTREET-34ffiFLOOR PEITLADELPHIA,PA19103 (215) 299-4354 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE vs. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Vincent J. Iozzi, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of a Writ of Summons was served on January 30,2003 by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, No: 7001 03200001 42465025 on the following: INTERNATIONAL WIRE 435 PARK PLACE CIRCLE, SillTE 100 MISHEWAKA, IN 46546 Attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the certified mail return receipt. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC DATED: February 14. 2003 BY: ,~_. j'< .. / . , VI~CE~IOZZI,ESQillRE SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 . ompIete Items 1, 2, and 3. AlsO complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. . Print your name and address on the reverse . so that we can return the card to you. . Attach this card to the back of the rnailpiece, or on the front if space pennits. 1. Article Addressed to: 10 fJlL L LV i~ If 3S-PtU2/< f~ C\w 7t( l t-e..- I 0 Cj? __ u11< 5- I - waJ(a (~ If(;j'!i" 3. ServicaType fllc ~ ~ Mail 0 Express Mail o Registered JSlca!!um Receipt for Merchandise o Il1S\lred Mail 0 C.O.D. ... ~~"'fW) D. Is delivery address cliffenllll from item 17 If YES, enter delivery address below: .. Dyes 7001 032.0 0001 li2lfb 5D~5 ~ ~ Receipt .... . (") s uG.j rnill -"7 "'. "'-- ,.-' Zr:. en - ~'I':'- )>- ~t:, l. L-:" ::? ~ o CJ ....., P1 ,"J:J r" C.) o "ll ~: f ) :'--"":'1 -~ (~ .; I 11 :d ;:":J ..<<..:. :::::> G.... SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY LD. NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET - 34TH FLOOR PEITLADELPHIA,PA19103 (215) 299-4354 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE VB. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Vincent J. Iozzi, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of a Writ of Summons was served on January 30, 2003 by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, No: 7001 03200001 42465018 on the follOwing: WIRE KRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. 101 SOUTH HANLEY ROAD, SUITE 400 ST. LOUIS, MO 63105 Attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit lIA" is a true and correct copy of the certified mail return receipt. SWARTZ CAMfBELL LLC DATED: February 14. 2003 , , ! \ / k=! -........ i ) BY: ' /.....- --vr:JtCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103-2316 '. 3. Service Type ~ Mail 0 ExpIesS Mail . o Registered .JH:1'leturn Receipt for Merchandise It o Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. t 4. Restricted~IiVery? (Extta Fee) 0 Yes " 7001 0320 0001 ~2~b 50l! DOmedc R8h.m..~ ,,_.~}.~:;f'/ ' " :. ~ -- :\ .~ () C ? -C' i;;~"; mrl-; 2:T; ~[~- --< roO ...< ~ ~t'-'.' L:.. --.. <;:: C; -""'C. ."?- ",'- --4 -< J Cl 0 (,;.:J '-rl -rt __j f"'I'l 0:) 1'\-) (::J ?: .......'C... :;~ => "i"J .-J =<: SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY LD. NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET - 34TH FLOOR PHlLADELPHIA,PA19103 (215) 299-4354 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE VB. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekra.:ft Industries Inc. & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 PROOF OF SERVICE I, Vincent J. Iozzi, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of a Writ of Summons was served on January 30,2003 by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, No: 7001 03200001 42464950 on the following: WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP 2000 NORTH M-63 BENTON HARBOR, MI 49022-2696 Attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the certified mail return receipt. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC DATED: February 13. 2003 ; V.'~ > LV . i VINaENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE BY: SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 '\ ',f It Q) cD f? ~ ~ :Q. E"til!?=i"iij ol!?Q)oE o ';;;:5 >. Q) g~c.s;;. ~.~ ~"Eo~ ("j~gj~~E uQ)'"'Q)llIQ) c .~ :g ~ .0 a. llIWlll.....Q)CIl ('jo"OE;:~ ~~ai~E~ U)t5Q)""-1J~ EEElijla'E ~gj~oOe .&~:;~:2; !; g.a;;; EE'E:5allS 8:mitg~5 . . ~ "" E ~ E ~ '6 lJl ~ '0 i :v ~E Q) Q) ~CJi Q)W '0> .!!!.::t: f"''} o o C'o..J T""'1 '- .l2 a. Ocu "Qi ~ ffi '" II: Ql' fe E q 11) ~ ~ q ~ W~. () ~ !J1 0.0 C'- ~ Q) "<! Q; o '0 Q) () 'C 1ii Q) II: ...... co Lu lL. 0(6 "(ij Q)~~~ ~.~2l~ j!l~ 0; ~ ~.~ __~ rv~~ ~ '" '- ,\.. \.v '~ '- ~ ...j '-J ~ r '6, '" \ ~ I " "- '~~ i0 ri ~'~'\ ~J~~ i~ ~.'::-f ~ o . cJ ~." j ~ 5 ") ""\'" ~I~ -...... itJ :g "'~ --r <( -..j /1 ~~ l/ {, :e- Iv , ~ U ~ ~.~ ~, Q) '" '6 c '" .<:: ~ Q) ~ '" ~ o <i >-.. '" o It) '" ~ 9 It) '" It) Q CI U') IT' .::r --D .::r ru .::r M CI CI CI a. 'ijj o Q) a: c 5 Q; a: o ~ Q) E o o ~ CI ru m CI M CI CI ['- (; ~ 0 1l C\J ~ ti ~ 5 .~ ~ :u '" .01::;: ~,g co ~.A? (\') u ~ E ~ e. ~ e\i ~ o c ~ vt'}~ rn"I' is ,..:."- > C") W ....,., ~'T' OJ 1',) <::> " o ,1 . :'1. ;po .. :"'1 , CJ :. ", ~C.) \ -"I ?:;;'"\ /n -.\ .,..-,. ~~ ::::> \0 WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney I. D .46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS mSURANCECOMPANYAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE NO. 03-354 Plaintiffs v. mTERNA TIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT mDUSTRIES, mc. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FmANCIAL CORP. PRAECIPE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon plaintiffs American Manufacturers Insurance Company AlSIO Thomas and Jamie Kunkle to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. By: 4J~~~ BERNARD E. KUE , III Attorney for Defendant, Whirlpool Corporation RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this d~ day of ~ ' 20~, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiffs American Manufacturers Insurance Company AlSIO Thomas and Jamie Kunkle to file a Complaint herein within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. (J'A+~J 12_~ PROTHONOTARY ~ () ~~ 0) rt~- i~ );. ~ L.. Z -:.1 -... ~=J C"s.) -,., ;'~'1 CO "') .~- -u ,;:::) ...1='''' WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney 1.0.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 03-354 V. INTERNA nONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORA nON AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE DEFAULT TO: Vincent J. Iozzi, Esquire Swartz, Cambell & Detweiler 1601 Market Street, 34th Floor Philadelphia, P A 19103 DATE OF NOTICE: April 2, 2003 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEF AUL T BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGEMENT MAY ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO SUE THE DEFENDANT AND THEREBY LOSE PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA By ~~~ B ARD E. KUENY, III Attorney for Defendant Whirlpool Corporation CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Bernard E. Kueny, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant Whirlpool's Notice ofIntention to Take a Default which was made upon opposing counsel by United States Mail, postage pre-paid on April 4, 2003, to the following: Vincent J. Iozzi, Esquire Swartz, Campbell & Detweiler 1601 Market Street, 34th Floor Philadelphia, P A 19103 WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA 0 D 0 C W ''1 ? :t:::-__ "U ~,. r-.'- -0 "......1 rn [, ~Q -.-.,. c.:';_":_ h1 2: I I ~ , en "[., CJ .... , -:::: C) r-: c: ~ -0 -r, .< ("-. j "n ~- ('i .- 2"'5 5> ~ ITI ~~ ~'-) ..c-...:. a ~ -;;I 5:J -... (J') -< 4i .. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET, 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, P A 19103 (215) 299-4354 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE vs. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITIEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY A TIORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE, IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Lawyer Referral Services 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 17013 717-249-3166 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 A VISO IMPORTANTE LE HAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA CORTE. SI USTED QUlERE DEFENDERSE DE ESTAS DEMANDAS EXPUESTAS EN LAS PAGINAS SIQUlENTESM USTED TIENE VIENTE (20) DIAS DE PLAZO AL PARTIR DE LA FECHA DE LA DEMANDA Y LA NOTIFICAION. HACE FALTA ASENTAR UNA COMPARENCIA ESCRITA 0 EN PERSONA 0 CON UN ABOGADA Y ENTREGAR A LA CORTE EN FORMA ESCRITA SUS DEFENSAS 0 SUS OBJECIONES A LAS DEMANDAS EN CONTRA DE SU PERSONA. SEA A VISADO QUE SI USTED NO SE DEFIENDE, LA CONTRA SUY A SIN PREVIO Y PUEDE CONTINUAR LA DEMANDA EN CONTRA SUY A SIN PREVIO A VISO 0 NOTIFICACION. ADEMAS, LA CORTE PUEDE DECIDIR A FAVOR DEL DEMANDANTE Y REQUIERE QUE USTED CUMPLA CON TODAS LAS PROVISIONES DE ESTA DEMANDA. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO 0 SUS PROPIEDADES U OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTATES PARA USTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICO, VA Y A EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELE FONO A LA OFICINA CUY A DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA A VERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Lawyer Referral Services 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 17013 717-249-3166 SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103-2316 SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET, 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, P A 19103 (215) 299-4354 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE vs. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: COMPLAINT ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 1. Plaintiff, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Thomas and Jamie Kunkle is a property and casualty insurance company with a business address at 1 Kemper Drive, Long Grove, IL 60049. 2. At all times relevant Plaintiff provided a policy of homeowners insurance to Thomas and Jamie Kunkle covering 1812 Silver Pine Circle, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 3. Defendant, International Wire, formerly known as Wirekraft Industries, Inc., is a corporation or other business entity with a place of business at 453 Park Place Circle, Suite 100, Mishawaka, Indiana 46546. 4. Defendant, Wirekraft Industries, Inc. is a corporation or other business entity with a place of business at 101 South Hanley Road, Suite 400, St. Louis, MO 63105. 5. Defendant, Whirlpool Corporation is a corporation or other business entity with a place of business at 2000 North M-63, Benton Harbor, MI 49022-2692. SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103-2316 6. Defendant, Whirlpool Financial Corporation is a corporation or other business entity with a place of business at 200 North M-63, Benton Harbor, MI 49022. 7. At all times relevant hereto, defendants, International Wire, Wirekraft Industries, Inc., Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation were the agents, servants, workmen and/or employees of each other and at all times relevant acted within the course and scope of and in furtherance of said relationship. 8. On or about January 26,2001, one of the washing machine hoses supplying water to a Whirlpool washing machine owned by the Kunkles ruptured, causing a flood at the Kunkle's property which caused damage to the real and personal property of the Kunkles. 9. The accident at issue and resulting damages and losses sustained by the Kunkles were the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness and other liability producing conduct of the defendants as more particularly set forth herein and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on behalf of the plaintiff. 10. At all times relevant, defendant Whirlpool Corporation and/or Whirlpool Financial Corporation were in the business of designing, supplying, selling, installing, testing and marking the washing machine and hoses at issue. 11. At all times relevant, defendant Wirekraft Industries and/or International Wire were in the business of designing, supplying, selling, installing and manufacturing the involved hoses. 12. At all times relevant hereto, the washing machine and associated hoses were used as intended by plaintiffs subrogors, Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle. SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 COUNT I PLAINTIFF V. INTERNATIONAL WIRE NEGLIGENCE 13. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 12 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. 14. The incident at issue and resulting damage to plaintiff's property was caused by the negligence and carelessness of defendant International Wire, its agents, servants and/or employees in the design, sale, supply and testing of the washing machine hose at issue as follows: a. Failing to exercise reasonable care in the design, testing, sale, supply, inspection of the washing machine hoses at issue; b. Failing to provide adequate warnings of the dangers of the washing machine hoses at issue; c. Approving the use of and supplying insufficient and/or inadequate or defective materials for the washing machine hoses at issue; d. Failing to provide a washing machine hoses in a good and workman like manner; e. Failing to inspect and adequately test the equipment provided with the washing machine hoses to make sure that all associated hoses would operate as intended; f. Failing to hire, train and supervise its agents, servants and/or employees to perform the necessary design and testing of the washing machine hose at issue; g. Failing to provide water supply hoses for the washing machine at issue that were safe and adequate for their intended task; h. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the washing machine hose at issue; 1. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the hoses provided with the associated washing machine at issue; J. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the washing machine hoses, when defendant knew or should have known said dangers existed, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to the property of plaintiff; and k. Providing dangerous and defective washing machine hoses to plaintiff's subrogors. 15. As a direct and proximate result of defendant International Wire's negligence, plaintiff's subrogors Thomas and Jamie Kunkle sustained damage to their real and personal SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103-2316 property as a result of the flooding incident mentioned above, which damages exceeded the sum of $50,000.00. 16. Pursuant to its policy of insurance, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company made payments to or on behalf of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle in an amount in excess of $50,000 as a result of the incident at issue. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant International Wire in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. COUNT II PLAINTIFF V. WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES. INC. NEGLIGENCE 17. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 16 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. 18. The incident at issue and resulting damage to plaintiffs property was caused by the negligence and carelessness of defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc., its agents, servants and/or employees in the design, sale, supply and testing of the washing machine hose at issue as follows: a. Failing to exercise reasonable care in the design, testing, sale, supply, inspection of the washing machine hoses at issue; b. Failing to provide adequate warnings of the dangers of the washing machine hoses at issue; c. Approving the use of and supplying insufficient and/or inadequate or defective materials for the washing machine hoses at issue; d. Failing to provide a washing machine hoses in a good and workman like manner; e. Failing to inspect and adequately test the equipment provided with the washing machine hoses to make sure that all associated hoses would operate as intended; SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 f. Failing to hire, train and supervise its agents, servants and/or employees to perform the necessary design and testing of the washing machine hose at issue; g. Failing to provide water supply hoses for the washing machine at issue that were safe and adequate for their intended task; h. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the washing machine hose at issue; i. