HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-05741
'~l
~
~
cJl
,
'"
l(~!
<\
I t-f
I
i
i~
~
-
I q
I ~
I ~
I~
I
I
. ~
d
~
\I'
-
0-
t!.
, ~
i Q
i~
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! (
I \.
'III
\-
I -
i :
I C":.J
i
I
-'
':r
t"
'<")
u.;,.
~.
. ,
a
'<!
(0)
(Q)
cw
~
,MX2W&t6
Ti:N EA\'I 1-'11,11 Srl\t.f.T
CAItUnt~, I'[NNU'L\'ANIA 17013
GARTH M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE, his wife,
Plaintiffs
v.
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, tln/d/h/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Defendant
'-~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
NO. 5741 CIVIL 1998
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF ARBITRATION HEARING
The Board of Arbitrators appointed in the above-captioned case has lixed Thursday,
September 20,2001 at 10:00 a.m. at the Offices of Fcnstcrmacher and Associates, P,C., 5 I 15 East
Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, as the time and place for the hearing.
Anyone linding this time unsuitable will please make appropriate arrangements with all
counsel involved for another time.
O_...;J k ~
Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire
Attorney for Dcfendant
John R. Fenstermacher, Chairman
The Jonas Rupp House
51 I 5 East Trindle Road
Meehanicsburg, P A 17050
Trieia Dills Naylor, Esquire (Arbitrator)
104 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
I
,
~ ~~~~..
June 25, 2001
ce:
Marcus A, McKnight, III, Esquire
60 West Porn fret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
Peter J. Russo, Esquire (Arbitrator)
5010 East Trindle Road, Suite 200
Mechaniesburg, P A 17050
Office of Court Administrator
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
GARTH M, SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE, his wife,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DOCKET NO. 98.5741 CIVIL TERM
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Ud/b/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AWARD OF ARBITRATORS
The Board of Arbitrators appointed in the above-captioned matter hereby find for
the Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,750.00. Defendant shall further pay to Plaintiffs any
record or docket costs, together with the deposition transcript costs of three (3)
depositions incurred by the Plaintiffs in this matter.
~/ "
'"0 . . ,
. . I; ~____-
. ,~-Bi---/
Johh R. Fenstermacher, Chairman
Board of Arbitrators
"
September 20, 2001
cc: Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
Daniel K, Deardorff, Esquire
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Defendant
Peter J. Russo, Esquire
5010 East Trindle Road, Suite 200
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Tricia Dills Naylor, Esquire
104 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Office of Court Administrator
One Court House Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Bulletin Board
Prothonotary
record of the proceedings or indulge udditionul judiciul time in ruling un un issue lhut could be
decided on the motion to umend. Maher Y. Kal'l1is, 41 0 & C3d 61 (1985).
Plaintiffs settled und signed u Full und Finul Releuse with the mUlled Defendunts, Allen
Lee Fogle, Glenn Euves, tlu/d/b/a Ouk Bluff I'urms und Kinsley Construction, Inc., concerning u
Legal Action brought by the Plaintiffs ut Dockct No. 98-5740, u scpurute c1uim from the instant
luwsuit. The present Iuwsuit urises under I'luintiffs' right to collect lirst purty medicul benelits
pursuunt to 75 Pa, C.S.A. ~ 17 J J, which stutes that "un insurer issuing or delivering liubility
insurunee policies covering uny motor vehicle of the typc requircd to bc rcgistcrcd ... shull
include eoveruge providing a medieul benclit .. .... 75 Pa. C.S.A. ~ 1711. First party benetits arc
separate lrom third party benclits. No medical benelits muy be recovercu from third parties as
they are to be recovered as part of tirst party benelits. 75 Pa, C.S.A, ~ 1720.
The release signed by Plaintiffs was not a general release including the Defendants, As
stated, the release was limited to "claims... on account of which u Lcgul Action was instituted
... at Docket No, 98-5740-Civil, and the defense and handling thereof.. .... (See Exhibit "A") The
present action against Defendant Donegal, Docket No. 98-5741, was not included in the claims
that were released. Neither was instant Defendant, Donegal, a named party to the release. The
release under which Defendant Donegal attempts to raise a defense was limited to claims raised
in a separate cause of action. Therefore, under all the facts plead in this case, no defense of a
general release, which would exclude Defendant from liability, exists. Thus, Defendant should
not be grunted leave to Amend. If the amendment will not assist in the resolution of a case on its
merits, then the request for leave to amend should be denied.
3
13. Delcndant should not be granted leave to amend it's Answer with New Malter when
the pleadings arc elosed and the Delcndant had the opportunity to raise the
affirmative delcnse ofa release hutlitiled to do so in their original Answer'!
Where the delcnse that delcndant seeks to introduce has becn overlooked through
neglect, defendant will not be allowed to amend to asserl the defcnse. Lawrcncc v, YUSCIII. 16 0
& C2d 115 (1958).
Defendant was aware prior to the tiling of its Answer with New Malter to Plaintiffs'
Complaint on December 23, 1999, of the litet that Plainti ITs had initiated and then seltlcd an
action against the parties involved in the accident. l3y virtue of the litet that the Defcndant knew
of the seltlement of the case, it should have been aware of the existcnee of a release prior to the
filing of its Answer with New Malter on December 23, 1999. Dcfcndant had amplc opportunity
to discover the relcase and raise it as an affirmative defcnse in its own Answer with New Matter.
Defendants should not now have the opportunity to Amend because it failed to assert a defense
that was available at the time they filed their Answer to New Matter.
4
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintifls request that the Court dcny Defendants' Petition to
Amend Its Answer with New Matter.
Respeetl'ully Submitted:
IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES
A~A'Le!-
Date: Octobcr 9, 2000
By: mght, III, Esq
Supreme Court . No. 25476
Mark D, Schwartz, s
Supreme Court LD. No. 70216
60 Wcst Pomfrct Strect
Carlislc, P A 17013
(717) 249.2353
Attorneys Il)r Plaintiffs,
Garth M, Sponagle, and
Norma L. Sponaglc
5
1',"HI.I!S\lIA'fAI.lI.INII' INH IAl.llC Ie 'I \,.... I....",
('~~"... (rJllWIIl.ll;.IJAM
IInN,t'm/I"'.IO/I"'olllAM
SEP 2 82000 to
..
GARTH M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE. his wife,
Plaintiff
IN TIlE COURT or COMMON PLEAS or
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
9X-5741 CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, tla/d/bla DONEGAL
COMPANIES.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER WITH
NEW MATIER
FACTS:
On November 19. 1999. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant/Petitioner alleging that
they were entitled to certain insurance benefits through their policy with Defendant as a result of
t:::::--
r;:::c=
@-:J
CS~~)
CS-. ~
-' '-jj
L-...I
-"
injuries which occurred from a motor vehicle accident on October IS. 1996. On December 23. 1999,
Defendant filed an Answer With New Matter which raised various defenses but did not raise the
defense that Plaintiffs had signed a Full and Final Release in favor of various parties because
Defendant was not aware of said Full and Final Release at that time, Thereafter, Defendant
subpoenaed the me of the attorneys for the driver of the vehicle which was involved with Plaintiffs
in the accident of October 15, 1996.
On or about April 12, 2000, counsel for Defendant received the records from the attorney for
the other driver. Among those records was a Full and Final Release which was signed by Plaintiffs
in favor of the other driver Allen Lee Fogle, and "all other persons, association and incorporations
whether or not named herein...." a copy of said Full and Final Release is attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
,
On or about April2ll, 20ll0, Defendant filed a Petition to Amend its Answer With New Maller
to raise the defense that Plaintiffs had signed a Full and Final Release which would fully release and
discharge Defendant from any claims arising out of the motor vehicle accident of October 15, 1996.
Plaintiffs filed an Answer With New Maller to the petition, In the new maller, Plaintiffs alleged that
the Defendant knew about the selllement of the case and had an opportunity to obtain a copy of the
Release prior to filing its answer on December 23, 1999. Defendant then filed a Reply to this new
matter denying that it was aware of the selllement made by Plaintiffs or the existence of a General
Release signed by Plaintiffs.
Thereafter, Defendant took the deposition of Janet Sandillon who is a claims supervisor for
the first party benefit unit of Defendant. In her testimony, she discussed the type of file that is kept
when a claim is made for first party benefits as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Initially, an
Application for Benefits form is f1Ied by the Claimant and then forms are mailed out to the party with
the injury. The injured person or the Claimant then f1Ies documentation showing their medical
expenses or work loss. (Deposition of Janet Sandillon at 4-5),
In the present case, Janet Sandillan was the supervisor for the claim made by the Plaintiffs
against Defendant. She reviewed their file at Donegal regarding the claims that they made. Janet
Sandillon testified that there was no indication in the file that the Plaintiffs had filed a lawsuit against
the other persons who were involved in the motor vehicle accident of October IS, 1996. There was
an indication that claims were made by the Plaintiffs against the other drivers but nothing to indicate
that a lawsuit had been filed. (Deposition of Janet Sandillon at 7-9). Janet Sandillon testified that
the records of Defendant were subpoenaed from time to time but Defendant Donegal was never
aware that Plaintiffs had settled their claims or had signed a Release with regard to those claims
.~
against the other drivers until some time in April of 2000 after Defendant's counsel had subpoenaed
those records from the other parties. (Deposition of Janet Sandillon at 10.11), In short, Janet
Sandillon acknowledged that she had reviewed the Iile regarding the Plaintiffs ami did not find any
information in the file to lead her to believe that prior to April, 2000 the Plaintiffs had sell led their
claims and had signed a Release in the other case. (Deposition of Janet Sandillon at 13).
The deposition of Janet Sandillon has been filed and this case has been listed for argument
court scheduled for October II, 2000.
OUESTION INVOLVED:
Should Defendant be permilled to amend the new mailer of its answer to raise the defense
that the Plaintiffs had signed a General Release oftheir daim~ when Defendant was not aware of the
existence of such a release until after it filed its answer in the present case'!
DISCUSSION:
Rule 1033 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party with leave of court
at any time to amend its pleading, The courts have discretion at any stage of the legal proceedings
to permit an amendment if it is necessary for the proper decision on the merits of the case.
MacGregor vs. Media, 395 Pa, Superior Court 221,576 A.2d 1123 (1990). The court may deny an
amendment where there is prejudice to the other party because of delay in seeking the amendment.
However, mere delay is not a sufficient basis to deny an amendment. The opposing party must show
prejudice. Brooks vs. McMenamin, 349 Pa, Superior Court 436503 A.2d 446 (1986). Mere
prejudice because the amendment requested strengthens the defense of the Defendant is not the type
of prejudice required. The opposing party must show that there is some substantial prejudice to his
legal position. For example, where there is a the request to amend after an opposing party has
.,
presented all his eviden~e or where the opposing pany has in~urred suhstantial ~osts to present his
~ase might he ~onsidered suflicielll prejudi~e. Garv vs, Mankanwcr, 4X5 Pa. 525, 403 A.2d X7
(1979).
In general, amendments of the pleadings should be allowed with great liberality at any stage
of the pro~eedings in order to secure a proper determination of the case, Roberson vs. Davis, 397
Pa. Superior Court 292, 5XO A.2d 39 (11)90).
In our case, Defendant has requested to amend the new matter of its answer to raise as a
Defense that the Plaintiffs ei'~~uted a Full and Final Release as to the ac~ident in question, In general,
a Release signed by Plaintiffs specifically discharging the driver of the other vehicle, his insurance
carrier, and "any and all other persons, firms, corporations, associations..... has been determined to
be a sufficient release as to all persons despite the fact that they were not specifically named and did
not contribute towards the settlement. Hanselman vs. Consolidated Rail Corooration, 158 PA
Commonwealth Court 56X, 632 A 2d 607 ( 1993).
In the present case, the complaint was filed in November of 1999 and Defendant filed an
answer in December of 1999. By April of 2000, Defendant learned about a Full and Final Release
signed by the Plaintiffs purportedly releasing all those involved in their claims arising from an accident
of October IS, 1996. By April 20, 2000, Defendant had filed its petition to amend its answer with
new matter to raise the full and final release as a defense. Defendant also presented deposition
testimony from its claims supervisor that Defendant was not aware of the settlement or the Full and
Final Release signed by the Plaintiffs until April of 2000. Moreover, the parties in the present case
have not taken depositions of the Plaintiffs or undertaken any other discovery. To the contrary,
\
A;lGllMENT COURT. OCTOBER 11.2000
nEFORE OLER and llA YLEY
#17
Garth M. Sponagle and
Norma L. Sponagle, his wife,
Plaintiff
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO, 98-5741 CIVIL TERM
-/
(;
'\ ' '-'
\ ,\.,'1
(~
~'~>./ )
'c,
G'
Donegal Mutual Insurance
Company, tlaldIb/a Donegal
Companies,
)'
\J
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION- LAW
Motion: Defendant's Petition to Amend Its Answer with New Matter
Briefs: -Brief in Support of Defendant's Petition to Amend Its Answer with New Matter
.PlaintilT's Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Petition to Amend Its Answer with
New Matter
Facts: Plaintiffs sustained injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident on
October 15, 1996, They filed a complaint against Defendant alleging certain
insurance benefits, Defendants thereafter filed an Answer with New Matter
raising various defenses not including the defense that Plaintiffs had signed a Full
and Final Release regarding a third party benefits lawsuit because Defendant was
unaware that Plaintiffs had signed such a release, After filing its answer,
Defendant subpoenaed the attorney's file of one of the parties to the third party
benefits lawsuit and discovered that PlaintilT's had signed a Full and Final
Release setting the third party benefits claims. Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed
a Petition to Amend its Answer with New Matter to raise this defense, PlaintilT's
filed an Answer and Defendant's filed a Reply, arguing over Defendant's
knowledge of the settlement of the third party benefits claims, The deposition of
Janet Sandillon, supervisor for the claim made by Plaintiffs against Defendants,
reveals that there was no indication in PlaintilT's file indicating that they had filed
or settled a third party benefits lawsuit.
Arguments: Defendant argues that it should be permitted to amend its answer to raise
the defense that Plaintiffs had signed a general release of their claims when
Defendant was not aware of the existence of such a release until after it filed its
answer. Defendant argues that the court has liberal discretion to permit an
amendment if it is necessary for the proper decision on the merits and that it is
upon the opposing party to show substantial prejudice to his legal position.
....
~,; -. ?::
,;
1-.;
ri - -
., -J'
. "
-'.~
() .. w'.
, ~-.I
" , " :1
.. , , )
, '. c~ , ,
t, I it
c.:.j I:-f:
L.. l':"l
C -~}
'}\ U
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and subnitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter far the next Argunent Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
GARTH M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE. his wife
( plaintiff)
vs.