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the hoses provided with the associated washing machine at issue; J. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the washing machine hoses, when defendant knew or should have known said dangers existed, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to the property of plaintiff; and k. Providing dangerous and defective washing machine hoses to plaintiff's subrogors. 19. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc.' s negligence, plaintiff's subrogors Thomas and Jamie Kunkle sustained damage to their real and personal property as a result of the flooding incident mentioned above, which damages exceeded the sum of $50,000.00. 20. Pursuant to its policy of insurance, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company made payments to or on behalf of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle in an amount in excess of $50,000 as a result of the incident at issue. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc. in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. COUNT III PLAINTIFF V. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION NEGLIGENCE 21. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 20 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 22. The incident at issue and resulting damage to plaintiff's property was caused by the negligence and carelessness of defendant Whirlpool Corporation, its agents, servants and/or employees in the design, sale, supply and testing of the washing machine at issue as follows: a. Failing to exercise reasonable care in the design, testing, sale, supply, inspection of the washing machine and hoses at issue; b. Failing to provide adequate warnings of the dangers of the washing machine and hoses at issue; c. Approving the use of and supplying insufficient and/or inadequate or defective materials for the washing machine and hoses at issue; d. Failing to provide a washing machine in a good and workman like manner; e. Failing to inspect and adequately test the equipment provided with the washing machine at issue to make sure that all associated hoses would operate as intended; f. Failing to hire, train and supervise its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees to perform the necessary design and testing of the washing machine and hoses at issue; g. Failing to provide water supply hoses for the washing machine at issue that were safe and adequate for their intended task; h. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the washing machine and hoses at issue; 1. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the hoses with the associated washing machine at issue; J. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the washing machine and hoses, when defendant knew or should have known said dangers existed, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to the property of plaintiff; and k. Providing a dangerous and defective washing machine and hoses to plaintiff's subrogors. 23. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Whirlpool Corporation's negligence, plaintiff's subrogors Thomas and Jamie Kunkle sustained damage to their real and personal property as a result of the flooding incident mentioned above, which damages exceeded the sum of $50,000.00. 24. Pursuant to its policy of insurance, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company made payments to or on behalf of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle in an amount in excess of $50,000 as a result of the incident at issue. SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW .1601 MARKET STREET .34TH FLOOR. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant Whirlpool Corporation in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. COUNT IV PLAINTIFF V. WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION NEGLIGENCE 25. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 24 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. 26. The incident at issue and resulting damage to plaintiffs property was caused by the negligence and carelessness of defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation, its agents, servants and/or employees in the design, sale, supply and testing of the washing machine at issue as follows: a. Failing to exercise reasonable care in the design, testing, sale, supply, inspection of the washing machine and hoses at issue; b. Failing to provide adequate warnings of the dangers of the washing machine and hoses at issue; c. Approving the use of and supplying insufficient and/or inadequate or defective materials for the washing machine and hoses at issue; d. Failing to provide a washing machine in a good and workman like manner; e. Failing to inspect and adequately test the equipment provided with the washing machine at issue to make sure that all associated hoses would operate as intended; f. Failing to hire, train and supervise its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees to perform the necessary design and testing of the washing machine and hoses at issue; g. Failing to provide water supply hoses for the washing machine at issue that were safe and adequate for their intended task; h. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the washing machine and hoses at issue; 1. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the hoses with the associated washing machine at issue; SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 j. Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangerous and defective conditions of the washing machine and hoses, when defendant knew or should have known said dangers existed, thereby creating an unreasonable risk of harm to the property of plaintiff; and k. Providing a dangerous and defective washing machine and hoses to plaintiff s subrogors. 27. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation's negligence, plaintiffs subrogors Thomas and Jamie Kunkle sustained damage to their real and personal property as a result of the flooding incident mentioned above, which damages exceeded the sum of $50,000,00. 28. Pursuant to its policy of insurance, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company made payments to or on behalf of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle in an amount in excess of $50,000 as a result of the incident at issue. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. COUNT V PLAINTIFFS V. INTERNATIONAL WIRE STRICT LIABILITY 29. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 28 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. 30. At all times relevant hereto, defendant International Wire was in the business of designing, supplying, testing, manufacturing, selling and distributing washing machine hoses including the washing machine hose involved in the flooding incident at Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle's residence. SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 31. The washing machine hose at issue was designed, manufactured, supplied, sold and/or installed in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to foreseeable users and consumers. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous and defective condition of the washing machine and its associated hoses, plaintiff suffered damages and losses as more particularly set forth above, for which claim is hereby made. 33. Defendant International Wire is therefore strictly liable to plaintiff under the Restatement (2nd) of Torts as adopted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant International Wire in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. COUNT VI PLAINTIFFS V. WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES. INC. STRICT LIABILITY 34. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 33 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. 35. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc. was in the business of designing, supplying, testing, manufacturing, selling and distributing washing machines hoses including the washing machine hose involved in the flooding incident at Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle's residence. 36. The washing machine hose at issue was designed, manufactured, supplied, sold and/or installed in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to foreseeable users and SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 consumers. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous and defective condition of the washing machine and its associated hoses, plaintiff suffered damages and losses as more particularly set forth above, for which claim is hereby made. 38. Defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc. is therefore strictly liable to plaintiff under the Restatement (2nd) of Torts as adopted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc. in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. COUNT VII PLAINTIFFS V. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION STRICT LIABILITY 39. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 38 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. 40. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Whirlpool Corporation was in the business of designing, supplying, testing, manufacturing, selling and distributing washing machines including the washing machine involved in the flooding incident at Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle's residence. 41. The washing machine at issue was designed, manufactured, supplied, sold and/or installed in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to foreseeable users and consumers. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous and defective condition of the washing machine and its associated hoses, plaintiff suffered damages and losses as more SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 particularly set forth above, for which claim is hereby made. 43. Defendant Whirlpool Corporation is therefore strictly liable to plaintiff under the Restatement (2nd) of Torts as adopted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant Whirlpool Corporation in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law, COUNT VIII PLAINTIFFS V. WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION STRICT LIABILITY 44. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 44 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. 45. At all times relevant hereto, defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation was in the business of designing, supplying, testing, manufacturing, selling and distributing washing machines including the washing machine involved in the flooding incident at Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle's residence. 46. The washing machine at issue was designed, manufactured, supplied, sold and/or installed in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to foreseeable users and consumers, 47. As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous and defective condition of the washing machine and its associated hoses, plaintiff suffered damages and losses as more particularly set forth above, for which claim is hereby made. 48. Defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation is therefore strictly liable to plaintiff under the Restatement (2nd) of Torts as adopted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr, Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. COUNT IX PLAINTIFFS v. INTERNATIONAL WIRE BREACH OF WARRANTY 49. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 48 as though more articularly set forth herein at length. 50. Defendant International Wire breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff s subrogor, the Kunkles, in that the washing machine hose at issue was sold in a defective, dangerous and improper condition and contained unsuitable and improper components. 51. Defendant International Wire further breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff by failing to provide proper materials and warnings with the washing machine hose at issue. 52. Defendant International Wire further breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff in that defendant failed and refused to provide a washing machine hose that was fit and suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. 53. The damages and losses sustained by plaintiff as more particularly set forth above resulted directly and proximately from defendant International Wire breach ofits expressed and implied warranties for which claim is hereby made. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 International Wire in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. COUNT X PLAINTIFFS v. WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES. INC. BREACH OF WARRANTY 54. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 53 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. 55. Defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc. breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiffs subrogor, the Kunkles, in that the washing machine hose at issue was sold in a defective, dangerous and improper condition and contained unsuitable and improper components. 56. Defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc. further breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff by failing to provide proper materials and warnings with the washing machine hose at issue. 57. Defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc. further breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff in that defendant failed and refused to provide a washing machine hose that was fit and suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. 58. The damages and losses sustained by plaintiff as more particularly set forth above resulted directly and proximately from defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc. breach of its expressed and implied warranties for which claim is hereby made. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr, Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant Wirekraft Industries, Inc. in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 COUNT XI PLAINTIFFS v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION BREACH OF WARRANTY 59. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 58 as though more particularly set forth herein at length, 60. Defendant Whirlpool Corporation breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff s subrogor, the Kunkles, in that the washing machine at issue was sold in a defective, dangerous and improper condition and contained unsuitable and improper components. 70. Defendant Whirlpool Corporation further breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff by failing to provide proper materials and warnings with the washing machine at issue, 71. Defendant Whirlpool Corporation further breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff in that defendant failed and refused to provide a washing machine that was fit and suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. 72. The damages and losses sustained by plaintiff as more particularly set forth above resulted directly and proximately from defendant Whirlpool Corporation breach of its expressed and implied warranties for which claim is hereby made. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant Whirlpool Corporation in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as maybe allowed by law. SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 COUNT XII PLAINTIFFS v. WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION BREACH OF WARRANTY 73. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 thru 72 as though more particularly set forth herein at length. 74. Defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiffs subrogor, the Kunkles, in that the washing machine at issue was sold in a defective, dangerous and improper condition and contained unsuitable and improper components. 75. Defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation furt~er breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff by failing to provide proper materials and warnings with the washing machine at issue. 76. Defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation further breached its expressed and implied warranties to plaintiff in that defendant failed and refused to provide a washing machine that was fit and suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. 