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
t/a/d/b/a DONEGAL COMPANIES
( Defendant)
No. 98-5741
Civil Action-Law 19
L state matter to be argued (i.e.. plaintiff's rrotion for new trial. defendant's
demurrer to complaint. etc.):
Defendants' Petition reguesting leave of Court to file an Amended Answer.
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff:
Address:
Marcus A. McKnight. Esguire
IRWIN. McKNIGHT & HUGHIDS
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Daniel K. Deardorff. Esguire
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & arTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle. PA 17013
(b) for defendant:
Address:
3. I will notify all parties in writing within v.o days that this case has
been listed for argurent.
4 . ArgI.rneIlt Court Date:
July 26. 2000
\)4_ oj) ~ ~
l\ t-tnT'TlPV fnr . en an
-
-
"
"
I I!~ !.: ,~ "; '/.' i,
P;-;-':
l'l=,:!; :::.-,;\:
---- ....
"
r:: 'r , 11'
, , ,
. n , . , .' , ,
'.
n;JrIH"_'d d'='~"';j.j;I:-'
'"
bu", ~.Ft~. I_lr~ l:1
d>:~ pu t I ::..::.d
.".
",'
to.,'
.'-'
"
t (j ~:;";;, r '.'..:;,
tJ.:, 'ft' i t
;:
,~'ifj _J\.-.~_: ",
t:'I"C' '::if.+.:l;':L-.d ~--I~' :.'[-r-i
',;.'
S h '2 :- i .f .t .~:; C '=, E t.
[,.-::.r=f.:("t i:ll]
01': t ;)f (':Iun~. \'
SI.)I~ch;:lrqj:? '
Dep. LaAc~s~er (;'1
.~ I~ ~ 17
.~ ,'I
':'-'.
,,--,..-........,..,,.
, L'\'nt~.
t ',"I ,: :.~ 1 /
::;'..01-rl 311'-:'1 SlJbsl:- r~b-::.,j tC) b.'." ,..\ P :,,~
this _~l~__ Ii'll' "-' , CP_~~._
1 ':l S[ ___ i<. ['.
-.i___t1~~~)'f-L,:~i~, ,(jf;~--~
~ l'rO>l-::.r,i",t.cor-'-.'
:;
."
,.
.
"
"
'"~
i.1
".."
"
~: .
.)."
",:
-, ,;\,1.
"tI;::..
f)'::;
,,'
"'~Hll OJ.
___0~~~~
, ',;, '11;', r.~, -,.-. ~,-:. ;:-~..------- --.-
..... " ~ ~ , . _ . .. _ . J. L
'.'
:'-:1::: C-.:.,.
';:-1' iE'.
~-! I.le;!: t~:"~,
SHERIFF SERVICE
PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN
r
-;J:'
PLEASE TYPE OR PRIN ...
DO NOT DETACH ANV~.9PIES,_._l!l
_.on'--'-L. -(':(~ili ,:;Miiill---- 0
I 9!l-',74! Civil :>l
..,..~
,
SHERIFF'S OFFICE
SO NOfHH OUKf: STI1[l r, POBOX flHI10 I MWA',T! H 1'[tm~iVl VM~I^ 171;011 'WIO . III II ~1f'~Ht;:rOO
PlAINTlH 151
Garth M. Sponagle, et. a1.
3 DEfENQANT'SI .___'_4_.___'________._ ! 4 j' .,'t ()lWI"f 0'. (.(J'..H'lAi'~I'
Donegal Mutual Insurance Company,..I:!.~/.b/i~D()n()<JiI! cf)rnPiln~.:_s__IWrit_~t"
SERVE {5 NAME or INDIVIDUAL COM''M~'( COUPOllAIICJt4 lie IU m ~(IWI II
~ Doneqal Mutual In5uranc~, Co, l/d/~Lg__90~QE~~~~~)a~~e5
IIIIp""" 6 ADDRESS (Slteet or RFO Apar'lmenl No ell.,. 80to Iwp SI.le dnd liP Codt')
AT 1195 River Road, Marietta, PA 17547-0.102
...-....-.--- --..- - -
7 INDICATE UNUSUAL SERVICE lJ DEPUTIZE ') OHiER C'.wnbe..I:l.and
NOV(, 1 u III 'J ~ 19 _ , I, SHERIFF OF LXHII!A.':lQVQ COUNTY --:Pi\": do -m~.;;;;lO"i;;;---;;t~,_--
Lancas ter County to execute thls~ e retu Ihe ord ng
to law. This deputallon being made at the request and fisk 01 the plaint I" -rr--- ~ ___ __
e. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE:
Summon"!:,
u
Z
C'l
6\-
;00
<"
Cumberland
NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B, WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheFlll1eYYlng upon or allachmg ally properly under
Within Wftt may leave same Without a watchman. m cuslody 01 whomever,s found In posseSSion, after notifYing person ollevy or allachmenl. Without lIabIlity on
the pari 01 such depuly or the sherllllo any plamtltl herein for any loss, destruction or remoyal 01 any such property belore sherllf's sale lhereol
9. SIGNATURE 01 ATTORNEY or other ORIGINATOR 10 TElEP~10NE NUMBER 11 DATE
CUMBERLAND CO PD ADV COSTS 249-2353
12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW; (This aro. must be compleled If nollee is 10 be mailed).
10-6-98
MCKNIGHT, III, ESQ. AT 60 W. POMFRET ST., CARLISLE, PA 17013
SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF SHERIFF ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
NAME 01 Aulhorlzed Leso Deputy or Clerk 14 Date Recelyed 15
JUDY MORRIS 295 3609 10-14-98
EJlplrallon/Hearlng dale
13.1 acknowledge receipt ollhe writ. l
or complaint as indicated above r
11-5-98
16. I hereby CERTIFY and RETURN that I 0 have personally served,'Vhaye legal evidence 01 servIce as shown In "Remarks~, '1 have execuled as shown to
"RemarkS",lhewnt or complaint descr,bed on the Individual, coitiPany, corporallon, elc., at the address sho.....n above or on Ihe indiVidual, company, COt-
pOtallon, elc, at Ihe address inserled below by handIng a TRUE and ATTESTED COpy lhereol
17, 0 I hereby cettily and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locale the IndlYldual. company, corporahon etc, named above (See remarks below)
18. Name and hlle 01 individual served (il ~Ol shown above) (RelallonShlp to Def~nda~) 19 LNoService
bo'((/\ .3'. ((:,56'1:/ (Jt'r.>.-rJ :/"1 ('///':..?/,,(-;! SeeR""""...~'N030)
20. Addressol where served (complete only il dillerenllhan shown above) (Slreel or RF'D, Apartment No ,Clly, Bora. TWD
Slate and Zip Codel
21 Dale of Servtce
23, ATTEMPTS
~. '.....t ';1'''
,.C-' II I
22 TIme
--
-:> PM
-J.i(U~
24. Advance Costs
100.00
DOp'.lnt.
c'A
25.
30, REMARKS:
S,T,A.:
n
C-k (3771
Id/"/1~
34.
)Ltc
99Y
-'i ,J ~
32 Slgnalureo! /~/''>,--I
OeD Sherdl ,'7j
, .
3 _Slgnalule,01 She.rill
( ,.':/., ",",",,-.
'::::':__..~'..SttERIF
,
. . SO AN5)l1ER.
\ -i,~1 /.) /~'-"
,C.Lj-._..,
f /,_.-:>"'-----.:
JJ Dale
,,:)
37
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
38, J ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE SHERIFF'S RETURN SIGNATURE I
OF AUTHORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND TITLE.
(
\
OF LANCASTER COUNTY
39 Dale Retfl'~ed
1. WHITE. Issuing Authority 2. PINK. Attorney 3. CANARY. Sheriff's Ollice 4, BLUE. Shoritl's QHlce
,
0"
..:r ~
Cl 8 n..~
LU I.LID...
> ::c ell
oa: (nO
. u
lLf j '....
Co u...u
-z
LU t- C:<l;
U ~...J
0:: C)
co en
en
..-..---_.m
-,
I'
C~I
. ,
>.
c
10
0.
E 0-
Ql 0 Ol Ol
"-' U OJ '"
,., ..,
, :< OJ c ,
, ,
, U 10 , H
q,: Ol c 0. , H'"
,
I<i" '0 ,., 10 E , HOJ
OJ, C,C ... 0 :<, OJ
E-< 10 :lU 10: . ...
Ol ""J, ........,
.... OJ OJ C.... Cl , ,CUJ....
,
.., ........ H 10 .- " Ol 0
> 0l0l Ol , ..-!J.J("-o
.., 10 10 .... OJ Ia C: CW......M ~
U c C 10 C 0' >0: ... '" E
00 ~ :l 0 0 ......1 U~ .ctM
.... 0.0. ... 0 ~ -1-', ;;:Eo.N S
~
...,. UJUJ :l U' 0 , ..:
r-' ;;: 10 .0:: '0. .",
"': ...... , .0: OJ...,.
, , ;;: ""J .....0 rIJ ....: .......N
col 10...... ....., OlOlOl
"" ,CIO 0l'O >: ;]<1.1.....-
, ... E OJ...... '...., u3 ~ r-...
,
, ... ... C 10 U' ... .......
, 10 0 0...... , CO 0 CO ['
,
~ c"' Z 0-1-' , ::E\OU-
,
,
.
~~ ~
J' @0 , -
-c ,) = ~=)
;:: ':i. l!:!!::l .~
\:1 " ~ I:inl
--'
.~ '>- ,0 S =
~~ <ie)
~. Iliiiil
'Iv '"
....
>.
c
co
c.
E C'
QJ o Ul Ul
"" U QJ '"
.... ....
. 3: QJ C ,
, ,
, u CO , H
!ill Ul C c. , H""
'0 '... CO E , H QJ
I<'i ,
QJ, C.c " 0 3:' QJ
E-<I CO ::>U CO' . "
I Ul ...li """"""
...., QJ QJ C .... = , .cUl..,
,
....' ........ H CO .~ " 01 0
>1 0101 01 , "M +J r--
'...' CO CO .... QJ a C: CQ.l......M f
ul C C CO C 0 0' ><: " '"
I o 0 ~ ::> 0 8 -..-il U4-l.c:x:M 3
..,' c.c. "" Q ...., ::E:E/l,N
, ~
"'" UlUl ::> ~ u' 0 , ..:
", ::E: co <t: ./l, .",
"': "- , <t QJ""
" ::E:...l .....0 I:IJ ....: ""....N
<XlI CO"- ...., Ul Ul Ul
"" .c co 01'0 >1 =' Q)'.-I-
, .j.J E QJ"- ...., U~,.....{r--
,
, I-< " C co U' ~... l-l ....-l
, <00 0"- , /COlOr---
,
~ t:)z Q.j.J , ::E:"'U-
,
,
menlioned ahove had heen sell led ,11\11 a release siglwd hy Plainti ffs prior III the Answer liIed hy
the Defendant.
11. Plaintiffs arc withllllt sllflkil'nt knowledgl' to lill'ln a Iwlief ahout the trllth or
Ihlsity of this allegation and strict proof is therelilre demanded al trial.
7, PlaintilTs arc without suflieient knowledge to liml1 a helieI' ahoUl the truth or
Iillsity of this allegation alld strict proof is thercli,re demanded at trial.
S. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiffs executed a
release 10 sell Ie rhe claims whieh they mised in their action Dllekeled at No. 5740 Civil 1998 in
the Court of Common Pleas, Cumherland County, A copy of said release which speaks IiII' itself
is allaehed hereto as Exhihil "13". It is expressly denied that the instant Defendant was a party to
the release or that the document releases Defendant Irllll1 any claims involved in the within
action.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admilled that Defendant has petitioned this
Court for pel'lnission to amend its Answer with New Matter. It is denied that Defendant should
he pennitted to amend and it is further denied that the document in any way releases the instant
Defendant Irom the claims raised by the Plaintiffs in the within action as the Defendant is not a
party nor intended to be a party to the signed release.
10. Admitted.
II. Admitted.
12. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, the trial of the above captioned
matter will necessarily he delayed hy the pleading and motion work which will result should the
Defendant he pennitted to amend.
-2.
:"IE\\' :\I;\TTEII
1:1, The awrments 01' I<,el conlamed In the AnSWl'rs to Ihe IklCndant's Petitioll 10
Amend its AnSWl'r with I\e\\' :\lal1er ahow arc herl'hy incorporated hy rdcrenee and arc nUllle
p,n1ol'this Nell' \Iatter to the IklCndant's Petition 10 Amelld.
14, IklClldant was aware prior 10 Ihe tiling 01' its l\nSll'er with New Matter to
Plaintii'ls' Complaint Oil Deeemher 23, 1 lJ (I') , of the I;,et Ihat Plaintii'ls had initiated and then
settled an aetion against the parties involved in the accident that was Docketed at No. 5740 Civil
l'IlJX in the Court of Common Pleas, Cumherland Counly.
15, By virlUe of the l'let that the Ddendant knell' of the settlement of Ihe case
Docketed at No. 5740 Civil IlJl)X, it should have been aware of the existence of a release prior to
the tiling of its Answer with New Mattcr on Deeemher 23, IlJlJlJ.
16. Delendant had amplc opportunity to attempt to secure a copy of the release prior
to the tiling of its Answer with New Matter, yet it I(liled to attempt to secure the release until it
received a subpoena reply from the attorney for the other parties involved in the accident on or
about April 12,2000.
17. Givcn the oppol1lll1ity of the Dctendant to attempt to secure a copy of the release
and ils I(lilure to do so until some I;'ur months aileI' the tiling of the Defendant's own AnsIVer
with New Matter, the Plaintii'ls arc prejudiced by the Delendant's tardy attempt to amend.
I X. The instant Defendant IVas not named in the release. See Exhibit "B" attached
hereto.
1'1. The instant Defendant was not a party to Ihe release and it was not the intent of
the parties herein to release any claims involved in the within action.
-3-
20, Th.: rd.:as.: aoa.:hed Il<:r.:hl as hhihit "1\" lias limill'd hy its langna!!.: 10 a rel.:ase
hy the I'lainlin:s of all elaims IIhkh Ih.:y had against III<: IJclcllllants ill III<: al'lion f)lll'kded at
No. S7~0 Civil II)l)S,
21. Thl' rd.:as.: allaeh.:d herelo as Exhihit "If' docs not IIl<:ntion th.: illstallt aelion
which is Doeket.:d at No, S7~1 Civilll)I)S, Cumherland County ('ourt ofCollllllonl'leas.
22. If 111<: release was inl.:nd.:d to rel.:ase th.: I'lainlin,' daims in the within action
Ihen the inslant D.:lendanl would hav.: he.:n nanl<:d and the instant Do.:ket numher would have
heen referenced.
23. Delendant should h.: preeluded lhllll amending its Answer with New Matter
heeause il knew of the settlemenl oflhe other suit and it could have ohtained the release prior to
the tiling ofils Answer with New Matter and yet ill:liled 10 raisc the dclense.
24. As a resull of thc t:lilure of thc Defendant to timely raise the defense, it has been
waiv.:d.
WIIEREFORE, Plaintiffs resp.:.:tfully request that this Honorahle Court deny the
Delcndanl's Petition lor leave of Court to amend its Answer with New Matter.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Date:
lJo J;,~ """"
e ni t, III, Esquire
60 West mfret Str et
Carlisle, Pcn a 17013
717-249.2353
Supreme Court 1.0. No: 25476
Attorney lor the Plaintiffs,
Garth M. Sponagle and
Norma L. Sponagle
-4.
. - .:; - ~:....
EXIIIIlIT A
GARTIIM. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE, his wife,
Plaintiffs
: IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
\"
98 5741 CIVIL TERM
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Va/d/b/a
DONEGAL COMPANIES,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO DEFEND
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint, order and
notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and tiling in writing
with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned
that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against
you by the court without further 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.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-3166
1-800-990-9108
Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable
accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our
office, All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the
court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing,
, .
'~: .' . ". . ..' - '. :;(
GARTIII\1. SPONAl a.E 111111
NORM,\ I.. SI'O:-i,\(;LE, hl\ \\11."
l'l:lllllin,
: IN TilE ('Ollln OF CO:\I:\ION PLEAS OF
: ('\lI\IIlEltI.M.;1) COIJ:-iTY, I'ENNSYLVANIA
v,
'Ill ~7~ I CIVIL TEH:\I
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSIIIlAN('E
COMI'ANY,I/II/c1/h/:I
DONEGAL COI\II'ANIES,
Ilrr"IIII:1I1I~
CIVIL ACTION
,JllltY TIUAL l>EI\IANnEl>
(,OI\Il'LAINT
ANI) NOW, this IlJth d:lY of November, l'JlJ'J, comes the Plaintiffs, Garth M. Sponagle
and Norma I.. SponaAlc, his wife, by their ^ttomc~s, Iruin, McKnight & Hughes and make the
lollowing complaint lIAainst Ihe Defendant, Donegal Mulual Insurance Company, t/a/d/b/a
Donegal Companies:
I.
The PlainlilTs arc Garth M, Sponagle and Norma L. Sponagle, his wife, who reside at
2156 Twin Brooks Drive, York, Pennsylvania 17401.
2,
The Defendant is Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, tldlb/a Donegal Companies, Box
302, Mariella, Pennsylvania 17547.
. . . . .
, '
. " '
, '
, ' . . .
'. " .'. . .
. . ,
WIIEIU~FOIH:, thc plainllfl\ Garth M. Sponagle and Nonllal.. Sponagle, rcqucsts
judgmcnl againstlhc dcfcmlanl, Doncgal !'vluluallnsur;lIlcc COlllpany va/dill/a Doncgal
Companics, in thc allloulIl ill c.xcc,;s ofTwcnty Fivc Thousand and no!\OO ($25,000.00) Dollars
with reasonablc Icgal fccs, damages fllr bad failh, costs, and intcrcsl as pcnnittcd by law.
Respectfully Submitted:
IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES
By: Mar us A. Me ' igh, II, Esquire
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 249-2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
Garth M. Sponagle and
Nonna L. Sponagle
Date: November 19, 1999
JO(;s\p k:ad I ng..' $ POll;\ gle
4
i ",
~ . ." . . . .,'. .... .
. .
.' .' "
. '
, .
.. .. '.
fULL ANn fINAL R.ELr::A,~E
FOR ^,\iD IN CON'SlDERA TION oflho 'um ofT1flRTY.EJGHT THOUSM7J ONE
HL'NDRED TIIIRTY.rwo M1.l NO/lOa DOLLARS ($38,131.00) paid 10 [he undersigned,
GUIO M. Spona!:l. ""d Nonn~ L. Spon.~le, aod the receiplllr1d lUtlicieucy of Which is Ilereby
:Jcl:uowledl:ed, the uode",ign.a "flree 10 fUl/y rele4SL1. discharge, hold h=I..., IIr1d indemnify
ALLEN LEE FOGLE, GLENN EA YES, rldlbl. OAK BLUFP FM~J\IS, 1\'ATIO:-iWIDE
INSURA'iCrz COMPANY, [(INSLEY CONSTRUCTION, l'NC, ZL'R1CH AMERfCAN
INSliRANC:E CCJMPA.\''Y, 4I1d all ether PCr:lons. mocialious ilJld COrporations, whether or nol
n.1Jl1ed herein. lbeir heirs, ''''''CUlOr!, admillisllators, ,uoces,or;, assigns ood Lasure:;, and their
:'l!::;p:crlve Ilgcnt..'f. Si::n'tl.lu'3, ~mpro}"'e~s and' ,']tto~}'s, frum allY QT llll CllLbcs of ocean., claiCl3 ;!nd
d=l1ds ufwlut$Oevcr kind on ""COUCl ofaJll.:nown, ~nd unknown irtiuries,lo= and .1=80.
aUegodly sU"ained by Garth M, Sponagle ""d Xorma L. Sponagle 00 O_loll... 15, 1996, ""d.
specilicalJ)', trom ""y claims, or joinders, for soleli,biUry, eomributioo. indomnity or oth.....ise
as d ",suit of, ..-ising from, or in ""y way COTU1CClal "i!b injurie, sust:tined by Gattlt:\,1,
SPOCo~le ""d Norma L. Sponog)e ""d on 3CCOllJU ofwbich a Lcgal ....etion W:tS instimled by the
Wld~"isoed in tho COW'! of Common PLeas, C'.U!1berlJlld Count)', Pe:lJ1'yIVani,1.111 DockeT No.
9g.57~O - Civil, :lnd the dofens: Md handling thereof from Ib: lnc_eetieo ef lh. :I.im un1iJ tho
da'e of this Fullond fj""j R:Ie:lSo, ;roe thar the ace"Plonc: of
,uid Sum is nOI an admIssion ofliobi
j~ ~xpr~!J,"y t.:.::d~rst:J:Jd
aruiagl'eCLl :hOI lhis Relc:c;e and scnlemenr is intendcd [/) COVer Jnd Joe, CO"" not ooly 311
l.:nOW1'1 injones. Jo,ses, ..,d damages. bUI !LOY f"rUla injurie" los,es, Jnd du",Ses II'hieh arise
i'rum or J:e ,e'-''''d CO ~I: oc:curr:occs set fOrlh in the r.e~,l Actinn nu,d .huve IIr1J 111: be..odlillg
and d::"clI)c lh=n::o{.
Exhibit "c"
lOIIIIl
1
GARTH 11, ~;PONAGLE, <lnd
NORMA L, ~;PONAGLE,
his wiff~,
l'L,'"I.\! I,;.
IN TIIf: COURT OF' cOMt10n PLEAS OF
CUI1BEBLAND COUNTY, Pl.:ml~;YLVANIA
2
('11-','/'11 CIV!L !\CTlOtI - LAW
3
,/,
4
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE:
5 COMPAN'!, t/el/b/il DONEGAL:
COMPANISS, JURY TRIAL DEI1ANDED
6 Defendant,
7
~'G\~~~
OP>
8
9
10
Telephonic
Deposition of:
JANET SANDILLON
11
12
Taken by:
Defendant
13
Before:
Susan o'Hara, Notary public
Registered Merit Reporter
14
July 10, 2000, 3:00 p.m.
Date:
15
Martson, Deardorff, Williams
& Otto
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
Location:
16
17
18
19
APPEARANCES:
20
IRWIN, MCKNIGHT & HUGHES
BY: MARCUS A. MCKNIGHT, ESQUIRE
FOR - PLAINTIFFS
21
22
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
BY: DANIEL K. DEARDORFF, ESQUIRE
FOR - DEFENDANT
23
24
25
CentL-al. Penllsylvani.'l Court Reporting Services
717-:258<j657 or 800-863-3657 or fastfngers@aol.com
-.
:~
[J!-:I'UIIUIT
INDEX TO TESTIMONY
1'::-:11I11111',1' \ uH
I'^GE
H'!, (.It. lll'd! dc,! : t
,LIlII'\ ,:.\11' II t Il111
1','1 i'l!. (.j, ';-:11 i 'ILl
1 \
4
')
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 NO.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
Contral PC!Ul.sy.lvc1nia Court Reporting ,s.:..'rvices
7_17-258-3G57 or 800-863-3657 or fastfllqers@aol.com
.,
~
2
3
~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.,-,
, .
STIPULATION
It i:.; herel)y !;tipulatecl by ,111\1 !H.to,.'I"'(1
CUlln:;!'l tl1id ,....ddinq, ~;iqrdl\q dlld t i 1 illq oIr(' wdivj'd.
JANET SANDILLON, <"dled ,le; .. \-litne",', having
been duly S...lorn, testified as folio\l!::::
BY MR. DEARDORFF:
Q, Janet, my name is Dan Deardorff and \-Ie're
here to take your deposition, We'll be presenting this
deposition to the Court with regard to a petition that I
have filed on behalf of Donegal to ilmewl Defendi1nt' s
Ans\-ler to file an additional defense,
With that in mind, Attorney McKnight is here
and he will object if necessary to my questions and he'll
ask you some questions as well,
Is it agreed, Attorney McKnight, that if \-Ie
have any objections to either one's questions, we'll have
to put that on the record?
MR, MCKNIGHT: Yes.
MR. DEARDORFF: And then I'll be filing this
deposition transcript with the Court, and we'll proceed on
our argument as to \-Ihether \-Ie're allowed to amend our
Answer or not,
BY MR, DEARDORFF:
Q, With that in mind, Janet, you have been s\-lorn
Central Pennsylvania Court Reportinq St.~t:vices
717-258-]657 or 800-86]-3657 or [astfllqors@aol,com
:~
--
t
l
~
~)
6
7
8
CJ
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. ,
......
~
Ill. l'II',I:;I~ qive ll~j YUUL' full ndrnn.
l\. ,Jdfl/lt L. ::'llldil1'.lfl.
(.1. \'Jllrlll~; your cmpll.'Ylllent., ,J,lll~'l_;>
A. I'ro ltll] Inedical co()rdiflJtor ilnd clnims
,;upe,.vi:;or for the fin;t-party benefit unit here at
Doneqal ~~lltua.l In::iurance Company in t'-larif~tta,
PC'fln:;yl \',:In ill.
Q. How long have you worked for Donegal?
A. Ten years,
Q. Now, you indicated that you're the supervisor
of certain claims.
Let's talk hypothetical about how the
claim:; people at Donegal document claims that are made and
keep a file.
Let's say someone has automobile insurance
coverage with Donegal and they're involved in a car
accident where they suffer personal injuries and make a
claim for, let's say, first-party benefits involving
medical benefits and wage loss.
I guess they file a
certain document to get those benefits,
A, Right, The application for benefits form is
that --
Q,
Right.
So that's filed at first?
A. Well, once they report the claim that they
have an injury, whether they report it initially at the
time they report the actual accident or later through the
ContL-al Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
717-258-3657 or 800-863-3657 or fastfllqcrs@aol.com
.'-'"
24
t.
.-~,-
25
,~.....,.,
...
c!.dm f('[nnsentative 1Id1ldlill'l till" d..,m"q.,:: to tile vehicle,
2 d cl.-dlll i,'; :;('t lip by lTlV::l-' I I d:;:;iqfl(~d l.o d t:Llirn
3 "'1'1<"''''111011 iv.. te, 1'''lIdl,' in ti,e' tir::l-I'"ny benefit unit.
4
At t hdt t illlC', Ull(,~I.' tholL rl:;:;iql)lI\ent is made,
5 the' torrn~3 (lrc flldi.lc'd (Jill: to ttlt.' p(ltty wit.11 th(~ injury,
6 which is called tll(, applic.ltion of b,'n"rit:s form, and we
7 must have that complete ilnd returned to consider any clai
8 for first-party benefits.
9
().
Let's call the people who are insured by
10 Donegal and who are milking the claim, let's call them
11 claimants. And then as the claimants incur medical
12 expenses or they have work loss, do they submit a claims
13 loss to the claim representative at Donegal?
14
A.
Yes,
15
Q.
And does the claims representative document
16 the file with contacts with the claimants?
17
A.
Yes, on a chronological claim record.
18
Q,
And then you indicated that you're a
19 supervisor of claims representatives. Do you on a regular
20 basis review the file that's been documented and prepared
21 by the claims representative?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
And do both you and the claims representative
have access to the file of the claimants?
A,
Yes.
CL~nLLll !-'u!J1Jsylvania Cour-r: RC-'fX')LI.,i!)l.' :,',~'!-vice8
'/17--258-3(;57 or 6'OO-8G3-J(j57 or (dstl'nqec;::(Jaol. ,--'om
5
jl
,
"
\
I~~.~
..-......:
"\
... .
~
(.J,
Now, ill thi~) l~d!;I', Ill.. pl,dlll i It:: il; llli:;
2
l'd~;(' ,II.' (;<trth dlHI N{)rflld ::!I(;lj'I'11."
Vl4'r,' ! Ill'']' {'ldiJlldflt~j
:3 undlel''' 1,,,1 i,'Y ,,[ d"l,,/lII,l>i I,' 1",1",,; '"~i: I, [",n"'I," [ur
'1 ifljU! i..~; tli~ll they :;ut l('lC'd ill .1 lliu! Ii! VI'llicI,' dLTidt....nt on
5 Oct()l)(~: 1[_// 199G?
6
A.
Yes.
7
(.'.
And did they fill uut one 01. tho'Je
8 applicdtions [or benefits?
9
A,
Yes,
10
Q.
And did they submit medical bills and wage
11 loss [rom time to time with the claims representative?
12
A,
Yes,
13
Q.
And were various benefits paid from time to
14 time?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Now, did you review their file from time to
17 time as activity occurred?
18
A.
Yes, I did.
19
Q.
Now, we're here today because a lawsuit was
20 brought by Garth Sponagle and Norma Sponagle as plaintiffs
21 at number 5741 Civil 1998 in Cumberland County. Are you
22 aware of that lawsuit which was brought?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And their complaint speaks for itself, But
(
25
in a nutshell, they're saying that we should have paid
Ct'!llt-ral P8lllls}'lvc1nia Court Heport.ing Services
717-258-3657 or 800-863-36570[" [astfngors@aol.COlll
(,
7.