77. The damages and losses sustained by plaintiff as more particularly set forth above resulted directly and proximately from defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation breach of its expressed and implied warranties for which claim is hereby made. WHEREFORE, plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle demands judgment in its favor as against defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with such interests, costs and fees as may be allowed by law. DATED: ~ - t~ - [) "7 BY: VI N . OZZI, ESQUIRE Att ey for Plaintiff SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER ATTORNEYS AT LAW '1601 MARKET STREET '34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 Sent by: KEMPER CLAIMS 3154498939; 04/16/2003 8:08AM; #119; Page 18/18 04/15/03 TUE 14:51 FAX I III 019 I7.(}An -'1'-'" /?vv"" , . I, D_r~.tIs of American Man: , ,~: ers Mutual Insurance Company state that the fact8 Bet forth in the foregoing Complaint are bus and correct to the best of my knowledge. information and/or belief. I underBtauld ?,-t ~ _ta made hereln are oubject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.B. 8ectiou. 4904 relating unsWorn 181siftcatiOD to authorities. MANUFAC1'URERB MUTUAI.I CE COMPANY BY: 'J-k_*;;;-- c: .-I ;A~~..., s ,/7 ,,~- 1'.5 () /'.+ ," .:. ;, ~ . j' , i ,:SWARTZ, c....... P8 ....TTO"NlI:'t~ AT ur.W "'IrClI _~~e"$"I'RE!ET. 1. 1 & oi-;"WII!:I LrN 1'H FL~OI'l .PI...r...,40EL.......... ... '''I03.1!3IS '; I. 04/16/03 WED 08:33 [TX/RX NO 8402] (") ~.; -"'I -..... . (j .~'i 'I ~ -) , J '') {") ~._~.1 ._~ :.''') ;"fl ~ '0 =< WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney I. D .46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 Attorney for Defendants: Whirlpool Corp., International Wire, Wirekraft Ind. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS mSURANCECOMPANYAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE NO. 03-354 Plaintiffs v. mTERNA TIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, mc. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FmANCIAL CORP. PRAECIPE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon plaintiffs American Manufacturers Insurance Company AlS/O Thomas and Jamie Kunkle to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. By: ~--. f~~7 B RNARD E. KUENY, Attorney for Defendants, Whirlpool Corporation, International Wire and Wirekraft Ind. RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this ~3 Ad.... day of 1J'f:VL1 l ' 20f6, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiffs American Manufa~nsurance Company AlS/O Thomas and Jamie Kunkle to file a Complaint herein within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. C) j=:' f,: (.,0 -0(::" ITi!,' ""~ . Z -"'" S? Cc ~~ ;"~ .....'..,.) :..rl <J' WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney 1.0.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO, 03-354 v. INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INCORPERATED TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT. Defendants, International Wire and Wirekraft Inc., by and through their counsel, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, hereby respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint and respectfully aver as follows: 1-2. Denied. Answering defendants lacks sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). 3, Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that defendant, International Wire Group, Inc. is a corporation with a place of business at the address listed in the complaint. All other allegations are denied as conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, all remaining allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). 4. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that Wirekraft Industries, Inc. was a corporation. All remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answers all allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ, p, 1029 (e). 5-6, Denied, The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). 7. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations do not pertain to answering defendants, By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that defendants were the agents, servants, workmen/or employees of each other. On the contrary, the defendants are each separate corporations, By way offurther answer, the phrase "at all time relevant" is vague and ambiguous, and therefore, , the allegations are denied. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ, P. 1029 (e). 8. Denied. Answering defendants lack sufficient information to fonn the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of these allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations did not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R, Civ. P. 1029 (e). 9. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent, careless, or other liability producing manner. By way of further answer, the allegations contained in this paragraph did not pertain to answering defendants. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to their truthfulness, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). 10, Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph do not pertain to answering defendants, By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). II. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contained conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, answering defendant lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that International Wire designed, supplied, sold, installed, and manufactured the involved hoses, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e), 12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as for the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. p, I029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count I 13. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs one through twelve, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 14. Denied, The allegations contained in this paragraph, and each of its subparts are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent or careless manner. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted or failed to act, or had a duty to act or refrain from acting, in the manner described in each ofthe subparts. On the contrary, answering defendants acted in a careful and prudent manner at all times relevant hereto. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information, at this point, to determine whether or not they manufactured, distributed or supplied the hose in question and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ, P. 1029 (e). 15, Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied in As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. At this point, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the manufacturer, distributor, or supplier of the washing machine hose at issue. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1 029( e). 19. Denied, The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent manner. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. By way of further answer, the allegations are vague and ambiguous, By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the remaining allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 20. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 3 WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney 1.0.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL mSURANCECONWANYAS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 03-354 v. mTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, mc. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FmANCIAL CORP, ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES. INCORPERATED TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT. Defendants, International Wire and Wirekraft Inc., by and through their counsel, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, hereby respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint and respectfully aver as follows: 1-2, Denied, Answering defendants lacks sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations do not pertain to answering defendants, By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). 3. Admitted in part, denied in part, It is admitted only that defendant, International Wire Group, Inc. is a corporation with a place of business at the address listed in the complaint. All other allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, all remaining allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. 1029 (e), 4. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted only that Wirekraft Industries, Inc. was a corporation. All remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answers all allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). 5-6. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ, P. 1029 (e), 7. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, the allegations do not pertain to answering defendants, By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that defendants were the agents, servants, workmen/or employees of each other. On the contrary, the defendants are each separate corporations. By way of further answer, the phrase "at all time relevant" is vague and ambiguous, and therefore, the allegations are denied, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ, P. 1029 (e). 8. Denied. Answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of these allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations did not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ, p, 1029 (e). 9. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent, careless, or other liability producing manner, By way of further answer, the allegations contained in this paragraph did not pertain to answering defendants. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to their truthfulness, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e), 10. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required, By way offurther answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way offurther answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). II. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contained conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, answering defendant lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that International Wire designed, supplied, sold, installed, and manufactured the involved hoses. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R, Civ. P. 1029 (e), 12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph do not pertain to answering defendants. By way offurther answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as for the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R, Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 1 13. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs one through twelve, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph, and each of its subparts are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent or careless manner. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted or failed to act, or had a duty to act or refrain from acting, in the manner described in each of the subparts. On the contrary, answering defendants acted in a careful and prudent manner at all times relevant hereto. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information, at this point, to determine whether or not they manufactured, distributed or supplied the hose in question and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). 15. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied in answering defendants acted in a negligent manner. It its specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ, P. 1029 (e), 16. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are vague and ambiguous, By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied in pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 2 17. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1-16, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 18. Denied, The allegations contained in this paragraph, and each of its subparts, contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent and careless manner. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted or failed to act, or had a duty to act or refrain from acting in the manner described in each of the subparts. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. At this point, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the manufacturer, distributor, or supplier of the washing machine hose at issue. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R, Civ, p, 1029(e), 19. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent manner. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. By way of further answer, the allegations are vague and ambiguous, By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the remaining allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R, Civ, P. 1029(e). 20. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness ofthe allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R, Civ, P. 1 029( e). WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 3 Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1- 20, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 22-24, Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, it is specifically denied that defendants acted in a negligent and careless manner. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. By way offurther answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the remaining allegations, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties, Count 4 25. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1-24, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 26-28, Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendants acted in a negligent or careless manner. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of the defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 5 29. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1-28, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 30. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the phrase "times relevant hereto", are vague and ambiguous, and therefore, the allegations are denied. By way offurther answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that International Wire was in the business of designing, supplying, testing, manufacturing, selling and distributing washing machine hoses. At this time, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to who designed, supplied, tested, manufactured, sold and distributed the washing machine hoses in question, and strict proof is demanded. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information upon the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 36, Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response of pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants designed, manufactured, supplied, sold, or installed a product which was defective and unreasonably dangerous, As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P, 1029(e). 37. Denied, The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions oflaw to which no response of pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants manufactured, distributed or supplied a defective product. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. J029(e). 38. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusion of law to which no response of pleading is required, By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Wirekraft Industries Incorporated, is strictly liable to plaintiff. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor against all parties. Count 7 39, Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1-38, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 40-43. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions oflaw, By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendants designed, manufactured, supplied or sold a defective and unreasonably dangerous product. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ, P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties, Count 8 44. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1-43, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 45-48. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendants designed, manufactured, supplied, or sold a defective and unreasonably dangerous product. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 9 49. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1-48, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length, 50-52. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, it is specifically denied that there is existed any expressed or implied warranties between answering defendants and plaintiff. It is specifically denied that answering defendants breached any applicable warranties. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted or failed to act, or had duty to act or refrain from the acting in the manner described in each ofthese paragraphs. It is specifically denied that this count properly alleges a breach of warranty. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R, Civ. P. 1029(e). 53. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants is the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. It is specifically denied that answering defendants had a warranty with plaintiffs. It is specifically denied that answering defendants breached any warranty. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, for answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 10 54. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contain in paragraphs I-53, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 55-57, Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs contained conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, it is specifically denied that any expressed or implied warranty existed between answering defendants and plaintiffs. By way offurther answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants breached any implied or expressed warranties. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted or failed to act in the manner described in each of these paragraphs, or had a duty to act or refrain from acting in the manner described in each of these paragraphs. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ, P. 1029(e), 58. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that there existed any expressed or implied warranties between answering defendants and plaintiffs, It is specifically denied that answering defendants breached any expressed or implied warranties, It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count II 59. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs I-58, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 60-72, (Sic.) Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants breached any expressed or implied warranties. It is specifically denied that defendants sold a defective and unreasonably dangerous product. It is specifically denied that defendants failed to provide proper materials of warmngs. It is specifically denied that defendants sold a product which was not fit and not suitable for the purpose for which it was intended. It is specifically denied that court properly alleges a breach of warranty. As to all remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. By way offurther answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties, Count 12 73. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1-72, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 74- 77. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way offurther answer, the allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendants breached expressed or implied warranties. It is specifically denied that defendants failed to provide proper warnings with their products. It is specifically denied that defendants manufactured, distributed or sold products which were unfit and unsuitable for the purposes for which they were intended, It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of the defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged injuries. As to all remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. NEW MATTER 78, Answering Defendants were not guilty of any negligence or wrongdoing at the time and place mentioned in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 79. Answering Defendants were not guilty of any breach of duty owing to the Plaintiffs at the time and place mentioned in the Complaint. 80. At the time and place mentioned in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs were guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to the injuries, losses and damages, and by virtue thereof, Plaintiffs are precluded from any recovery. 81. Any injuries, losses and damages suffered by Plaintiffs were the direct and proximate result ofthe sole and exclusive negligence of Plaintiffs. 82, At the time and place mentioned in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, the negligent acts of third parties intervened and superceded the alleged negligence of the Answering Defendants, if any, thereby precluding recovery from the Answering Defendants. 83. The accident complained of and the ensuing damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiffs, were caused by an intervening agency over which Defendants had no contro I. 84. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' negligent actions or failure to act, the claim for damages is precluded or reduced by the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. 85. Answering Defendants reserve the right to move for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. 86. Negligence by a third party, who is the agent, servant or employee of Plaintiffs is imputed to Plaintiffs, thereby precluding recovery. 87, Answering Defendants deny liability under the Doctrine of Strict Liability. 88. Recovery is barred and/or mitigated as a consequence of misuse of the product by Plaintiffs or another. 89. Recovery is precluded on occasion by substantial alteration of the product in question after left of possession and control of the Answering Defendants. 90. At the time and place mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiffs, were guilty of negligence, which proximately contributed to any injuries, losses and damages of the Plaintiffs, whereas the Defendants were not guilty of negligence which was a substantial factor in the causation of the damages alleged. 91. Recovery is barred because Plaintiffs voluntarily and unreasonably encountered a known risk, 92. Plaintiffs' claims are barred or limited by reason of failure to mitigate damages. 93. The Complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the Answering Defendants, and the Answering Defendants reserve the right to move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 94. Plaintiff has failed to give the required notice of breach, and therefore is barred from any remedy, 95. The incident and injuries complained of were caused by unauthorized, unintended or improper use ofthe product complained of, and Plaintiffs' failure to exercise reasonable and ordinary care, caution or vigilance on his/her own behalf in the use of the product of which Plaintiff complains. 96. The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Answering Defendants and the Answering Defendants reserve the right to quash service. 97. At the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, there was not a practical and technically feasible alternative design that would have prevented the harm without substantially impairing the reasonably anticipated or intended function of the product. 98. The characteristics of the product are known to the ordinary consumer or user, and the harm asserted was caused by an aspect ofthe product that is an inherent characteristic of the product and would be recognized by the ordinary person who uses or consumes the product with the ordinary knowledge common to the class of persons for whom the product is intended. 99. The harm was caused by an unavoidably unsafe aspect of the product and the product was accompanied by an adequate warning or instruction. 100. The product provided adequate warnings and/or instructions which communicated adequate information on the dangers and safe use of the product. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is held to the standard of ordinary knowledge common to persons by whom the product is intended to be used with respect to the adequacy of the warnings and adequacy of the instructions for the use and safe operation of the product or its component parts. 101. Answering Defendants assert that their liability, if any, is limited to those parts or components of the product which it manufactured, and expressly denies manufacturing any component parts of the product. 102. Answering Defendants assert that they are immune from claims of failure to inspect or discovery of latent defects by reasons of their status in the chain of distribution. 103. Any loss or claim asserted by the Plaintiffs in the within action resulted from and event which constitutes an unavoidable accident. 104. Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted in the within manner in that the Complaint asserts no basis for liability against the Answering Defendant. 105. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the statute oflimitations. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, International Wire Group and Wirekraft Industries, Inc. respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Respectfully Submitted, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: ~--...~~ Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney for Defendant International Wire Group and Wirekraft Industries, Inc. DATE: ? h//6-5 I ' VERIFICATION I, "])"",,<. I t.khV' ,answering defendant in the foregoing documents, state that the facts set forth are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S. S4905, which relates to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~-----. Wirekraft Industries, Inc. VERIFICATION I, j)-. -el w..~r , answering defendant in the foregoing documents, state that the facts set forth are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 94905, which relates to unsworn falsification to authorities. 9-t- ~ --- International Wire Group I ~"e.. -~, - n 7 ~:::: . [~<~ ~;: )> -7 ~:.J -' -, cO) (-, r'" C) -,\, -~ ':,- <::--> -q " i~.) -, .> ::-': -':- ~ r--=:; ) ,"~ r-n ~ --, ?D -< '""') (n WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney I.D.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs NO, 03-354 V. INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP. ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHlRPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT. Defendants, Whrilpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation, by and through their counsel, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba, hereby respond to Plaintiffs" Complaint and respectfully aver as follows: 1-2. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R, Civ. p, 1029(e). 3-4, Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 5-6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that the Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation are corporations with a place of business at the location listed in Plaintiffs' Complaint. The remaining allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ, P. 1029 (e). 7, Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were the agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees of each other. On the contrary, each defendant is a separate corporation. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 8-9. Denied. Answering defendants lack sufficient infOlmation to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied as conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, the allegations do not pertain to answering defendants. By way offurther answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent, careless or other liability producing manner. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. By way offurther answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ, P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that Whirlpool Financial Corporation was in the business of designing, supplying, selling, installing, testing and marketing washing machine hoses, As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied as conclusions oflaw. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. I029(e). 11-12, Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way offurther answer, the allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, As to the allegations in paragraph 12, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count I 13. Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1-12, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 14-16. Denied, The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, it is specifically denied that defendants were negligent or careless. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of the defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. As to all the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. I029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 2 17. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference each response contained in paragraphs 1-16, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length, 18-20, Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way offurther answer, the allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendants acted in a careless or negligent manner. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part ofthe defendants constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R, Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties, Count 3 21, Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs 1-20, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 22. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph, and each of its subparts, contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied, It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent and careless manner. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted or failed to act, or had a duty to act or refrain from acting in the manner described in each of the subparts. It is specifically denied that answering defendants manufactured the hose at issue. As to the remaining allegations, including whether the hose at issue was distributed and/or supplied by answering defendants, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 23. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent manner, It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part ofthe answering defendants constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages, As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. p, 1029(e), 24. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are vague and ambiguous. By way offurther answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e), WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor against all parties. Count 4 25. Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs 1-24, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph, and each of it subparts contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent or careless manner. It is specifically denied that answering defendants acted or failed to act, or had a duty to act or refrain from acting in the manner described in each of the subparts. It is specifically denied that Whirlpool Financial Corporation, its agents, servants and/or employees were involved in the design, sale, manufacture, supply, and testing of the washing machine or he washing machine hose at issue. As to any remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way offurther answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R, Civ. P. I029(e). 27. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants acted in a negligent manner, By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants, constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. By way offurther answer, the allegations are vague and ambiguous. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ, P. I029(e). 28. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations are vague and ambiguous. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to from the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. CountS 29. Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs 1-28, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 30-33. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way offurther answer, the allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendants designed, manufactured, or sold defective and unreasonably dangerous products, It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of defendants constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. As to any remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 6 34. Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs 1-33, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 35-38. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendants designed, manufactured, or sold a defective and unreasonably dangerous product. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. As to all remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count? 39. Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs 1-38, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 40. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer as to the truthfulness of the allegations regarding the washing machine involved in the incident, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is believed and therefore averred that plaintiff contends that a washing machine hose ruptured and that there is no defect with the washing machine. It is specifically denied that answering defendants designed, manufactured or assembled the washing machine hose, As to the remaining allegation, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 41. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendant designed, manufactured, supplied, sold, and/or installed a product which was defective and unreasonably dangerous. On the contrary, plaintiff does not contend that the Whirlpool washer was defective and unreasonably dangerous, Rather, plaintiff content that a hose failed. It is specifically denied that answering defendant designed or manufactured the hoses in question. As to whether the washing machine at issue was designed, manufactured, supplied, sold and/or installed by answering defendants, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. I029(e). 42-43. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required, By way offurther answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants manufactured, distributed, or supplied a defective or unreasonably dangerous product. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. It is specifically denied that answering defendants manufactured the hose in question. As to whether answering defendants distributed or supplied the washing machine or hoses in question, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e), WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 8 44, Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs 1-44, inclusive, as though same are set forth herein at length. 45, Denied, The allegations contained in this paragraph contained conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, the allegations are specifically denied. 1t is specifically denied that defendant, Whirlpool Financial Corporation was in the business of designing, supplying, testing, manufacturing, selling and distributing washing machines including the washing machine allegedly involved in the incident described in the complaint. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. I 029( e). 46. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, the allegations do not pertain to defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation, By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants designed, manufactured, supplied, sold and/or sold a defective and unreasonably dangerous product. 1t is specifically denied that defendant, Whirlpool Financial Corporation designed, manufactured, supplied, sold and/or installed the washing machine at issue. By way of further answer the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. I029(e). 47-48, Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer it is specifically denied that answering defendants designed, manufactured, distributed, or sold defective and unreasonably dangerous products. 1t is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. 1t is specifically denied that answering defendants are strictly liable to plaintiffs. As to all remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 9 49, Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs 1-48, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 50-53. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not pertain to answering defendants, By way of further answer, the allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendants breached expressed or implied warranties. It is specifically denied that defendants acted or failed to act in the manner described in these paragraphs. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act by the defendants constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged injuries. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. 1029(e), WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 10 54. Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs I-53, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 55-58. Denied, The allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way offurther answer, the allegations do not pertain to answering defendants. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R, Civ. P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendants breached expressed or implied warranties. It is specifically denied that defendants acted or failed to act in the manner described in these paragraphs. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act by defendants constitutes proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged injuries, As to any remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count II 59, Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs 1-58, inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 60. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that defendant Whirlpool Corporation breached any expressed or implied warranties to plaintiff subrogor. It is specifically denied that defendant Whirlpool Corporation sold products which were defective and unreasonably dangerous, were in improper condition and contained unsuitable and improper components. As to the washing machine at issue, plaintiffs have failed to allege that the washing machine itself was defective. As to whether or not the washing machine at issue was designed, manufactured, distributed or sold by Whirlpool, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, plaintiffs have failed to attach to the complaint any expressed warranties and therefore, it is specifically denied that any expressed or implied warranties which are relevant in this case exist. As to the remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e), 70, (Sic.) Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants breached any expressed or implied warranties to plaintiff. It is specifically denied that any expressed or implied warranties exist between Whirlpool Corporation and plaintiff subrogor. It is specifically denied that Whirlpool Corporation failed to provide proper materials and warnings with their products. As to whether or not the washing machine at issue was designed, manufactured, distributed or supplied by Whirlpool Corporation, Answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. As to any other remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 71. (Sic,) Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Whirlpool Corporation breached expressed or implied warranties to plaintiff. It is specifically denied that there existed expressed and implied warranties between Whirlpool Corporation and plaintiff subrogor. It is specifically denied that Whirlpool Corporation designed, manufactured, distributed or supplied a washing machine that was unfit and unsuitable for the purposes for which it was intended. Plaintiffs have not alleged that the washing machine itself was unfit or unsuitable. By way of further answer, plaintiffs have not attached to the complaint a copy of any expressed or implied warranties and therefore, the allegations are denied. As to any remaining allegations answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. 72, (Sic.) Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that answering defendants breached any expressed or implied warranties or that any expressed or implied warranties existed between answering defendants and plaintiff subrogor. It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants constitutes the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. As to any remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. C. P, I 029( e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. Count 12 73. Answering defendants hereby incorporate, by reference, each response contained in paragraphs 1-72 (sic) inclusive, as though same were set forth herein at length. 74-76. Denied. The allegations contained in these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation created any expressed or implied warranties between plaintiffs It is specifically denied that Whirlpool Financial Corporation breached any relevant warranties. It is specifically denied that Whirlpool Financial Corporation acted or failed to act in the manner described in paragraphs 74-76, inclusive, or had a duty to act or refrain from acting in such a manner. As to any remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P, I 029( e). 77. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph contain conclusions oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the allegations are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that any expressed or implied warranty between Whirlpool Financial Corporation and plaintiff existed. It is specifically denied that Whirlpool Financial Corporation breached any relevant implied or expressed warranty, It is specifically denied that any act or failure to act on the part of answering defendants constituted the proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged injuries. As to any remaining allegations, answering defendants lack sufficient information to form the basis of an answer, and strict proof is demanded, By way of further answer, the allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R. Civ, p, 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter Judgment in their favor and against all parties NEW MATTER 78. Answering Defendants were not guilty of any negligence or wrongdoing at the time and place mentioned in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 79. Answering Defendants were not guilty of any breach of duty owing to the Plaintiff at the time and place mentioned in the Complaint. 80. At the time and place mentioned in the Plaintiff~' Complaint, Plaintiffs were guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to the injuries, losses and damages, and by virtue thereof, Plaintiffs' are precluded from any recovery. 81. Any injuries, losses and damages suffered by Plaintiffs' were the direct and proximate result of the sole and exclusive negligence of Plaintiffs' . 82. At the time and place mentioned in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, the negligent acts of third parties intervened and superceded the alleged negligence of the Answering Defendants if any, thereby precluding recovery from the Answering Defendants. 83. The accident complained of and the ensuing damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiffs', was caused by an intervening agency over which Defendant had no control. 84. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' negligent actions or failure to act, the claim for damages is precluded or reduced by the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence. 85. Answering Defendants reserve the right to move for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. 86. Negligence by a third party, who is the agent, servant or employee of Plaintiff is imputed to Plaintiffs, thereby precluding recovery. 87. Answering Defendants deny liability under the Doctrine of Strict Liability, 88. Recovery is barred and/or mitigated as a consequence of misuse of the product by Plaintiffs or another. 89. Recovery is precluded on occasion by substantial alteration of the product in question after left of possession and control of the Answering Defendants. 90. At the time and place mentioned in the Complaint, Plaintiffs' were guilty of negligence, which proximately contributed to any injuries, losses and damages of the Plaintiffs, whereas the Defendants were not guilty of negligence which was a substantial factor in the causation of the damages alleged. 91. Recovery is barred because Plaintiffs voluntarily and unreasonably encountered a known risk. 92. Plaintiffs' claims are barred or limited by reason offailure to mitigate damages, 93. The Complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the Answering Defendants, and the Answering Defendants reserve the right to move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 94. Plaintiffs have failed to give the required notice of breach, therefore is barred from any remedy. 95. The incident and injuries complained of were caused by unauthorized, unintended or improper use of the product complained of, and Plaintiffs' failure to exercise reasonable and ordinary care, caution or vigilance on his/her own behalf in the use of the product of which Plaintiffs complains. 96. The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Answering Defendant and the Answering Defendants reserve the right to quash service. 97. At the time the product left the control of the manufacturer, there was not a practical and technically feasible alternative design that would have prevented the harm without substantially impairing the reasonably anticipated or intended function of the product. 98. The characteristics of the product are known to the ordinary consumer or user, and the harm asserted was caused by an aspect of the product that is an inherent characteristic of the product and would be recognized by the ordinary person who uses or consumes the product with the ordinary knowledge common to the class of persons for whom the product is intended, 99. The harm was caused by an unavoidably unsafe aspect of the product and the product was accompanied by an adequate warning or instruction, 100. The product provided adequate warnings and/or instructions which communicated adequate information on the dangers and safe use of the product. Defendant assert that Plaintiffs are held to the standard of ordinary knowledge common to persons by whom the product is intended to be used with respect to the adequacy of the warnings and adequacy of the instructions for the use and safe operation of the product or its component parts. 101. Answering Defendants assert that their liability, if any, is limited to those parts or components of the product which it manufactured, and expressly denies manufacturing any component parts of the product. 102. Answering Defendants assert that they are immlme from claims offailure to inspect or discovery oflatent defects by reasons of their status in the chain of distribution. 103. Any loss or claim asserted by the Plaintiffs in the within action resulted from an event which constitutes an unavoidable accident. 104. Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted in the within manner in that the Complaint asserts no basis for liability against the Answering Defendants. 105. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the statute of limitations. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against all parties. WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA By: ~__J'.f~~~ BERNARD E. KUEN ,III Attorney for Defendant, Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation DATE: 7 /3// oj / I VERIFICATION I, 'David L. Grumbine, answering defendant in the foregoing documents, state that the facts set forth are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S, g4905, which relates to unsworn falsification to authorities. VERIFICATION I, David 1, Grumbine, answering defendant in the foregoing documents, state that the facts set forth are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C,S. 94905, which relates to unsworn falsification to authorities, (;L~ /It~--;, Whirlpo . ancial Corporation ..% .::J ~ `L.: l ~.... ... ~...~.~~..~...~..- ~-w-t JUN 2003 ' ~ ~~ ~~~ t~ ~ c-~ ~_- ~ -~ _ . ~„ ..