3
~
:,
(,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
C 25
{'('rt,lili tH'llt'rjt~) Uldt {JUne'rId! f,'lt 'dl'f.. Il(l! dlJf' 1)f~(:dll!,;U
t.he' /lll'dir',i1 I f'1'dtJl\t'llf ~Jd.'; Illlt ft'I,lIl'd '(I I Ill' lIlllt or Vl}hicle
,j{''''i'!''J:l .
,.' tll,II ":::;"!I\ i,t!!'/ '.-:h.tl !ll" Ji,:llll!." i~; dhout'?
1\. Y,'.'.:.
(1. Now, lhc' ~;pu:l<lql('s tuvp tlli:: Jdwsuit against
Donerl',] .
Did you review their tile thdt Donegal has
r"'jardin'l the claims thdt. they mddc dnel tile lawsuit t.hat
was brought?
A. Yes, I die!.
Q, Now, was there any indicdtion in that. file
t.hat. t.he Sponagles had also filed a law~uit against other
persons who were involved in that motor vehicle accident
of October 15, 1996?
A. No, the only indication that I had in the
file that both files that I reviewed relative to other
claims being made with other insurance carriers, but not
actually another suit, would be the index report that was
done on both of their claims which we routinely do once we
receive the application for benefits,
On each of those reports, it showed that
there had been claims filed with two other insurance
companies for the same claim, the same -- not the same
claim, but the same accident date and that was with Zurich
and Nationwide.
Q. So, just so I understand this right, the
Ccntr.11 Penllsylvarl.ia COllrt.. Reporting S",-'r:vices
717-'?58-3657 or 800-863-3657 or [ast[ngcrs(o..laol. com
"
..
J
,
fJ
1"",,,\
!1<IIII'(lI) r'J'ljl:~:; f\j'r.':(JII Ilfj ttll' ~:!Hlll'III](' 1 i JI' dj.-j <.In incjr-.x on
!h" ::, r:II!":; 1;1 ,';!'" it th.,,/ lJ,j(J .Ill',' "Ii.,! I'J<iilll!;, <lllcl it
ldllll'd (Jll! !I;,!! U:':'/ 1:.1,-j cld,iJII~; <!lJdill:-:\ Zllrich dnd
(1 rJ.ll iOllh'idt. z>'~'drdilIfJ thi'::J :,iarne dccid('nt'l
5
A,
"i<Jht, but we routinely cia I he index not just
G luukillq t()t ul:IlI'!" cLJirn:.3, He do it to .tIlde:-: that we're
7 p"'yin(l a r:1aim for thi,! person. And;/e automatically do
8 it whenever \;p'rp paying a first-pdrty benefit claim. As
9 soon as we receive the application and we're going to
10 begin the placement of the claimant, we index the claimant
11 and the report comes back sho;/ing their history of
12 previous claims, including our index.
13 And at that time when we got that report, it
14 did show that there were actual claims being made by both
15 Norma and Garth against Nationwide and also against
16 Zurich. But that index does not indicate to us that their
17 suit was filed; it just indicates that they made a claim
18 ;/ith those two insurance companies.
19
Q,
Now, in preparation for today's deposition,
20 have you thoroughly reviewed the Sponagle file at Donegal?
21
A,
Yes,
22
Q,
Was there any other indication in the Donegal
23 file that the Sponagles had actually gone ahead and filed
24 lawsuits against any other persons as a result of that
25 accident?
Central Pennsylvania Court Reporting Services
717-258-3657 or 800-863-3657 or fastfngers@aol.com
-. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11)
Q. So you did get d :;Ubp()(~lld fl,(lln time tu t.ime
and yuu had to !,end your records La the ,11 torney"!
^, l\ic;ht" I think it I-la!;jU!;t t hdL onc time thilt
we Il,lrl tu send (lut -- i th i Ilk it, 'tJd:-; ,'II
P,'..Jt ~: hdl... ':ld~
the only other areCl that -- you kn(;,d, I.Hlt there '11<13 no
other indication ttlat we would tlClve heen iJWilre of that
therc was any dispute.
Q, In your experience in handling first-party
claims as you were supervising this first-party claim of
the sponagles where they were requesting payments for
medical benefits and work loss, was there any necessity or
reason for you or the claims representative to find out
what the status of any of the Sponagles' other claims were
against these other parties?
A. No, not really, I wouldn't have any reason to
do that. And we didn't ask that question in this claim,
I reviewed all the documents and did not see any evidence
that that was discussed,
Q. Now, as you know, our office was referred
this file from Donegal, I think in November, late November
of 1999, and we sent a subpoena out to one of the
attorneys for one of the other parties,
I think the
attorney for Fogle. And pursuant to that subpoena, we got
the file of the other attorney, and the file contained a
release that had been signed by the Sponagles, which we
Cent:I:a.l Pennsylvania Court Reportil]() Services
717-258-3657 or 800-863-3657 or fastDlgers@aol.com
--... 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"n_
,"
(.1, Alld you found no i ndicdt i 011 1I1olt ilnyol'" who
Harked on this file, and you didn't I.ind dny information
in tit'" IiI" Lt, ['"HI you to Iwli,'vc prior to Apr-jj /'UOU
thilt the Sponaqles had s\~!tt18cl their other cases dnd
signed releases in the other case?
A,
No.
That's correct,
~]R. DEARDORFF:
That's all I have. Now,
Attorney McKnight will ask you a feH questions.
THE DEPONENT: Okay.
BY MR. MCKNIGHT:
Q. Janet, you have been supervisor for ten years
at Donegal or you have just been employed ten years?
A, Employed ten years, supervisor approximately
si:-: years,
Q, And you Here supervisor for those six years
for the first-party medical section?
A. Yes.
Q. NOH, the date of this accident the Sponagles
Here involved in, what's the date?
A, October 15, '96,
Q. NOH, at tha t time Hho Has a ssigned to handle
this file?
A.
When the claim originally came to the medical
unit?
Q. Yes.
Central Penllsylvdll.ia COUl't Reportinc; .::;c..'rvices
717-258"3657 or 800-863-3657 or fast[ngers@aol.com
Il
I.
l'
l,.l
..
,
r~::
I
I~
, .
-
2
3
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.' -
14
1\. '1'111' ('J,dlll Il'!l11':jj'1I1dl i':l' ',/01:: i,.,'.... /'.111 i:lU.
I). AI".! how lonq W'''' I.",,., Ildnd! in'l th" Ii le'?
^. 1 don't kllOW tllt'~ \.';-:<lct ddtl' tildt it WdS
L r ,,-I! 1:-; t " r [,,, I.
1'm tryill'J L'J It''',_'dll.
1 U, Lnf: Llle "pring of
'97 it "LIS trilnl,lerred, Lr'w trdn,.,l"rred to a different
de!Jdrtrnent within Donequl and Cdrric
d' thdt time she
was C,I!. [it~ PdPPU:3 dnd tht.!n V;l~dVC'1' -- took "ver halldling
the cLlim,
Q, How long did Carrie PApPUS WeAver handle the
claim?
A. Until the file was closed in January of 1998,
Q, And why was the file closed in January of
1998?
A, Because there was no further activity from
the first-party benefits standpoint. We had processed all
the bills that were related to the claim and the claim was
closed.
Q. But you had rejected some bills that were
submitted to you.
Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q, Okay, Now, in October of 1998, you received
a Praecipe for Writ of Summons, is that correct, from the
Sponagles, starting a lawsuit against you?
A. Yes, I recall reviewing that and noticed in
the claim file that Carrie had documented that, that you
CeIltral Pennsylvania Court Reporting SCl.-vices
7] 7-258-]657 or 800-863-3657 or fast{ngers@aol.com
\
. "
t'..
,
tC) r:(J\lll:;(' I ':.lil'Jl i I ':; r'lll y I '>'/1 it fJ" i 11/1
ill'''. b'(~ ""CJlII t
?
,l~;:,;iqrl i I llllt i l \i'l" 'ddlll
But we
,:;\1' t hi 1]'1 "1:;.,
I I ,." I ur,
3
d i dil' I 'lu i I 11/ II i 1 lid: ;
Jdim \;/<1:; ,Wllldll,/ fi}f:,d and \vc
4 receiv,~d t.hc~ COIllJ-lLlint.
5 BY r~H. r,ICf;IHGHT:
6
I) .
N()\-l, wh(!n elF} '"./rit 'd,l~; t i li.'d, you were dWClre
7 t:hdt tlll.~ ;.:pUlldql!~'!) dj~i,'lqlt~'t~cI willl YUIll p'.J:.it,ioll rO(jarcling
8 certain medical bills and certain lost wages that they had
9
asked for.
Is that correct?
10
A,
At the time that we had denied it, I was
II aware of this. But at the time that the writ was filed,
12 you know, I didn't know what you were going to present
1J because the Complaint hadn't been filed,
14
Q.
Now, you also were aware, because you had
15 done some investigation of your O\oJn, you had in the file
16 by the time the writ was filed the fact that there were
17 claims made against two other companies and those would
18
have been third-party claims,
Is that correct?
19
A.
Right, yes.
20
Q,
And you also knew that a suit had been filed
21 by the Sponagles against the third parties involved in
22 that accident because you received a subpoena for
23 information which referenced the caption in the case, the
24
Fogle case,
Isn't that correct?
25
A.
We received a record subpoena for Sponagle
Central P011llsylvania Court Rcportinq Services
717-258-J657 or 800-863-3657 or fastfngers@aol.COll!
17
~
2
J
~
r
OJ
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4 25
-,
,-
18
V(>r~)tl:; Foqlc',
Q.
Alld you IliJve thdt ill YUill' t i J(,o
J:; t.lldt
CUfIJ'(:l ')
A. 'IL':.;.
O. And i t h~1.s the capt~ ion d!lr! it t__;holllcl have a
Iltllnber on it too, doesn't it?
A,
I don't recall !-5ceing rl llllmb(-'r on it.
It WClS
a medical records.
Q. But it still exists, doesn't it? You can
provide a copy of thClt subpoena, can't you?
l>.. Yes.
Q. Would you provide a copy of that to your
counsel?
A. He should have a copy, He had the copy of
the entire file.
~m, DEARDORFF:
For the record, I think I
don't,
I'll pull it out if I can find it and give it to
Attorney McKnight, but keep asking questions while I'm
looking for this,
BY MR, MCKNIGHT:
Q.
Sure.
Now, normally, because -- and in this
case, this is not a situation where the Sponagles were
close to running out of coverage.
Is that correct?
A, Yes,
Q. They have plenty of coverage to this day, do
Centr.],l Pennsylvania Court Reporr:inq Sl?Fvic..:es
717--258-3657 or 800-863-3657 or [astfngers(}aol. com
.-. 1
2
3
4
S
6
.,
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,"
1'1
t hc'y tlnl: 'j
II. '( .~::'; .
(.). ~)o, i [ tlH!'j fJII':;/'ll!",j d [l111 t () Y{JIl tClCldY tor
lcdlo'tI-up medicctl trcdtrn(~nt, V(lll v/utllli Jt'VLI:~t,.1 L1ldL and, if
it was reasonable and n0.ccssary ,Hld r(~ldtl~c1 to the
accident, you "ould p"y that.
is thc1t cClrrcct7
l\. If all thO:3C tllinq~) "1('[(: trllf,~.
Q. So, normally, YClll (lon' t cart~ lnuch about what
happcn~ in thinl-pcHly clidms, c1u 'lUll;'
A. No, that doesn't affect how "Ie handle our
first-party claim.
(l. Okay. And 'lOll certainly had the ability to,
any time you wanted to, to contact the Zurich and the
Nationwide Companies and find out about the status of
their claims if you wished to.
Is that correct?
A. We don't do that, You know, we don't ask
questions about those claims,
Q. And why not?
A, We just don't.
Q. Is the reason you don't because
A. They contact us if they need to know if the
claim is still open and what the pay-out is. And I told
you that we had not contacted them. There was nothing
documented in the claim file, alld OL'r file actually had
been closed since January of 1998 until the time that you
Central pennsyl vanieJ Court Reporting S0rvices
717-258-3657 or 800-863-3657 or fastfnqer.,@aol.com
,
20
~,
Ii 1..1\ t Ill< ['()IlI[d,lilll. ::1), ';'1\11 kill)'''', 'Ill'rj' v/.l:: 110 dctivity
:~ I () tll' d'drlll' I>! ,lfl'I'lltH'! t lId! ....,ol~; IlolPllI'!1 i fi'l '.-Ii th til(!.i r
hi)o! i I Y i 11'1 III '/ 1'\.\ i 11l.
4
(.),
Ilm lUOt:illll ,It d :;\Ibp()(-'!Id tll,lt your CCJunsel
~ held ju::l pr(Jvidc'c! to ll~/> dlnl i 1 idf'nl- i t il_':; :;pon,-lqlc> versus
fj FO(Jlf', j.t <11, dll(1 1.11(' Iluwl)/'r i:; ld,lO liJ(Hi. ^nct the name
"7 uf 1.1'1.' \'utlll);.d irl1/(,dvl'd \'/<1._ dEll Iql [;lIr,.: III uut elL Hershey,
9
Pennsylvania. DO(~~3 allY or thio; ring a boll?
A. That could bu, but we get records subpoenas
all the time. Ancl that doesn't mean if \oJ8 got the records
8
10
11 subpoena, \./(; cont'::'lct them for dllY inionnaLion.
12
().
And the reason you don't clo that is because
13 really the third-party claim has nothing to do with
14 whether or not you should be paying first-party benefits.
15 Isn't that correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
How much coverage is there still available
18 under the medical coverage for the Sponagles?
19
A.
They have 100,000 limit and we paid 4,060,76
20 on Garth and 4,731.09 on Norma.
21
Q.
So they have roughly 95,000 each left on the
22 medicol coverage?
23
1'..
Yes.
24
Q,
How about lost wages, how much coverage do
25 they have on lost wages?
Ctc'llt:Ll1 ['L'J111DyJv.lIlia COl11."t Report: inq s'';>l'vices
'/17<~~8~3657 Or' BUO~8(j3-3(j5'1 or fastfngt?1::s@aol.colll
.,'-. 1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
MH, IJEMU10IU'F:
I 1m qottlq t<l obiect to this
lilll! ul <1t1(>!;Li,onillq b"('dL1~;e thp l)tl[P()~,:v Il~ this dcpo~;ition
i!; f'-'l,lrclillq ,111lC'IIr1ill(l illl! l\II;;'..Jl'! l(l I,ll::" I d(~l.fln:,;t! thut
ther-e W,JS d qerH~rdl rl~l(!d!;(' :;iqrJl:!d, dllli 1 don't think this
h~s anything to do with th~t, But my obje=tion is on the
record if this becomes an issue.
BY MR, MCKNIGWf:
Q. HOH much is t he cove raqe for lost wages?
A, 5,000,
Q. And how much lost wage coverage has been paid
to Garth?
A.
I'm looking here,
I don't know that we paid
him anything.
Q. And how much lost wage coverage has been paid
to Norma?
A. I don't think there was anything paid on her
claim,
I don't think she filed a wage claim.
Q, Well, Garth did file a wage claim, didn't he?
A. That had to do with a work loss claim also,
that the reason for the work loss injury -- or the work
loss was not related to the accident but was related to a
workers' compensation claim.
Q. Well, but there is no workers' compensation
claim and that is the issue in dispute.
Is that correct?
A. That could be, but you're asking me questions
Central P0!l!1sy.lvdnid Court P~'.c'ort jn9 Serv_ic08
717-258-3657 or- 800-863-]657 or fastfllgt~rs@aol.c()1I!
.--, 1
2
3
4
5
6
"I
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
that arc~ ollt:,.;jdC' ut '..,hdt 1 thuuqllt tlli~; dl'po~litioll 'N':}'S
supposed to ly:~ c()v(~t:inq.
Q. ~'J{!11, YOll Il,1vL' ,-ll.'t'\'~;'-; tt) Ill(~ file and since
you're being deposed by your counsel, these are all
questions that I think are very relevant to this case and
relevant to whether or not YOIl ,:;hould be C1iven leave to
amend your arlswer.
So, basically, they have still $5,000 each in
lost wage coverage and $95,000 each -- at least $95,000
each in medical coverage available under their policy, Is
that correct?
A. Yes,
MR. MCKNIGHT: Those are all the questions we
have.
MR, DEARDORFF: Janet, I don't have any
further questions. Thanks a lot for your time, We're
going to end the deposition now, and I'll keep you posted,
Janet.
(Whereupon, at 3:27 p,rn., the deposition was
concluded, )
(\-~lIt-rd.l I'L'1l1l8y.lvdIlia CaUl-/: H\![_'on.illl) .';('~rvices
717-258-3657 or 800-ll/i3-]6S7 or {dstfnuers@aol.colll
l"..-\
~
1
cor"MON'ilf;ALTII 0,,' n:rIN:;YLVMIIA
2
(."
d..,.
3
COUNTY OF Cllr'IIJEllLAIJD
4
5
I, ~USAN O'f1ARll, R.P.R., R,M.H., il Court
6
Reporter-Notary Public authorized to administer oaths and
7
take depositions in the trial of causes, and having an
8
office in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that
9
the foregoing is the testimony of JANET SANDILLON,
10
I further certify that before the taking of said
11
deposition the witness was duly sworn; that the questions
12
and answers were taken down in stenotype by the said
13
Reporter-Notary, approved and agreed to, and afterwards
14
reduced to computer printout under the direction of said
15
Reporter.
16
I further certify that the proceedings and
17
evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes
18
taken by me on the within deposition, and that this copy
19
is a correct transcript of the same,
20
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed
21
my hand this 21st day of July, 2000,
22
u~~c9/A-
/~ary Public
23
24
.-/.
25
My Commission Expires February 15, 2001.
Cell t ral Penllsy 1 vania Court Reporting Services
717-)58-3657 or 800-863-3657 or fastf/lgcZ"S@aoJ.com
/3
,
MDW&:6
1,.'fok~t^ll0N.'t1'\'1'1..AI"''''(.\I.
TEN EAST Hltal STPUT
CARLISLE. PENNSYLVANIA 17013
.'
,
,
.:, :~t~
, ~ .;... ).~~
"
';j., ~\\
~. \.":'~.".
, ~.
"'iJi'
./
,'\"
. .~,
'. 'I"
t1PR 25
~
. ,.... ~ ,.,.,
't' _ ~', ,0,' ',_ _",
t " . _.~ i:'... ,,:.
'~;>;:.
ii
~~,. "
,'1";~~'~
l .
l\
... ~IJ
, .
,",,"
'l:';'-'~ ..t>,
't.~~? t'
r ~..' "I ,
;::'1::~~;::'l.~' :
...' ~...., t
-i', ~. j ~
-.. .;':
,,- .(~~. ~':'.
~. ,'.'.
\/
.
.~;~ ~:
~',,..
.; ~
'..
"
"
j'
:[.,
II'
,-:<
\{ :,j
:/
I
\
I
,
I
"
,
: I
'~!:" :
,. ,.".t'
.1~t~-;':
~ v;'
~" \;
"\
4.. .~:
"
~ '~
~'1f'
",.~,.
~
't
d1i '.
>::i ,," ~.,~':f
..
....
.~.,-..
,.) -'"
..l\. , ~...
.
...
,
"
';,.',
jlJ
,'-
<f
,
')
GARTH M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE. his wifc.
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO. 5741 CIVIL I'JIJX
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,t/a/d/b/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES.
Dcfendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PETITION TO AMENIlIlEFENI>ANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MA'rI'ER
I. Petitioner is Defendant Donegal Mulual Insurancc Company. t/d/b/a! Donegal
Companies.
2. Respondents are Plaintiffs. Garth M. Sponagle and Norma L. Sponagle. his wife.
3. On or about November 19. 1999. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against
DefendantlPetitioner alleging lhatthey were entitled to certain insurance benefits through their policy
with Defendant/Petitioner as a result of injuries which occurred from a motor vehicle accident on
October IS, 19%. A copy of said Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
4. On or about December 23. 1999. Defendant/Petitioner filed an Answer with New
Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. At said time. Defendant raised various defenses in the New Matter
but did not raise the defense that Plaintiffs had signed a Full and Final Release in favor of various
parties because Defendant was not aware of said Full and Final Release at said time. A copy of said
Defendant's Answer with New Matter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
5. Thereafter, Defendant/Petitioner subpoenaed the file of the attorneys for the driver
of the vehicle which was involved with Plaintiffs in the accident of October 15. 1996.
/\. On or about April 12. 2000. counsel for Defendant/Petitioner received the records
from the attorney for the driver involved in the October 15. 199/\ motor vehicle accident with
Plaintiffs.
7. Among those records was a Full and Final Release which was signed by Plaintiffs in
favor of the other driver, Allen Lee Fogle, and "all other persons. association and corporations
whether or not namcd hcrcin. .." A copy of said 1'1111 and Final Rck'ase is allached hereto as Exhibit
"COO,
X. As a result of this Full and Final ({dea.sc coming to the allention of
Defendant/Petitioner. Defcndalll/l'etitioner request permission to amcnd its Answer with New Matter
to raise as a defense the fact that Plaintiffs had signed a Full and Final Release which in affect would
fully release Defendant from any claims arising out of the October 15, 19% motor vehicle accident.
9. Discovery has not been concluded in the .Ibove captioned action.
10. The above captioned action has not been listed for trial.
11. Defendant/Petitioner avers that the trial of the above captioned action will not be
delayed by allowing Defendanc/Petitioner to file an Amended Answer with New Matter.
WHEREFORE. Petitioner requests leave to file an Amended Answer with New Matter so it
can raise the defense that Plaintiffs signed a Full and Final Release which would fully release and
discharge Defendant from any claims arising out of the motor vehicle accident of October 15. 19%.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
\0
By'V<
Daniel K. Deardorff. Esquir
Ten East High Street
Carlisle. P A 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for DefendantlPetitioner
Date: April 20. 2000
Exhibit A
1
The "/ainli Os were involved III a motor wlllcll: accidelll on (letoher 15, 11)1}(,.
.1.
In Ihe aUlolllohilc accidenl hoth P/amlifls sU-'lained injuries. Allhe lime nf the aeeidel1l,
the P/ainliOs were insured hy lhe Delendant and wcre issued a claim number PAE 0472770 (8/\).
5.
Garth M. Sponagle sustained injuries In his neck. back, shoulders and bolh wrists and
forearms. Garth M. Sponllgle missed three (3) days of work on October 15,16 and 17 of 1996.
6.
Norma A. Sponagle sustained injuries 10 her back and her neck.
7.
Thc injurics to his wrist and foreanns required carpal tunnel surgery, which caused Garth
M. Sponagle to lose twelve (12) weeks of income from Apri/21, 1997 to July 8, 1997.
8.
The Dcfcndanl has tailed to pay Garth M. Sponaglc his lost wages, whieh exeeed the sum
ofTwelve Thousand and noli 00 ($12,000.00) Dollars.
2
'I;
,
!
. ,
! .
Exhibit B
~
(91,.::.3
((~;)
f',: '~~"
"'IU'..'UM,r.ulU'IIUNIf,,\IIMK'I\\ _ll~
,.u..... 1l/l~1tW 01 -II flit ,~,
Ie"...., Ilitl'tVJlIl"JIl''''
IUkllH
GARTH M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGI.E, his wile,
Plaintiff.~
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,I'ENNSYI.N AN,lA
~ '. I
v.
NO. 5741 CIVIL 1998
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
'.,',
-?
.,")
.'
-.,
(d
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, tla/d/b/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Defendant
.' :\
'.:...:
. .
-
:..11.
-"-
'.-\
1')
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.',
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
TO: GARTH M. SPONAGLE and NORMA L. SPONAGLE, Plaintiffs, and their attomcy
MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III. ESQUIRE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRrITEN RESPONSE TO THE
ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF
OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU,
ANSWER
1-4. Admitted.
5. It is admitted tbat PlaintiffGartb M. Sponagle sustained mild injuries to his neck and
back. It is denied that PlainliffGarth M. Sponagle sustained injuries to his shouldcrs and both wrists
and forearms. Proof thereof is demandcd. It is admitted that Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle misscd
three days of work on October 15, 16 and 17 of 1996.
6. Admittcd.
7. It is dcnicd that thc injuries to the wrists and foreamls of Plainti 1'1' Garth M. Sponagle
were related to his motor vehiclc aeeidenl. To the contrary, Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle had these
problems prior to thc motor vehicle aeeidcnl. Proofthcrcofis dcmanded. The rcmaining averments
are dcnied on the basis that after reasonable investigation, Dcfendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to admit or deny said avermcnts. Proof thereof is demanded.
8. It is admitted thaI Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle for lost
wagcs on the basis that said lost wages are not rclated to injuries suffered as a result of the molor
vehicle aecident ofOctobcr 15, 1996. Proofthereofis demanded.
Exhibit liS"
9. Dcnicd a~ stated. llclemlant has paid numcrous mcdical hills lor Plaintiffs Garth M,
Sponaglc and Nonna L. Sponagle whcre said medieal bills wcrc rclatcd to thc motor vchiclc
aceident, rcasonablc and ncce~sary. It is admittcd that ccrtain other bills wcrc not paid wherc said
medical bills werc not rclated to the motor vchicle aeeident, reasonablc or neccssary. Proorthcreof
is demanded.
10. Admitted based on thc rcasons set forth in the answcrs to paragraphs 8 and 9. Thc
answcrs to paragraphS 8 and 9 are incorporated hercin by rcfercnce.
11. Dcnied. After reasonablc investigation, Dcfendant is without sufficient knowlcdgc
or information to admit or deny said avermcnts. Proofthereofis demanded. In addition, it is dcnicd
that Dcfendant should havc paid said mcdical bills. The answer to paragraph 9 is incorporatcd hercin
by rcferencc.
12. Dcnicd. Aftcr reasonable investigation, Dcfcndant is without sufficient knowledgc
or information to admit or dcny said avcrmcnts. proof thercof is demandcd.
13. It is dcnied that Defendant has aetcd in bad faith and it is dcnied tbat Plaintiffs are
entitled to legal fccs, interest and penaltics. To the contrary, Defendant has propcrIy dcnied
payments where the mediea1 bills and thc lost wagcs were not rc1ated to thc motor vehiclc accident,
reasonablc or necessary. Proofthercof is dcmanded.
WHEREFORE, Dcfcndant demands judgmcnt in its favor against Plaintiffs
NEW MATTER
14. Dcfendant sets forth paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Answer as New Mattcr.
15. Defendant's refusal to pay certain mediea1 bills and wage loss rcqucsted by Plaintiffs
was on the basis that said medieal bills and wagc loss werc not rclatcd or a rcsu1t of the motor
vehicle accident or werc not reasonablc or necessary.
16. Plaintiffs had achicvcd maximum therapeutic benefits from any medical or
chiropractic treatmcnt by on or about December 20, 1996, and thereaftcr medical or chiropractic
treatmcnt was not reasonable or neccssary.
17. Plaintiffs had pre-existing mcdical conditions whieh were not caused orrclatcd tothe
motor vehiclc accident of October IS, 1996.
Exhibit C
EW.kANn FINAL RElr.A~1!
FOR AND IN CONSlDERA nON of tho ,urn ofTIlTRTY.EJGHT THOUSM'J) ONE
HI:NDR8> 'nIIRTY.TWO Al\1.l NOl10a DOLLARS (~J8,1J2.001 paid 10 the undersigned,
Garth M. Spona~le and Norma L. Spnn.~le, 'DJ the receipl."d sutlicieuey of which is hereby
aekuowledced, the under.<igllod >Gree to fully rele...", disclla'1le, holJ harm,"", ond indemnify
ALLEN LEE FOGLE. or.ENN EA VES, !/dlbl. OAK BlllFP FM~f,.IS, l\....nO>fWIDE
LNSURA \ICE COMPANY, KINST.EY CONSTRUCnON, lNC, lL'RICH AMERrCA.'1
INSUltANCE COMPA.'<"Y, and olJ other pc:r.lons, associaliou; and corporations, wheilier nr no\
ni1lTled h~rein.. their heirs, ~)(1!C\Jlor3, adrn.ic.isrrawl"S, itJCC~ssors, il.S5ign~ i1.C.J insurers. and th~il"
n!:ipecuve .lIgcnL.'l, 5CNdI1t.:!1, ~mplo)"e~s and atto~)'5, from any or ;lll causes of action, claim!! ~nd
Jomand. of wnat:lOcvct kind on :U:COUnl Df alll:oown, and unknown irtiurics.los""" a/ld d;lmases
&lJegedly sustained by Garth M. Sponagle:md ~onna L. Spon~le on Octoh"" ) 5. 1996, :md,
s~eil1ca!Jl'. trom any cI:Urns. or joinders, for soleliabiU,y. contrillution. indOlMity or D,he""ise
as e n"fUll of, arULnB from, or Ulll1lY WilY COlUleCtod v.ith injuries sust:lin~d by Gazth M.