~ ~ ~, ~ i 3 ~ _ ~pp `~ r. 1 , ~- T1 ~. ~ II SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J, IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET, 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 299-4354 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTIf vs, INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: NO: 03-354 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT INTERNATION~ WIRE AND WlREKRAFT INDUSTRIESNEW MATI'ER · 78, Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect con<tlusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 79. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect contlusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 80. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 81. Denied, Plaintiffs specifically deny the allegations of negligence, By way offurther answer, the averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions ofllaw to which no further response is required. 82, Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect co~clusions oflaw to which no further response is required. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT L.AW . 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH F'LOQR . PHILADEL.PHIA, PA 19103-2316 II 83, Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required, 84. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 85, Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 86. Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conc~usions oflaw to which no further response is required. 87. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conqIusions oflaw to which no further response is required, 88, Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect condlusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi~ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 89. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect condlusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of th$ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 90. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect con~lusions oflaw to I which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of th~s paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 91. Denied, The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conblusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thts paragraph are I construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH r:-LOOR . PHILADEL.PHIA, PA 19103-2316 II 92. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 93. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. , 94. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conqlusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi~ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 95. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conalusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 96. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect con~lusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of tMs paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 97. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect con~lusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thjs paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 98. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect con~lusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thfs paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MAFilKET STREET' 34TH n.OOR . PHIL.ADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 II 99, Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions onaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 100. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions onaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 101. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect condlusions onaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi~ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 102, Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect con4lusions onaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi~ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 103. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect con~lusions onaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of t~s paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 104. Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conplusions onaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thts paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 105. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect coniclusions onaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thlis paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW. 1601 MARKET STREET. 34TH F"LOaR . PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 II WHEREFORE, Plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr . Thomas and Jamie Kunkle respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor as against defendant International Wire and Wirekraft Industries, Inc, NTJ.IOZZI, SQUIRE y for Plaintif~ DATED: BY: SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH F'LQOR . PHIL.ADELPHIA, PA 19103.2316 SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J, IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET, 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 299-4354 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE vs. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: II ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vincent J. lozzi, Esquire, attorney for plaintiff, hereby certifies that a Itrue and correct copy of the attached Reply to New Matter was served on the below listed parties by United States Mail, postage prepaid on August 14,2003. Bernard E. Kueny, III, Esquire Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba 1818 Market Street, Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for International Wire, Wirekraft & Whirlpool ,/ LC BY: VIN T J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR. PHILADEL.PHIA, PA 19103-2316 II VERIFICATION I, Darlene Grevelding of American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company state that the facts set forth in the foregoing REPLY are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and/or belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C,S, Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MU'IlUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ~ ~ 'th ~ ~ U> SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET. 34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 ~' ~`.. ...a "S`i vy ", `~ ._~ _ _ - ~'~ ~7 - ~ .; - 1 c~:: > .: c:. , ~} -~, L. N ~ ~ t"t1 :Jl _~.~ ~-> 8u SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET, 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 299-4354 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE vs, INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. & WlREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC, & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: II ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION'S NEW MA'lTER 78, Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect concjlusions oflaw to which no further response is required, 79. Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conelusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 80. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 81. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the allegations of negligence. !By way offurther answer, the averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 82. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect corj.clusions oflaw to which no further response is required, SWARTZ CAM PBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' l601 MARKET STREET' 34TH ~LOOR . PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103-2316 II 83, Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 84. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 85. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 86. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect condusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 87. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required, 88. Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect condlusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi~ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 89. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect con~lusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of th~s paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 90, Denied, The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect con~lusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 91. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect cOrlclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of ~is paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW. 1601 MARKET STREET. 34TH F'LOOR . ~H1LADELPH1A. PA 19103-2.:]116 I II 92, Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 93. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 94. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 95. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi$ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 96, Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 97. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 98, Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of thiis paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FL.OOR . PHIL.ADEL.PHIA. PA 19103-23HS II 99. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 100. Denied, The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 101. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi~ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 102. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conqlusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 103. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect condlusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of th~s paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 104. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 105, Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of tliis paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 II WHEREFORE, Plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr . Thomas and Jamie Kunkle respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor as against defendant Whirlpool Financial Corporation. DATED: ~ 'ILfo 7 BY: SWARTZCAMl,' i VINC ZZI, E$QUlRE Attorn y for Plaintiff SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' L601 MARKET STREET' 34TH ..-LOOR . PHIL.ADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 II SWARTZCAMPBELLLLC BY: VINCENT J, IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET, 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 299-4354 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE vs. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc. & WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vincent J. Iozzi, Esquire, attorney for plaintiff, hereby certifies that a ~rue and correct copy of the attached Reply to New Matter was served on the below listed parties 1:jy United States Mail, postage prepaid on August 14, 2003. Bernard E, Kueny, III, Esquire Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba 1818 Market Street, Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Whirlpool Financial Corporation , , SWARTZ C BY: VIN NT, IOZZI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 II VERIFICATION I, Darlene Grevelding of American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company state that the facts set forth in the foregoing REPLY are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and/or belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MU'I1UAL INSURANCE COMPANY SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTOFlNEYS AT LAW. 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103.2316 c~ ~~~~ ~ ; C" _. -,: ~y ~ _ • ~ ~7 r . ~ i __ ~ ti~. C~ --a ; _Y, - :w i; i C ~' . , . ~ _.~ "; - .~" -G i i SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET, 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 299-4354 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE vs. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc, & WIRE KRAFT INDUSTRIES INC. & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT INTERNATlON~ WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRlESNEW MATTER 78, Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 79. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conQlusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 80. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conClusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 81, Denied. Plaintiff s specifically deny the allegations of negligence. By way of further answer, the averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions ofllaw to which no further response is required. 82. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect co~clusions oflaw to which no further response is required. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 II 83. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 84, Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 85. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. 86. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect concl~sions oflaw to which no further response is required. 87, Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect concH1sions oflaw to which no further response is required, 88. Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect concllusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi~ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 89. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi$ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 90, Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect con~lusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of thIs paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 91. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect cOn,Clusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of tbjis paragraph are I I construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 II 92. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 93. Denied, The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 94, Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect concllitsions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this Iparagraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 95, Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect concllusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thisl paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 96. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi$ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 97. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect condlusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of th~s paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 98. Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect cortlusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of t~s paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR' PHILAOELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 II 99, Denied. The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 100, Denied, The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 101. Denied, The averments ofthis paragraph constitute incorrect conclt!-sions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of this Iparagraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 102. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conclusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this I paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 103, Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect condusions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of thi~ paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied, 104. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect conqJ.usions oflaw to which no further response is required. To the extent the averments of this paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. 105. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute incorrect con~lusions oflaw to which no further response is required, To the extent the averments of th~s paragraph are construed to be factual in nature, they are specifically denied. SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTOANEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103-2316 II WHEREFORE, Plaintiff American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company as subrogee of Dr. Thomas and Jamie Kunkle respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor as against defendant International Wire and Wirekraft Industries, Inc. DATED: BY: NT J, lOZZI, E QUIRE y for Plaintiff SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT L.AW . 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR' PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103-231E SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC BY: VINCENT J. IOZZI, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO: 50688 1601 MARKET STREET, 34TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 299-4354 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of THOMAS and JAMIE KUNKLE vs. INTERNATIONAL WIRE formerly known as Wirekraft Industries Inc, & WlREKRAFT INDUSTRIES INC, & WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION & WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORPORATION: II ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-354 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vincent J. lozzi, Esquire, attorney for plaintiff, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the attached Reply to New Matter was served on the below listed parties)jy United States Mail, postage prepaid on August 14, 2003, Bernard E. Kueny, III, Esquire Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba 1818 Market Street, Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for International Wire, Wirekraft & Whirlpool BY: VIN T J, IOZZI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR' PHILAOELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 II VERIFICATION I, Darlene Grevelding of American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company state that are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, the facts set forth in the foregoing REPLY information and/or belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C,S, Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MU'TIuAL INSURANCE COMPANY BY: GREVELDlNG, be~ SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW' 1601 MARKET STREET' 34TH FLOOR' PHILAOELPHIA, PA 19103-2316 ~~ ri' ~: (,'; ~~- ---( ):~ (~ c' c .,.~ -~ ~) 1.-_; ."'-f r:? 'J] .c- ->-.'>- =-;J -< WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney 1.0.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO, 03-354 V, INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP, ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendants, International Wire Group, Wirekraft Industries, Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation in the above captioned matter. Demand is made for a jury trial, consisting of twelve, on behalf of these defendants. WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA DATE: jlJ ~ If) 3 f / By: ~.~,J7;:~~ BERNARD E. KUENY< I Attorney for Defendants, £~-' L 3 '_'~ , t 'Uti'1 :.'~ r, Z r' , ~ ~ ; ~ -tea ;c -~ ~' ~'- ~- - .~ ~~ WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney I.D.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 03-354 VI. INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP, MOTION TO COMPEL Defendants, International Wire Group, Inc, and Wirekraft Industries, Inc., Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation by and through their attorneys, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba, hereby move this Honorable Court to enter an Order pursuant to Pa, R, C.P. 4019 compelling Plaintiffs to answer certain discovery propounded upon Plaintiffs by Defendants in this matter. In support of this motion, Defendants respectfully aver as follows: 1.Plaintiffs instituted the above captioned matter by filing a Complaint. 2. On or about May 8, 2003, counsel for Defendants International Wire Group and Wirekraft Industries, Inc., et 811 served upon counsel for Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. A true and correct copy of the May 8, 2003 cover letter is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "A". A true and correct copy of the Interrogatories are attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "B". A true and correct copy of the Request for Production of Documents is attached hereto, made part hereof and marked as Exhibit "C". 3. Pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 4006, plaintiffs' answers to the discovery were due on or before June 9, 2003. 4. On September 16, 2003, Counsel for Defendants sent Plaintiff's counsel a letter requesting answers to the outstanding discovery. To date, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with said requests. A true and correct copy of the September 16, 2003, letter is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "0". 5. To date, plaintiffs have not provided any answers to the Interrogatories and/or the Request for Production of Documents. 6. Defendants are entitled to an Order pursuant to PA. R.C.P. 4019(a)(1) compelling plaintiffs to answer said discovery requests. Wherefore, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling plaintiffs to submit full and complete Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Request for Production of Docume,nts or suffer appropriate sanctions to be imposed upon application to the Court DATE: /011103 ! / WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA /"7~~. ,,/ ,,)~ - /" By: i-</i" ' . /i. ,;f.[ Bernard E. Kueny,4~ Attorney for Defendants International Wire Group, Wirekraft Industries, Inc, , Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corp. VERIFICATION I, Bernard E. Kueny, III, Esquire, on behalf of Defendants, International Wire, Wirekraft Industries, Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation in the foregoing Motion to Compel Plaintiff to answer discovery, state that the facts set forth are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is madEl subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, c.s, 9 4904, which relates to unsworn falsification to authorities, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA BY: t/g;~'J' /t6~-<< BERNARD E. KUENY, Attorney for Defendants, International Wire, Wirekraft Industries, Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation DATE: (0 -7-03 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy ofth,: enclosed Motion to Compel discovery was made on October 7, 2003 to all counsel below named by United States Mail, postage prepaid. Vincent J. Iozzi, Esquire Swartz, Cambell & Detweiler 1601 Market Street, 34th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: L' / f."/1L rA ,,(l /i'~ Bernard E. Kueny, III t/ Attorney for Defendants Whirlpool Corporation Whirlpool Financial Corporation International Wire Group, Inc. and Wirekraft Industries, Inc. o PITISBURGH OFFICE FIRST & MARKET BUILDING 100 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 325 PITTSBURGH. PA 15222 TEL 412,255,0500 FAK 412,2550505 ) . WILBRAHAM LAWLERc BUBA <7 J, ~4ILADELPHIA OFFICE Rala MARKET ST _ SUITE 3 100 PHIlADELPHIA. PA 1910n631 TEL 215,564,4141 FAK 215,564.4385 NEW JERSEY OFFICE 0 24 KINGS HIGHWAY WEST HADDON FIELD, NI 08033-2122 TEL 856,795.4422 FNC 856795,4699 NEW YORK OFFICE 0 140 BROADWAY, 46TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10005 TEL,212,943,9245 FAX 212,943,9246 . A Professional Corporation CQjWLBDEFLA W,COM DELAWARE OFFICE 0 STONEY BAITER OFFICE BUILDING 5301 LIMESTONE ROAD, SUITE 221 WILMINGTON, DE 19808-1251 TEL 302,2348217 FAX 302,234,8218 May 8, 2003 Vincent J. Iozzi, Esquire Swartz, Cambell & Detweiler 1601 Market Street, 34th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Kunkle vs International Wire, et al Cumberland County, No. 03-354 Our File No. 174-60 Dear Mr. lozzi: With regard to the above referenced matter, enclos(:d please find Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents directed to the Plaintiffs. Please have your clients answer same within the time prescribed by law. Should you have any questions, please feel free to (:ontact us. Very truly yours, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba BEK/pal Enclosure ~~r (', fcJ -pr/h,) BernardE. Kueny, II ir WILBRAHAM, LA WLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney I.D.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 03-354 V. INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WlREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INe. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP. INTERROGATORIES OF DEFENDANTS INTERNATIONAL WIRE, WIRE KRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFI<'S TO: Vincent J. lozzi, Esquire Swartz, Cambell & Detweiler 1601 Market Street, 34th Floor Philadelphia, PAl 91 03 1. State: (a) Your full name (b) The present address, (c) Address at the time the cause of action arose, (d) Date and place of birth of each plaintiff. 2. State: (a) Whether you have ever been convicted of any crime, and if so, (b) The nature of the offense, and (c) The date and place of conviction, 3. State: (a) The name and addresses of all insuranc'~ or surety companies that insure of guarantee any possible claim on your part for the occurrences set forth in the pleadings, (b) Which of said insures or sureties have primary, access or concurrent coverages, (c) The policy or bond limits with respect to each category of coverage, (d) Set forth in detail the carrier's names, policy numbers and coverages for each insurance policy owned by you or any relative residing in your household at the time of said occurrence. 4, With respect to all expert witnesses, including e:xperts who have conducted an examination, inspection, investigation or have been consulted with respect to the facts of the instant litigation, state: (a) Each expert's name, address and area of expertise; (b) Date and place of examination, inspection, investigation or consultation; (c) What was inspected or examined; (d) Names of experts expected to testify at trial; (e) Annex a true copy of all written reports rendered by the above mentioned experts; t (f) lfno written report has been submitted, supply a summary of any oral reports rendered by the experts or in ess(:nce of such testimony as is anticipated will be given by said expert, 5. State: (a) whether you or your attorney know of any photographs, movies or drawings of: (I) the scene of the occurrences set forth in the pleadings, (2) objects or persons involved in said occurrences, (3) any other matters which are the subject of the cause of action or defenses; and, if so, as to each; (b) the name and address of the person who made or took the photographs, movies or drawings; (c) the date on which they were made or taken; (d) what particularly was made or taken; (e) in whose possession the photographs, movies or drawings now are, and; (f) attach hereto a copy of said photographs, movies or drawings, 6. State: (a) the names and addresses of any or all persons, including this party, from whom you or anyone on your behalf has obtained any written or recorded statement, (b) the name, address, occupation and employer of the person who took said statements, (c) the dates on which said statements were taken, (d) the present whereabouts of the original and copies of said statements, recordings or written record thereof, (e) attach hereto a copy of said statements, r'ecordings or written records. 7, State: (a) The date, time and place of the happening of the occurrence set forth in the pleadings, and (b) the condition of the weather on that date as well as the weather on the date before the incident. 8. State: (a) the date on which the washing machine was purchased; (b) from whom the washing machine was purchased, (c) the date on which the washing machine was delivered to the plaintiffs premises, (d) the identity of the entity from whom the' hoses were purchased, (e) the date on which the washing machine hoses were purchased, (f) the identity of the person or persons who attached the hoses to the washing machine, (g) the date on which the hoses were attach,~d to the washing machine, (h) who supplied the hoses. 9. Between the time the washing machine was purchased and the date of the incident surrounding the happening of the occurrences s,~t forth in the pleadings, state whether the hoses originally supplied with the washer were ever replaced, repaired or modified, If so, identifY the person who made such repairs, replacements or modifications, and the date on which said replacements, repairs or modifications were made, 10. Identify each person who conducted any inspections, maintenance, repair, replacement, alterations, or modifications to the washing machine or hoses between the date of purchase and the date of the incident identified in the pleadings. Identify the date on which each person conducted the inspection, maintenance, repair, replacement, alteration or I]lodification and describe the nature of said inspection, maintenance, repair, rc'placement, modification or alteration, IdentifY and attach copies of any and all documents that relate to such inspections, maintenance, repair, replacement, allterations or modifications. II, State the identity of each person who was present on the premises at the time the incident giving rise to this litigation occurred, If no one was present at the time, identify the person last on the premises before the event occurred, including the time said person left the premises. Also, identify the first person to return to the premises after the incident occurred, stating the time of his or her return. 12, Give a detailed description of the room in which the washing machine was located including: (a) the dimensions of the room, the composition of the floor, walls and ceiling, (b) the location of the washing machine in the room, (c) the location of other fixtures in the room, a description of other items in the room including their location in the room, (d) attach a diagram of the room including the above referenced items. 13, Identify each instance where there has been prior water damage to the premises allegedly damaged by the incident giving rise to this lawsuit. Identify the cause of said prior water damage. V, State whether the water supply to the hoses were shut off between uses of the washing machine. 15. Identify each instance where there has been subst:quent water damage to the premises allegedly damaged by the incident giving rise to this lawsuit. Identify , 20. 21. the cause of said subsequent instances of watc:r damage. 16. Identify each and every claim ever made by the plaintiffs to any insurance carrier, self insured entity, governmental entity or any other entity or individual alleging personal injury or property damage. Identify lthe above as to the date thc claim was made, the entity to whom the claim was made, any claim number or file number, any court term or docket number and the disposition of each claim. 17. Identify the occupations of each plaintiff in this case. 18. Identify each other person living in plaintiffs premises at the time of the incident by name, age, relationship to plaintiffs and occupation. 19. Identify each person who conducted any inspections, maintenance, repair, replacement, alterations, or modifications to the: washing machine or hoses between the date of purchase and the date of the incident identified in the pleadings. Identify the date on which each person conducted the inspection, maintenance, repair, replacement, alteration or modification and describe the nature of said inspection, maintenance, repair, n:placement, modification or alteration. Identify and attach copies of any andl all documents that relate to such inspections, maintenance, repair, replacement, alterations or modifications. Identify whether the plaintiff's premises has ever been the subject of any property damage claims, the subject of any vandalism, or the subject of any break-ins, burglaries or other criminal activities. Between the time the washing machine was installed, and the date of the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, identify each person who had access to the room where the washing machine was located. 