SpoDullle and Norma L. Sponagle and on 3CCOlUlI ofwbich n LeBaI Action was instinne<! by the
undersigoed in lb. Court of Common Pleas, Cumberlalld County, PeMsylvani'1..ll1 Doeket No.
98-5740 - Civil, and the defense Md handling thereof from Ibe inceptioo of the cl.lm Ul1JiI tho
dale of this Pulllltld Final Release. The under>igo.!d uDc1ec<t:lOd and ar,r<>: that th< "'ccptance of
said SUm is nol an admission of liobiliry by IUlY pll1t}' =ed heein. Ie;, exp,...ly uarler>tDod
and agreed that this R~lea:;c and senfemem is intended to cover and Jt>es cover noC oDly all
known injunes. Josses. and damages. but ..oy fUr1Mr injuries. losses. und damages which orise
from Or arc related [0 tllC occurrcQCes set forrh in th~ r.cgsl Aclinn nUlcd obuYC ~Iui the handling
ilnd defense then:oC. Exhibit lie"
C'ERTIFlC'ATE OF SERVICE
I. Jacqucline A.lkckl'r, an authori/l'd :Igcnl of Martson Deardorff Williams & Olio, hcrehy
cerrify lhal a copy ofthc forcgoing Pctitioncr to Amend Defendant's Answer with Ncw Maller was
scrvcd lhis datc bydcpositing samc inlhc Post Office:1I Carlisle,l'A, firsl class Iltlil, postagc prcpaid.
addressed as follows:
Marcus A. McKnight. Esquirc
IRWIN. Ml:KNIGIIT & HUGHES
6(1 Wcsl Pomfrel Slrccl
Carlisle, PA 17ll13-3222
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
BYQ//..L.J:10/h/J
J ql ne A. Decker
en ast High Street
Carlisle. PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: April 20, 2000
. ....-..
U
i
l-
I
!,~~
,\
~'';;
,
J_,
..,... ~'.' 1"
, I1ILF.S\f1A r AfIUiIlXINIiG^L (KK'I ".Ift, l',ll\t
rmtN 11I09m 01 .11 (,6 PM
Mnlt'" IllWllllOlI\'''^M
JQlOm
GARTH M, SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE, his wife,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO, 5741 CIVIL 1998
CIVIL ACTION. LA W
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, t/a/d/b/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Dcfendanl
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER
13. The avermentssct forth in Defendant's Pctition to Amend its Answer arc ineorporated
hcrein by referenee and are madc part of this rcply to this paragraph of Ncw Mattcr asserted by
Plaintiff.
14. Denied as stated. Defendanl was awarc that Plaintiffs had claims against the other
drivers, but were not aware of the status of their lawsuit or awarc of their scttlement. Even if
Defendant was aware ofthe lawsuit and settlement, Dcfendant was not aware of the specifics set
forth in the General Release executed by Plainti ffs.
15. Denied as stated. The reply to Paragraph 14 is incorporated herein by referenee.
Defendant was not aware of thc cxistencc of the specific terms set forth in the Rclease signed by
Plaintiffs.
16. Denied that Defendant had opportunity to attempt to secure a eopy of the Release
prior to filing of its Answer With New Matter. To the contrary, this Release was a private matter
which was not filed of record and was held by the parties to the aetion at 5740 Civil 1998 and not
divulged to Defendant Donegal. Defendant Donegal made a reasonable attempt to obtain this
information after Plaintiffs had filed suit in the present action.
17. It is denied that Defendant's attempt to amcnd was tardy. To theeontrary, Defendanl
used reasonable diligence in obtaining, by subpoena, the Release cxecuted by Plaintiffs,
18. Admitted that Defendant speeifieally was not named in the Release, but it is denied
thaI it was necessary for the Defendant to be named in the Release in that Defendant would be
considered one of "other persons, associations and corporations" who were also released.
19. Dcnicd as staled. It is admincd thaI Defendant was not a party to the Releasc, but
Dcfendant was covcrcd by the Releasc. Thc intcnl of thc parties is set forth in thc Relcasc. Thc
Answer to paragraph 18 of this Rcply is ineorporated herein by refcrenec.
20, Dcnied as stated. Thc Rclcasc attached to Plaintiffs Ncw Mattcr as Exhibit B spcaks
for itsclf and was not limited by its languagc only to the claims Plainliffs had against those
Defendants,
21, Denied as stated. Said Rclcase speaks for ilselfand by implication releases all claims
arising from the motor vchiele accidenl, ineluding the present claim against Defendant.
22. Denied as stated. Said Rcleasc spcaks for itself. Defendant by implieation is named
in !lIe Release where jl slates that "all other persons, assoeiations and corporations" arc eovered by
said Release.
23. Denied as staled. Paragraphs 13-22 of this Reply are incorporated herein by
reference. In addition, Defendant was not aware of said Release or its specific terms.
24. Denied as stated, Defendant did timely file its Petition 10 amend its Answer and
Defendant has not waived said defense. Paragraphs 13 through 23 of this Reply are incorporated
herein by reference.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that lhis Honorable Court grant its Petition
for Leave to Amend its Answer.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By
Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: 0- ~:..II! - ee)
~
\
,
,
,
I
t '~;~~
16.
Thc avcnnents oftact contained in paragraph sixteen (16) ofthc New Mattcr arc
specifieal1y denied, On the contrary, the plaintiffs continued to cxpericnec significant pain which
requircd furthcr treatment.
17.
The avcnncnts offael eonlained in paragraph scvcnteen (17) of thc New Matter arc
spccifical1y denied. On the eonttary, some ofthc injuries of the plaintiff, Garth Sponaglc, wcre
severe cxaeerbations of previous injuries. In al1 other respeets, the injuries sustained by both
plaintiffs were new injuries whieh required medical treatment.
18.
The avennents offact eontained in paragraph eightccn (18) of the Ncw Matter are
eonclusions oflaw to which an answer is not required. They are therefore denied.
19.
The avennents of faet contained in paragraph nineteen (19) New Matter are denicd. The
first party benefits are a contractual matter between the parties and arc not waived by a third party
release of damages which do not include first party eontraetual damages. First party damages
eannot be pled or proved in the third party action. These plaintiffs have filed this separate aetion
to obtain their first party benefits whieh remains unaffected by the third party release and it was
never intended to release the damages sought in this casc.
2
VERIFICATION
The forcgoing Answer to Ncw Maucr is based upon infomlation which has been galhered
by counsel and us in the preparation of this action. We have read the statements made in this
doeument and they are truc and correet to the bcst of our knowlcdge, information and belief. Wc
understand that falsc statemcnts hcrein madc arc subjecl to thc pcnalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section
4904, relating to unswom falsifieation to authorities.
Date: January 25, 200 I
~~~S~~
GARTII M, SPONAGLE Rnd
NORMA L SPONAGLE, his wife,
PLAINTIH"S
: TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUJ\lIlERI.ANIl COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v.
NO. 5741 CIVIL 1998
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, tJa/dlb/aJ DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
DEFENDANT
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL I>EMANI>ED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcus A, MeKnight,l/1, Esquire, hereby eertifY Ihat a eopy of attached Answer to
New Malter was served upon the following by depositing a true and correet eopy of the same in
the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pcnnsylvania,
on the date referenced below and addressed as follows:
Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTrO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
IRWIN, MeKNIGHT & HUGHES
By:
Date January 25, 200 I
~ '" -
tl~ r-:
.-i
,. i
,
'" ,
t..'
i- u.
\
'j"'
c_
,,- it
..
" _J
I. , C. '-~)
OARTII M. SPONAOI.E
and NORMA I..
SPONAGI.E, his wile,
Plainlil'ls
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLI~AS OF
Cl JMIIERI.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANI^
v.
CIVIl. ACTION -I.A W
DONEGAl. MUTUAl.
INSURANCE COMPANY,:
tldlbla DONEGAl.
COMPANIES,
Dcfendant
NO. 98-5741 CIVIl. TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION TO
AMEND ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
BEFORE BAYLEY :lIld OLER, JJ,
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 8'h day of January, 200 I. upon consideration of
Dcfcndant's Pctition To Amcnd Answcr with Ncw Maller, and for thc rcasons
statcd in thc accompanying opinion, the petition is grant cd, without prcjudicc to
Plaintiffs' right to challenge thc merits of thc additional defensc at a subsequcnt
point in the casc.
Marcus A. McKnight, lI!, Esq.
Mark 0, Schwartz, Esq.
60 West Pomfrct Strect
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorncys for Plaintiffs
BY THE COURT,
. /
/. . /
I I'. /. (/ /"; Ii
, t. C l--) )( C.....' /
f Weslcy Olor, r., J,
, f\Y
~ ."",JP 'l,0 \
Lo, 0\,0
~
Daniel K. Deardorff: Esq.
Tcn Eastl-ligh Strcet
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Defcndant
,.
-.,
GARTII M. SI'ONAOLE
and NORMA L.
SPONAGLE, his wile,
PluintilTs
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, I'ENNSYLV ANIA
v.
CIVIl. ACTION - LA W
DONEGAL MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMI'ANY,:
t/d/b/u DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Defendant
NO. 9!\-5741 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION TO
AMEND ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
BEFORE BAYLEY and OLER. JJ.
OPINION :\IId ORDER OF COURT
OLER. J.. January !\, 200 I.
In this civil action against an automobile insurance company, Plaintiff
insureds have sued for breach of contract and bad Ihith arising out of Defendant's
failure to pay certain lost wages and medical bills which ullegedly resulted from a
motor vehicle accident in whieh they wcre injured. For disposition at this time is a
petition filed by Defendant insurer for leuve to amend its answcr with new matter
to include an allegation that Plaintiffs executcd a release in favor, among others, of
a driver of another vehicle involved in the accident.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's petition to amend will be
granted.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This action was commenced by a praecipe for writ of summons on October
6, 1998. Plaintiffs' complaint was filed on November 19, 1999. The complaint
alleged (a) that as a result of a motor vehicle aecident on Octobcr 15, 1996,
Plaintiffs were injured, (b) that at the time of the aecident they were insured by
Defendant, (c) that Defendant thiled to pay for certain medical treatment and lost
wages incurred in the accident. and (d) that Delendalll's J:lilure to pay was in bad
lilith.
Defendant filed an answer with ncw matter on December 23, 1999. This
pleading basically averred (hat Defendant had paid Plaintiffs' claims which were
attributable to the accident and had dcclined to pay claims which were not
attributable to the accident.
On April 20, 2000, Delendant liled the petition suh judicl! to amend its
answer with new matter, The petition averred that discovery had not been
completed and that the case had not yet been listed for trial. It averred Iltrther that,
a lew days prior to the tiling of its petition, Defendant had discovered through a
subpoena to the attorney for thc drivel' of another vchicle involved in the accidcnt
that Plaintiffs, on Novcmber 3, 1999, had relcased that drivcr in rcturn Iix thc sInn
of $38,132.00. The rclease contained the following languagc, according to
Defendant:
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of thc sum of
THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TI-IIRTY-
TWO AND NOIIOO DOLLARS ($38,132.00) paid to the
undersigned, Garth M. Sponagle and Norma L. Sponagle, and
the receipt and sttffieiency of which is hcreby acknowledged,
the undersigned agree to fltlly releasc, discharge, hold
harmless, and indemnify ALLEN LEE FOGLE, GLENN
EAVES, IIdlbla OAK BLUFF FARMS, NATIONWIDE
INSURANCE COMPANY, KINSLEY CONSTRUCTION,
INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, and
all other persons, associations and corporations, whether or not
named herein, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors,
assigns and insurers, and their respective agents, servants,
employees and attorneys, from any or all causes of action,
claims and demands of whatsoever kind on account of all
known, and unknown injuries, losses and damages allegedly
sustained by Garth M. Sponagle and Norma L. Sponagle on
October 15, 1996, and, specifically, from any claims, or
joinders, for sole liability, contribution, indemnity or otherwise
as a result of. arising frolll, or in any way connected with
injuries sustained by Garth M. Sponagle and Norma L.
Sponagle and on account of which a Legal Action was
2
ij
}
"
i~
')
,
~
/.
. ,~I
,
!i
';', i
'j
I;
,
.,
: I
.,
, :r:
, ,
i
! ':'"
I
~'.~:;
institutcd by the undcrsigncd in the Court of Common Pleas,
Cumbcrland County, Pcnnsylvania, at Dockct No. 9R.5740 -
Civil, and thc dclensc and handling therco'- from the inccption
o'-thc elaimuntil thc datc of this Full and Final Release.
Dclendant's pctition requcstcd Icave of court to amcnd its answcr with ncw
mailer to ineludc an allegation that I'laintins had issucd thc said relcasc. In
rcsponsc to thc pctition. thc court issued a rule upon PIa inti ffs (0 show causc why
thc amendmcnt should not be permitted.
By an answcr filcd on May 25, 2000, Dclendant admitted thc pcndcncy of
discovcry, thc luct that thc case Il(Id not bccn Iistcd for trial, and the exccution of
thc relcase. Plaintiffs dcnicd that thc rclcasc constitutcd a dcfensc in thc prcscnt
action. contcnded that Defendant should havc becn awarc of the rcleasc at thc time
it was cxccutcd, and argucd that allowancc ofthc amcndmcnt would dclay trial.
On July 10, 2000, thc parties conductcd a deposition of Janct Sandi lion, a
medical coordinator and claims supervisor IlJr Dcfendant, for the purposc of
providing a record for disposition of Defendant's pctition to amcnd. This
testimony supportcd Dcfendant's position that Defendant had not becn awarc of
the release until a subpoena rcsulted in its production in April of 2000, and that
this lack of knowledge was not thc product of any absence of due diligence on
Defendant's part,
DISCUSSION
Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033, it is provided as
follows:
A party, either by filed consent of the adverse party or by
leave of court, may at any time change the form of action,
correct the name of a party or amend his pleading. The
amended pleading may aver transactions or occurrences which
have happened bcfore or after the filing of the original
pleading, even though they give rise to a new cause of aetion or
defense. An amendment may be made to conform the pleading
to the evidence offered or admitted.
3
"lilt has been Iinnly establishcd that thc right 10 amcnd a pleading is a
mallcr of judicial discrction ami should hc liberally grantcd al any stagc of a
proceeding unlcss it constitutes surprisc which rcsuhs in prcjudicc 10 an advcrs~'
party, or thc grant thereof constitutcs au crror of law." Ro{,illsolll'ro/('('/il'(, Alarm
Co. v. Bolger & Picker, 512 I'a. 116, 121 n.6, 516 A.2d 299, 302 n.6 (191\6).
Allowancc of an amcndmcnt of an answcr to assert a defense of rcleasc is not
unusual. See. e.g.. Vaughn v. /Jillizian. 436 1'01, Supcr. 436, 641\ A,2d 31\ (1994).
With respeel to prcjudicc, lhc I'cnnsylvania Supremc Court has statcd as
follows:
All amcndments havc this in common: thcy arc offcrcd latcr in
timc than thc plcading which they seck to amcnd. I I' thc
amcndmcnt contains allcgations which would have bcen
allowcd inclusion in thc original pleading (thc usual casc), then
the question of prcjudicc is prcscntcd by thc time at which it is
offcred rathcr than by the substancc of what is offered. Thc
possiblc prcjudicc, in othcr words, must stcm Irom thc Illctthat
thc ncw alh:gations arc offcrcd latc rathcr than in thc original
plcading, and not lrom thc Illet that the opponent may losc his
casc onthc merits ifthc plcading is allowcd.
Bola v. Celllral-Pellll Nal'l Bank of Philadelphia. 448 Pa. 355, 380, 293 A.2d 343,
357 (1972), cerl. dellied. 409 U.S. IlD8, 93 S. Cl. 9\0, 34 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1973).
An examplc of resulting prejudicc which would warrant thc dcnial of a motion to
amend has been said to bc thc addition of a new causc of action to a complaint
after the statutc of limitations has run upon thc claim. See McCarllley v. DWII1 &
Conller. Inc.. 386 Pa. Supcr. 563, 569, 563 A,2d 525, 528 (1989).
"Wrillen rclcases are construcd aceording to thc rulcs govcrning the
construction of contracts gcncrally.... The intention of thc partics to a wrillen
releasc is paramount ...... Spar/er v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark. 360 Pa.
Super. 597,60 \, 521 A.2d 433, 434 (1987).
In thc prescnt casc, thc court is unablc to agree with Plaintiffs that a sound
basis lor dcnying Defendant's pctitionto amcnd its answcr with new mallcr to add
a defensc of rclease cxists. Thc dclcnsc could propcrly havc becn includcd in the
4
original pleading, Prejudice to Plaintil'JS of the type discussed abovc has not been
shown, Although it may well be lhat the record will ultimately not support the
dClcnsc,1 it is believcd that it would be premature to resolve this intcrpretative
issue adversely to Delendant upon a request by Delendanl to do no more at this
time lhan advance the defense.
For these reasons, the filllowing order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW. this Xl" day of January, 200f. upon consideratioll of
Delcndant's Petition To Amend Answcr with New Mallcr, and IlJr the reasons
slated in the accompanying opinioll, the petition is granted, withou! prejudice 10
Plaintiffs' right to challenge thc merits of the additional defense at a subsequellt
point in the case.
BY TIlE COURT,
Isl .I. Weslev Oler, Jr.
.I. Wesley Oler, .Ir" J,
Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq.
Mark D. Schwartz, Esq.
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Daniel K. Deardorn~ Esq.
Ten East High Street
Carlisle,I'A 17013
Attorney for Defendant
I See Spader \'. Firemell's Inll/rallee Co. {!( Nell'ark. 360 I'a. Super. 597, 52t A.2d 433 (1987)
(statement to effeet thai record did not support 1110tor vehiele insurer's positiou that release of
third-party tortleasor operated 10 discharge insurer !i'Ofll obligation 10 provide uuderiusurcd
1110torisl benefits to insured).
5
I 1111' 11\1 \1111 PII',Il," '_It tOO """"
I ",fl.,1 I. ,,' .,., '.1 II ,~..."
,1,,,...,1 I:''''N'': " ;',1"1
\"~,, I ~\
OARTII M. SPONA(iLE and
NOltMA L. SPONAULE, his wife.
Plaintiffs
IN TilE COURT OF ('OMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND ('OUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
\'
NO. 5741 CIVIL I'NS
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, t/a/d/h/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDt\:-IrS ANSWER WITII NEW MATTER TO Pl.AlNTlFFS' COI\II'l.AlNT
TO: GARTH M. SPONAGLE and NORMA L. SPONAGLE, Plaintiffs, and their attorney
MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III. ESQUIRE
YOU ARE I1EREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO TIlE
ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF
OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTEREI) AGAINST YOU.
ANSWER
1-4. Admitted.
5. It is udmitted that Plaintiff Garth M. Sponugle sustained mild injuries to his ncek and
back. It is denied that Plainti 1'1' Garth M. Sponagle sustained injuries to his shoulders and both wrists
and forearms. Proof thereof is demanded. It is admitted that Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle missed
three days of work on Oetober 15, 16 und 17 of 1996.
6. Admitted.
7. It is denied that the injuries to the wrists und loreanns of Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle
were related to his motor vehicle ueeident. To the contrary, PlainliffGarth M. Sponaglc had these
problems prior to the motor vehicle accident. Proofthereofis dcmanded. The remuining uvernlents
are denied on the busis that uller reasonuble investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledgc
or information to admit or deny said avermcnts. Proof thcreof is demandcd.
8. It is admitted that Dcfendant has failed to pay PlaintilT Garth M. Sponagle for lost
wages on thc basis that said lost wagcs are not related to injuries suffcred as a result of the motor
vehicle accidcnt of October 15, 1996. Proof thcreof is demanded.
9. Denied as st<lled. Defendant IHIS p:lid numcrous mcdical hills Itlr Plaintiffs Garth M.
Spon<lgle and Nonna L. Sponagle whcre said mcdical bills werc rel<ltcd to the motor vehicle
<Iccident, reasonable and neeessary. II is admittcd that certain olher hills wcre not p<lid where said
medieal bills were not refuted 10 the motor vehiele aecidcnt. reasonablc or neccss<lry. Proofthcreof
is demanded.
10. Admitted based on the rcasons sct forth in the answers to paragraphs Sand 9. The
answers to paragraphs 8 <Ind I) are ineorporalcd hercin by refcrcnce.
II. Denied. Aller reason<lble invcstigation. Defendant is withoUl suflicient knowledge
or information to admil or deny said al'emlenls. Prooflhereofis dcmanded. In addition, it is denied
that Defendant should h<lve paid said medic<ll bills. The <Inswer to paragraph 9 is incorporated herein
by referenee.
12. Denied. Aller reasonablc investigation, Defcndant is wilhout suflicienl knowledgc
or infonnation to admit or deny said <Ivennents. Proof thereof is demanded.
13. It is denied that Defendant has acled in b<ld faith and it is denied that Plainlins arc
entitled to legal fees, interest and penallies. To the contrary, Defcnd<lnt has properly denicd
payments where the medieal bills and the lost w<lges were nol related 10 the motor vchiclc accident,
reasonable or neeessary. Proof thereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, Defendanl demands judgment in its favor <Igainst Plaintins
NEW l\IA TTER
14. Defendant sets forlh paragraphs I through 13 orlhis Answcr as New Mattcr.
15. Defendant's refus<lllo pay certain medical bills and wage loss requested by PI<linliffs
was on the basis that s<lid medieal bills and wage loss werc not related or a result of the motor
vehiele aceident 01' were not reasonable or necessary.
16. Plaintiffs had aehieved maximum thcrapeulie benefits from any medical 01'
ehiropraetie lreatment by on or about December 20, 1996, and therealler medical or chiropractic
treatment was not rcasonable or necessary.
17. Plaintiffs h<ld pre-existing medical eonditions whieh were not caused 01' rel<lted In the
molar vehicle aecidenl of October 15, 1996.
18. Pluintifls' cuuses or actions may bc barred by the Statute or Limitations.
WHEREf-ORE, Derendant dcmandsjudgment in its lil\'or ugainst PlainliflS.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By ,J--YV./~
Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attomeys for Defendant
Dated: / ;) /J ,? /17
-:. . J.
~
@-':J
(E~)
!Z'.:?!
@
@
~
=<
'\PIW\DATAf!;UI\DOH80AL txX.'IU _11.1..
CtaIId: IVOtIt901.4IlN1,W
a.rid UJDW99 01" JU'"
)(150m
GARTH M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L, SPONAGLE, his wife,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENtiSYJaI AN1.A
." ""
~~ r"'1 ~--r\
"'- . ,"'\ .'.--
-r"f. ',.') '\1'\
~!}..:, 'r" ~~;..(
'";';:.:-., ~ ';,t,).
(OJ'. _ ''',:frj
r;t.. -:-,,';, ":~('
.~ - ~-r\'\
-.....c.:)
"b C! C!? ::;
P'<:-;; - ~
~4 ." :2-
....
v.
NO. 5741 CIVIL 1998
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, tJa/d/b/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MA ITER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
TO: GARTH M. SPONAGLE and NORMA L. SPONAGLE, Plaintiffs, and their attorney
MARCUS A. McKNIGHT, III, ESQUIRE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE
ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF
OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
ANSWER
1-4. Admitted.
5. It is admitted that Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle sustained mild injuries to his neek and
back. It is denied that Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle sustained injuries to his shoulders and both wrists
and forearms. Proof thereof is demanded. It is admitted that Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle missed
three days of work on October 15,16 and 17 ofI996.
6. Admitted.
7. It is denied that the injuries to thlXVrists and foreanns of Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle
were related to his motor vehicle aecident. To the contrary, Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle had these
problems prior to the motor vehicle accident. Proofthereofis demanded. The remaining averments
are denied on the basis that after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information to admit or deny said averments. Proof thereof is demanded.
8. It is admitted that Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiff Garth M. Sponagle for lost
wages on the basis that said lost wages are not related to injuries suffered as a result of the motor
vehicle accident of October 15, 1996. Proof thereof is demanded.
.,
EXHIBIT "A"
"
9. Denied as stated. Defendant has paid numerous mcdical bills for Plaintiffs Garth M,
Sponaglc and Norma L. Sponagle whcrc said mcdical bills wcrc relatcd to the motor vehicle
accident, rcasonablc and nccessary. It is admitted that certain olher bills were not paid where said
medical bills wcre not rclated to thc motor vchiclc accident, reasonable or ncecssary. Proofthcreof
is demanded.
10. Admitted based on the rcasons sct forth in thc answcrs to paragraphs 8 and 9. The
answcrs to paragraphs 8 and 9 arc incorporated hercin by rcfcrence.
II. Dcnied. After rcasonablc investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowlcdgc
or information to admit or deny said averments. Proof thereof is demanded, In addition, it is denied
that Defendant should have paid said medical bills. Thc answer to paragraph 9 is incorporated herein
by reference.
12. Denied, After rcasonaole investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
orinformation to admit or deny said avcrments. Proof thereof is demanded.
13. It is denied that Defendant has acted in bad faith and it is denied that Plaintiffs are
entitled to legal fees, interest and penalties, To the contrary, Defendant has properly denied
payments where thc medical bills and the lost wages were not related to thc motor vehicle accident,
reasonable or necessary. Proofthereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor against Plaintiffs
NEW MATTER
14. Defendant sets forth paragraphs I through 13 of this Answer as New Matter.
15. Defendant's rcfusal to pay certain medical bills and wage loss requested by Plaintiffs
was on the basis that said medical bills and wagc loss were not related or a result of the motor
vehicle aecident or were not reasonablc or neeessary.
16. Plaintiffs had achieved maximum therapeutic benefits from any medical or
chiropractic treatment by on or about December 20, 1996, and thereafter medical or chiropractic
treatment was not rcasonable or neeessary.
17. Plaintiffs had prc-existing medical eonditions which were not eaused or related to the
motor vehicle aecident of Oetober 15, 1996.
..
18. Plaintiffs' causes of actions may be barred by lhe Slalute ofLimitalions.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands jUdgment in its favor againsl Plaintiffs,
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By
Danie eardorfT, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: !;J/J,;;,!11
(,ERJ'/FJ(''\TE ew SlmVln:
I, Ami J. Thumma, all authorized agcnt lilr Mmtsoll Dcardorfr Williams & Otto, hcrchy
certify tlwt a eopy oflhc Illfegoing Dcfcndant's Answer with New Mattcr to PI<lintil'ls' Complaint
was scrved this dalc hy dcpositing samc inlhc Posl Ol'licc al C'<lrlisle, PA, Iirsl class mail, postagc
prepaid, <lddrcssed <IS follows:
Marcus A. McKnighl, III, ES1luire
IRWIN McKNIGHT & IIUGHES
(,(J West Pomfrct Street
C<lrlisle, PA 17013
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
B r I, 1 , j >.,1/1/1.: ,/;/'.[' /.(:
y \.~. i I ; I i\ '" LI
, I'
Ami J. Thunlllla
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: January 11.200 I
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and sutmitted in dup1..icate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter far the next Argunent Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption nust be stated in full)
GARTH H, SPONAGLE and
NORHA L. SPONAGLE, his wife,
( plaintiff)
vs.
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COHPANY, t/a/d/b/a DONEGAL
COHPANIES,
(Defen:lant)
No. 5741
Civil Action Law 1998
1. State matter to be argued (i.e.. plaintiff's llDtion for new trial. defeBlant's
~ to complaint. etc.):
Defendantls Hotion for Judgment on the Pleadings
2. Identify COWlSel. who will argue case:
(b) far defendant:
Address:
Harcus A, HcKnight, III, Esquire
IRWIN, HcKNIGHT & HUGHES
60 ~est Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire
HARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAHS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(a) for plaint.i..ff:
l\ddress :
3. I will notify all parties in writing within t100J days that this case has
been listed for argunent.
4. Argunent Court Date: 3/28/01
'~~'~~Ik~
'- w '-
t,- ~-~;
) (
. . :
.. -. .. . ::'1
" .. .'
'. . [)
1 ":;
C- I :-.'~l
1.1.-; ;.l..
w_ ....
, ~j
-' .:..)
-,
I
t tll I'll.' I '\tlll 1""1" ,. I.... ,,, '''~ , I'"
1......J 'd q "J II '_I" ,\I
"."..,1'.111"1".'11:',1'\1
GARTH M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA I.. SPONAGLE, his wile,
Plaintiffs
1:\ '1'111' COURT 01: COMMON PLEAS OF
('\ ;~lIlERI.ANI> ('OIINTY, PENNSYLVANIA
\'.
1'10.5741 CIVIL I'J'!X
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, t/ald/b/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Dcfendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
I>EFEi'IOI>ANT'S ;\IOTIOi'lO FOR ,/I II>G;\IENT ON TilE PLEAllli'lOGS
I. The moving party is Defcndant Donegal Mutuullnsurance Company.
2. Thc pleudings have closed.
3. The pleadings established that the Plaintiffs on or about November 3, 1999 signed
a full and final releasc diseharging all persons, ussociations and corporations rrom any and all eauses
of actions regarding injuries,losses and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs as u result oran
aeeident on October 15, 1996.