22. Provide a detailed description of the nature, ext<mt of all damages sustained. Incl ude: (a) a description of each item (b) the date on which the item was purchased, constructed or installed, (c) the purchase price of the item, (d) the value of the item immediately before the incident described in the complaint, (e) the value of the item immediately after the incident described in the complaint (I) the cost of repair of each item. (g) the salvage value of each item. (h) the present location of each item. 23. As to each item allegedly damaged, identify its precise location with respect to the washing machine. 24. Identify all individuals and entities who provided repair, replacement or restoration services. Include copies of all estimates, bill, proposals, receipts and canceled checks l?ertaining to these individuals or entities. 25. State: (a) whether you have agreed with any person other than these defendants to accept any sum of money or any other thing of value as a result of the incident in question; (b) if so, detail the consideration which you have accepted or agreed to accept and the name and address of the person paying the same or agreeing to pay the same. 26. Itemize any and all other injuries, damages, expenses or losses incurred not otherwise set forth. 27. Identify each owner of the property which was allegedly damaged by the acts set forth in the complaint. 28. Have any of the items allegedly damaged by the accident described in the complaint been sold or otherwise disposed of? 29. If the answer to the preceding interrogatory is in the affirmative, give the name and address of the person, firm or corporation to whom the items were transferred, the date of transfer, and the amount of consideration paid therefore. 30. State the names and addresses of all persons who have knowledge of any relevant facts relating to the case. 31. Identify each individual who participated in the ,answering of these interrogatories. 32. Without referring to the Complaint, describe in detail your version of the incident or occurrences setting forth the date, location and time. 33. As to each item identified in interrogatory numbe:r 22 state whether or not there was any damage, marks, stains, cuts, tears or wear to the item which existed prior to the incident described in the complaint. 34. Ifknown, identify the brand name and manufacturer of the washing machine. Identify the sourc~ of this information. 35. Ifknown, identify the brand name and manufactmer of the hose. Identify the source of this information. 36. State whether your insurance carrier ever advised you to inspect and or replace your washing machine hoses. If so, state: When the statement was made. (a) By whom the statement was made. (b) The contents of the statement. (c) If the statement is in writing, attach a copy of said writing. WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA By:---Y2 73 BERNARD E. KUE , III Attorney for Defendants International Wire, Wirekraft Ind., In,;. and Whirlpool Corp. DATE: S- 0'-//.3 , WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney 1.0.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs COURT OF' COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 03-354 V. INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP. DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS Definitions 1 All information is to be divulged which is in the possession of the individual or corporate party, his attorneys, investigators, agents, employees or other representatives of the named party and his attorney. 2 Where the terms "you", "Plaintiff" or "Defendant" are used, they are meant to include every individual party, and separate answers should be given for each person named as a party, if requestEjd. 3 The terms "Document" or "Documents", as used her.ain, mean all written or printed matter of any kind and recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, including the originals and non-identical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notcltion made on such copies or otherwise, including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, electronic messages ("e-mail"), notes, diaries, letters, telegrams, minutes, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, inter-office and intra-office communications, written notations of conversations, bulletins, computer printouts, teletypes, telefax, invoices, work sheets, graphic or manual records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, tape recordings, and motion pictures), and electronic, mechanical or electrical records or representations of any kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, discs, and recordings). 4. The terms "Communication" or "Communications", as used herein, include, without limitation, all conversations, telephone conversations, statements, discussions, debates, arguments, discourse, consultations, and every other manner of oral utterance and all correspondence, memoranda, telegrams, tele-type and lavery other manner of written communication. 5. The terms "Person" or "Persons", as used herein, mean any natural person, corporation, partnership, firm, association, joint venture, syndicate and any other entity. 1) "State" or "Identify", when used with regard to an individual or an actual person, means to state the individual's name and present business and home addresses, his present or last known position and business affiliations and his position and business affiliation at the time or times in question. 2) "Identify", when used with regard to any "Person" other than a natural person, means to state the full name, present or last-known addfiass of the principal place of business of the corporation, partnership, proprietorship, association or other organization or entity to be identified and its relationship 1:0 any of the Plaintiffs or Defendants at all times covered by these Interrogatories. 3) "Identify", when used with regard to a Document or Documents, means to state the date prepared, the author, the preparer, all addresses of any and all authors or preparers, any and all other recipients of the Document, the type of Document (e.g.; letter, memorandum, chart), the Document's present or last known location, the Document's custodian and ttTe substance and contents 01' each and every such Oocument or Documents. If any such Document is no longer complete, state how the Document is incomplete or altered and explain the reasons therefor. If any such Document no longer exists or is no longer in Plaintiffs' possession, custody or control, state how the Document was disposed of, the reason for the disposition, identify the person and/or entity who ordered and supervised such disposition and the date thereof, and identify any and all persons who have knowledge of the contents thereof. 4) "Identify", when used wit/;} regard to a Communication, means to state the date, time, location and substance of the Communication and to identify the person involved and/or present during the Communication. 5) The terms "washing machine hose" or "hose" shall me,an each washing machine hose that is the subject of the pleadings. 6) The term "washing machine" shall mean each washing machine used in connection with the damages that are alleged in the pleadings. 7) The term "incident" shall mean each set of events causing the alleged flooding and subsequent damages referenced in the Complaint. Requests For Production 1) Any and all photographs, videotapes, drawings, or other documents depicting the hose(s) allegedly involved in the incident(s) described in plaintiff's Complaint. 2) Any and all photographs, videotapes, drawings, or documents depicting the washing machine(s) allegedly involved in the incidents described in plaintiff's Complaint. 3) All diagrams, photographs, videotapes, drawings, specifications, or other documents showing the specific location where the incident and/or alleged damages occurred. 4) All documents, investigations, tangible reports, physical models, compilations of data, and/or other material prepared by any fact witness pertaining to the incident referred to in plaintiff's Complaint. 5) All documents, tangible reports, physical models, compilations of date, and other materials prepared by any expert or for any expert or opinion witness whom you expect to call as a witness at the trial of this case. 6) Any and all statements made by Defendants or any representative(s) of Defendants concerning this case. 7) Copies of any and all insurance policies covering and/or pertaining to the property and/or premises at the time of the incident(s) referred to in plaintiff's Complaint. 8) Copies of all documents, bills, invoices, statements, receipts, or other tangible material reflecting the cost, charges, expenses, or payments allegedly incurred by you and claimed by you as damages in this lawsuit. 9) All documents that identify, reflect, report, or indicate each and every item of damages squght by you in the instant lawsuit. 10) Produce the washing machine hose(s) for inspection that are allegedly involved in the incident(s) referred to in plaintiff's Complaint. 11) Any and all documents indicating plaintiff's insurance company's right to subrogation on behalf of individual insureds pertaining to the incident(s) referred to in plaintiff's .complaint. 12) All settlement papers or agreements entered into by you and any party or third person that pertains to the subject matter of this lawsuit. 13) Any and all documents, correspondence, and any other tangible materials evidencing or relating to communications between plaintiff(s) and defendant(s), including agents, employees, or representatives relating to the incident referred to in plaintiff's Complaint. 14) Copies of all home inspections, water content analyses, and/or appraisals on the premises and/or personal property performed concerning the premises, which is the subject of the plaintiff's Complaint. 15) All documents pertaining to any claim made against any person or entity other than this defendant regarding the damages or incident involved in this suit, including, but not limited to, any lawsuits, demand letters, settlements, or releases. 16) Any and all owner's manuals, operating manuals, service manuals, warranties, an/or other documents pertaining to the washing machine(s) and/or washing machine hose(s) involved in the incident(s) referred to in the Complaint. 17) Any and all bills, invoices, statements, receipts, invoices, service contracts, estimates, or other tangible things or documents reflecting any purchase of, repair, work, service, or maintenance on the washing machine(s) and/or washing machine hose(s) involved in the incident referred to in plaintiff's Complaint. 18) All documents or tangible things reviewed and/or relied upon by you in preparation of your Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. 19) All documents or tangible things identified by you in your Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. , 20) All documents contained in the insurancEl company's complete claim, investigation, and subrogation files for all claims pertaining to the incidents referred to in plaintiff's Complaint. 21) The original hose in question. Bernard E. Kue , I~:J'C Attorney for Defendant Whirlpool Corporation DATE: ,s--? - &3 )..l. o PHILADELPHIA OFFICE 1818 MARKET ST. SUITE 3100 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-3631 TEL: 215.564.4141 FAX: 215.564.4385 o PITTSBURGH OFFICE 603 STANWIX STREET TWO GATEWAY CENTER. 17 N. PITTSBURGH. PA 15222 TEL: 412.255.0500 FAX: 412.255 WILBRAHAM LAWLER & . BUBA . NEW JERSEY OFFICE 0 24 KINGS HIGHWAY WEST HADDONFlELD, NJ 08033-2122 TEL: 856.795.4422 FAX: 856.795.4699 NEW YORK OFFICE 0 140 BROADWAY, 46TH FLOOR NEW YORK. NY 10005 TEL: 212.943.9245 FAX: 212.943.9246 DELAWARE OIi'FICE 0 STONEY BATTER OFFICE BUlDDING LIMESTONE ROAD, SUITE 221 WILMINGTON. DE 19808-1251 TEL: 302.234.8217 - Direcl Dial 215-972-2857 A Professional Corporation bkeully@wlbdetlaw.com September 16, 2003 Vincent J. Iozzi, Esquire Swartz, Cambell & Detweiler 1601 Market Street 34th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Kunkle vs. International Wire, et al OUR FILE N0.174-60 Dear Mr. Iozzi: With regard to the above referenced matter, you will recall that we served you with interrogatories and requests for production of documents on May 8, 2003. To date, we have not received a response. Your answers are now overdue. Kindly provide us with full and complete answers to our request of discovery within 5 days, or we shall be forced to file the appropriate motion. . , Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Very h'uly yours, Wilbraham Lawller & Buba BEK/ amk cz-.---u-o (~~ .-M/ BERNARD E. KUENY, II I' . c' c'li Bee: Don V. Kelly, Esquire , i ~, .. . .~ . C_w V ~ ;, ~ <-. ..0 ~C. .;.? ` ` ' i --~ ( Z . ~ ~y L ~ iFl -~ r~ -< ~S~ 6 ." I I .~ OCT 1 6 zo031 ~ WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, III Attorney 1.0.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plain tiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 03-354 V. INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP. ORDER oJ ANO NOW, this 2-2.--day of O..hJ1,..c.-- ,2003, upon consideration of Oefendants' Motion to Compel Oiscovery, it is hereby OROEREO and OECREEO that said Motion is GRANTEO. Plaintiff shall answer the ) ~"\ (L" Interrogatories and Request for Production of Oocuments within taR (10) s'-''''..4. "\ days of the date of this Order or appropriate sanctions shall be imposed ^ upon plaintiff following application to the Court. BY THE COURT: ~ ~~0 IO~9.3' ~rr;.,L. J. V:[,:VI\lAS,',N?d I 1 ~\ 1:,"""\'-'. ,-i' ."':1~:r:~:'~lni''''' '\..:..1, '_.. ","I'"V 'IU .(" in: " ') i \' ~ ;J J.HvIC, I~' l'liJ f"r.J' ',"" (~ v v'. c](J WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, 1/1 Attorney 1.0.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 03-354 V. INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP. NOTICE OF SUGGESTION OF PENDENCY OF BANKRUPTCY AND AUTOMATICE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Please take notice that, on March 24, 2004 (the "Pe:tition Date"), International Wire Group, Inc. (IWG), named defendant in the above-caption (the "Defendant"), and certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries, as debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the "Debtors") filed voluntary petitions for re:liefunder Chapter II of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 9101-1330 ("the Bankruptcy Code"), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ("the Bankruptcy Court"). The Debtors' Chapter 11 cases are pending being jointly administered by the Bankruptcy Court under case No. 04-11991 (BRL). Please take further notice that, in accordance with the automatic stay imposed by 9362 ofthe Bankruptcy Code, all further proceedings in this action are stayed and no action may be commenced or prosecuted against the Debtors, and no related judgment may be entered or enforced against the Debtors, outside of the Bankruptcy Court without the Bankruptcy Court first issuing an order lifting or modifying the automatic stay. Accordingly, the above-captioned action may not be prose,cuted, and no valid judgment may be entered or enforced, against the Defendant. Wilbraham Lawler & Buba By: ~,_,. .Cf1~ Bernard E. Kueny Attorney for Defendants Intemational Wire Group, Inc. and Wirekratf Industries, Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Financial Corporation DATE: L/_)_ all :"j , : ~ .r: :( .,.>-'.. ("~ ~ o ~; ~. "'-- =2 r:;> U1 \,i:./ "" C:~ C::l ...- :;:r,. ::\1 -~-, N -,.., . '" c) -V, '-1 :r_ tTi...T; r -;:rfTJ :;)0 (:)1.. '--~IC) i'_':c) :E~ ::,;'~ (j '-":II-n :-:":1 WILBRAHAM, LA WLER & BUBA By: Bernard E. Kueny, 11/ Attorney 1.0.46428 1818 Market Street Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2857 AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF THOMAS AND JAMIE KUNKLE Plaintiffs . : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 03-354 V. INTERNATIONAL WIRE AND WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. AND WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: AND WHIRLPOOL FINANCIAL CORP. Defendants ORDER TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended AS TO ALL PARTIES, with each party to bear their respective costs and attorney's fees. BY: Vin ent J. Iozzi Swartz Campbell LLC 1601 Market Street, 35th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215)299-4354 Fax: (215) 299-4301 ~~ ~~ 9A~ '`~~US f~ N c__ ~ ~ '~'~;_ ~ z. ~ ,~ rn-- .~ - ,~= N -~ ., r i ~ ~ ~~,i `l i ~ .`in, y ~ 1~T ~.J "~