4. As a result ofPlaintirfs' signing suid rull and final rclease, Derendunl is enlitled to
judgment on the pleadings as a mattcr of law.
5. WHEREFORE, Dercndant Donegal Mutual Insurance Company requestsjudgment
on the pleadings in its favor.
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
~6
By
Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire
LD. No. [7837
Ten East High Strcet
Curlisle, PA 17013-3093
(717) 243-3341
Attomeys ror Derendant
Date: /_ j/' C /
('1'1{ nFIC't\'J'E OF SERVICE
I, Jody L. flome an aUlhori/ed agent of 7\'lartson f)eardorlTWilliams & alto, herehy certify
thilt a copy of the Jilregoing i\lotion Jilr Judgment was served this dilte by depositing same in the
Post Ofliee at Cilrlisle, PA, lirst class mail, postage prepaid, illldressed as follows:
i\larcus A. McKnight, Esquire
IRWIN, McKNIGIIT & HUGill'S
r,o West Pomfret Street
C<trlisle, P A 17013
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
.~. ;,/.
BYJO~y~13~O~~ ---""'"
Tell"East High Street
Carlisle, PA 170/3
(717) 243-3341
Dated: / ., I )
GARTII M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE, his wlfl',
I'Jainllffs,
: IN TIlE COUIn' OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUi\IIlERLANI> COUNTY, I'ENl'iSYI.\'ANIA
\',
: !'iO, 57~1 CIVIL 1998
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONEGALi\IVTUALINSURANCE
COMPANY, t1a/d/h/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
: ,IURY TRIAL DEMAl'iDED
Dcfcndant,
PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR ,IUDGMENT ON TilE PLEADINGS
I, STATEMENT OF FACTS
Garth and Norma Sponagle, husband and wife, were both injured in an automobile
aeeident on Oetober 15, 1996. Al the time of the accident. they were insured by Donegal Mutual
Insuranee Company. Mr. Sponagle required surgery on both arms and lost time from his
employment. Donegal Mutual Insuranee Company refused to pay for the lost time as well as
certain medical expenses incurred by both Garth and Norma Sponagle. An action was filed by
the Sponagles against the defendant, Donegal Mutual Insuranee Company, at 98-5741. A
Complaint was tiled on November 19, [999, setting forth the specifics of their claim against
Donegal Insurance Company.
Garth and Norma Sponagle also filed a third.party claim against the defendants involved
in eausing lhe aecident at Soona!!lc v. Allcn Lee Fo!!le, Glenn Eaves. t/a/d/b/a Oak Bluff
Farms and Kinslcv Construetion, Ine. al 98-5740. After discovery and the close of lhe
pleadings in that ease, the third-party aetion wilh lhc named defendants was settled and a release
, ,
,
I
pursuanl to 75 I'll. C.S,A, ~ 1711, which states lhat "an insurer issuing or delivering liahility
insuranec plllicics covering any molor vehiclc of thc typc rClluired to hc registercd ... shall
inelude coverage providing II medical benclit ... ". 7S 1':1. C.S,'\, ~ 1711. Firsl-party benelils arc
separnle from lhird-party bcnelils. No medical benelits may he recovered thull third parties as
lhey arc to bc reeovered as part of first.party bencfits. 75 I'll. C.S.A, ~ I 72 fl. First-party benefits
are not permitted to be prescnled to the jury as damages in a third-party case, 75 I'a, C.S.'\, ~
1722.
A relcase normally covers only such mailers as can filirly be s.lid to have bccn within the
eonlemplation of the partics whcn the rcle:lse was givcn. Eslale of Bodnar. 372 A,2d 746, 7~1l
(Pa, 1977), Thus, the words of a release should nol bc eonstrued to cxtcnd beyond thc cxpress
eonsideration mentioned so as to make a release for thc parties that they never intcnded or
eontemplated. Soarler ,'. Fireman's Ins, Co. of Newark, 521 A,2d ~33, 435 (Pa, Super 1987).
appeal denied, 540 A,2d 535 (1988).
In Soarler v, Firemlln's Ins. Co. of Newark, the Plaintiff exeeutcd a general release
after settlement of a claim for pcrsonal injuries against thc driver of tbe vehicle lhat had collided
with him. rd. The plaintiff made a subsequent elaim against his insuranee carrier for bcnefits
provided for by his contract of insurance. Id. Thc issue of the release and its effect on the
plaintifrs aetion against the insuranee eompany was one of two issues argued at the trial level,
where the trial eourt held that the release did preclude the plaintiffs seeond action. Id. The issue
of the release was then appealed to and fully argued before the Superior Court..llI. In a two-part
holding, the Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the second claim, not because of the third-
party release, but by the terms of the insurance policy ilselt: Soarler, 521 A.2d at 438-439.
3
In part onc of ils holding, thc Supcrillf Court held, ennlrary to the lrial court, that in the
ahscnce of uncquivocallanguagc 10 the colltrary, a gcneral rekasc of a third.party tortleasor will
not bc held to discharge the separatc conlractual ohligalion 01':111 insumnce carricr.1.!!., at 437. In
looking at thc intcnl of thc parties as the ultimatc test for determining thc effect of a releasc, the
eourt lound that the gencral rclcase in tilvor of thc third-party tortleasor did not contain languagc
uncquivocally discharging thc insurance company from its allcgcd eontraclual obligation. .ll!.
Although thc rclcase conlained the phrase "and all othcr pcrsons, firms and corporations" in
boilerplate print, thc release did not otherwisc suggest or idcntify the insurance eompany. Id, at
435, Thc Court eoncluded that Sparler did not intcnd to rei case the insurance eompany from ils
eontmctual obligation. Id.
Like thc plaintiffs in Soarler, Plaintiffs Sponagle exccutcd a release specifically settling
a claim against ccrtain third-party defcndanls in a speeilic ease. Thc releasc signed by Plaintiffs
was not a general rclease ineluding the Dcfcndants. As stated, tbc relcase was limited to "claims
... on aecount of which a Legal Action was institutcd ... at Doeket No. 98-5740-Civil, and the
defense and handling thereof...... (See Exhibit "A") The present action against Defendant
Donegal, Docket No. 98-5741, was not included in the claims that were released. Neither was
Defendant Donegal a named party to the release. There is no language in the release that
unequivocally discharges Defendant Donegal Irom its contractual obligation. Therefore,
Sponagle's elaim against Defendant Doncgal is not relinquished by the release executed in favor
of the third-party tortfeasor.
The holding in Soarler was revisited in Brosius v. Lewisburl! Craft Fair, 557 A,2d 27
(Pa. Super. 1989), in which the Superior Court recognized Sparler as good law and
4
.
.'
.' ';.1
'1 \.- ,"" .
.: r
.....j:.)(;:
~ i./;,'~
,~
~:. ~},l,~,,'_t
.? ,
distinguished its applicability from cascs whcrc a gencral rclcase of one tnrtfcasor relcases
anothcr joint tortleasor. Brosius, ~~7 A.2d at 28. Again in 1992, the Supcrior Court in Farrcll
v. Lcehmanik, 611 A.2d 1322 (I'a. Supcr, 1992), analyzed the holding and rcasoning of
SoarIcr. In Farrell, the Court applied the rcasoning of Sparler and held that a release in a
wrongful diseharge aetion was cntirely different than a claim for pcrsonal injuries against a third-
party tortfeasor. Id at 1324.
Defcndant Doncgal relics on eases that arc distinguishablc from the instant matter.
Hanselman v. Consolidatcd Rail Corp., 632 :\,2d 607 (Pa, Cmwlth, 1993), involvcd a release
of third-party tortfcasors, executed by plaintiffs that was held to discharge all tortfeasors.
HanscIman, 632 A,2d at 610. Similarly. in Buttermorc v, :\IiQuippa Hospital, a re\case of a
claim against a third-party tortfcasor was beld to bc applicable to all tortfcasors despite the fact
they were not specifieally named. Buttcrmore v, AIiQuiopa Hospital, 561 :\,2d 733 (Pa, 1989).
These types of eases are distinguishable from cases involving a first-party insurer whose
contractual liability is separate and apart from the tortious liability of the released third-party
tortfeasor. Brosius, 557 A,2d 27 at 28. Defendant Donegal has no right of subrogation against
third-party tortfeasors, whieh distinguishes this case from the eases cited by the Defendant
because third-party tortfeasors have the right of subrogation against other third-party tortfeasors.
Additionally, from a public policy view point, a deeision in favor of the Defendant would
set a dangerous preeedent that would preclude an injured person from asserting any claims (past,
present or future) against his or her first-party insurer after the signing of a General Release of
the third-party tort feasor.
5
Umler the DelCnJanl's theor)', if the first'party insurer Jiscol'ers thai Iheir insured II:IS
sellleJ with and released a thilll-pally lorll~asor 1'11>11I all claims, Ihc)' would hI' ahle 10 dl'ny any
further payment of olherwisl' colwed mcdical and wage loss henelils wilhoul thl'ir insured heing
able 10 contest the denial. Such a resull would l1y in the lilce of currcnl puhlic policy ami the
intent of the Motor Vehiclc Financial /{cspllnsihility Law 10 applI>priately separale the
responsibilities of lirst-parly and Ihird-parlY insurers.
There/()re, unJer :III the 1;lcls plead in Ihis case, Ihe general release Jill nol address or
release the first-party benelits owed 10 Ihe Plainlifls by J)onegallnsurance. The paymenl oflhe
lirst-party benefils is a mailer of contraclual obligalion and is not colleclable through a third-
party action whieh W:lS the subjecI of the general rclease in this case. Iflhe Plainlifls intended 10
release Donegallusurance, they would have been named in the Release anll lhe inslant dockel
number (No. 5741 Civil 1998) would hal'e becn specilically relerenced. The Plainlifls are
entitled to their day in courl to plcad their c:lse lh:ll their o\\'n insurancc company improperly
denied legitimate lirsl-pmty bcnelils lor which plaintilTh:ld paid premiums.
6
IV. CONCLUSION
For the lill'eg"ing reas"ns, I'laintifls I'cquest that Ihc ('"un disllliss thc M"lion "I'
Dclendant secking a Judglllcnt onthc Pleadings in lilvor or the Dclendants.
Respcctrully Suhlllitted:
IRWIN, McKNIGHT.'i,: HUGHES
By:
Date: March~ ,200 I
7
I
I
I
EXHIBIT "A"
fULL ANn FINAL RELF.ASF.
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION oflhe .urn oCTIlTRTY.IUGHT THOUSAND ONE
Ht:NDR.E.D TIIIIlTY.nvO M1.l NO/IOO DOLLARS (~J8.IJ1,OO) paid to the undersigned,
GorUI M. Spon"1:1c Wld Nonna L. Sponagle, aod the rcc:eipl:u1d sufficieuey of"'hich;$ hereby
ad,uO\~led~ed, th~ uode"';SJled "flree 10 fully rele...,,- disclJarJ;e, ho"l harml..., .1l1d indemnify
ALLEN LEE FOGLE. GLENN EA YES, t1~IbI. OAK BLUFF I'M~j\,IS, 1\.-\ T10:-IWIDE
rNSURA "lCE COMPANY, KlNST.EY CONSTRUCTION, rNC.,lL'RICH AMERICA. '\I
INSL1l.ANCE COMPA.."l', <lIld all other prnons, iWocialious and eorpol'3tions, whewer or nOI
n:uned h~n:;lI, their heirs, eXCC~IO", adrninisrrotrJrs, successors, a.ssig",;uW insurel"5, and their
respecuve .acnt.~. Si:rlIWlU. cmplorcl:'s and alt.o~i'$, from any or i:lll cnuscs of 61COOn. clnim3 ~nd
J<:m4"ds ufwtm\.:l<levc:r kind on o<:COUol of all ..,own, and unknown irtiurios,lols<'s and dolmllgeS
allegedly sUSlained by Gorrh M. Sponag/e:md :-torm. L. Spen,,!:Je 00 October 15, 1996, md,
specifiealll', Irom any claims, or joioders, for sole liabiUty. <oombulioc. ind=ity or oth.""ise
as d ",,,,,It of, arising from, or in AllY woy <OlUleoted ...iLh injuries suS1:lio~d by Garth M.
Spcou~le ond Norma L. Sponagle and on account ofwbich" L~gal ,...c[jon \V3S in~tirult!d by the
\llld~,"igned in l~c Court at' Common Plc:lS, Cumberland County. rCM~ylvw1iol.llI Dockcl No.
98.5740 - Civil, and me dnCense:md handling th~reof from lbe inceptioe ef ,he cloim wuil rho
dale oflhi. Full and final Rel"",c. The undl:rsigoed uedl:<1\t:lI1d and a!:In.: that the accept"nce of
suld ~Um is not an admission ofliebiUry by IllIY pany =ed herein. It i. exp"s.,ly uader.\tocd
arul agreed thet this ReleO:1e and scalemem i. inl:ndcd to cever and dt>es cover not ooly all
mewn injune., Joss~s, ond d.am.~es. but any furth.:r injuries, losses, und dam'ges which orise
from or are reutd to ~IC occurrcool:S set forth in the l.es.1 Action nUled abuve :ll1d the handling
and defe",,, ,h=ol.
, ,
t "lIfSJ)Af Afll f!\IJlJNLHAI. 11CH." 1\ 1.1 LJlb
('rc6l'" OlJUMII III 0' 01 AM
a.......t o2JONUIoZIO.o'M
1J
MAR J ;j ?oo/If'
GARTH M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE, his wife,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO. 5741 CIVIL 1998
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
'm
L ~~_J
DONEGAL MUTUAL fNSURANCE
COMPANY, tJaJdlb/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
,
,.
~d)
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS
FACTS:
Plaintiffs Garth M. and Norma L. Sponagle were involved in an automobile aecident on
Oetober 15, 1996. At thc time of this accident, they canied insuranee with Defendant Donegal
Mutual Insurance Company. As part of their insuranee, Plaintiffs bad first party benefits with
Defendant. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Dcfcndant in 1998 and eventually filed a Complaint
against Defendant on November 19, 1999. Thc Complaint alleged that Plaintiffs are entitled to
eertain first party benefits from Defendant as a rcsult ofthe October 15, 1996 automobile aceident.
In the meantime, Plaintiffs also filed a lawsuit against the other drivers involved in the
October 15, 1996 automobile aecident. Plaintiffs eventually settled with the othcr drivers for
$38,132.00. On November 3, 1999, Plaintiffs executed a Full and Final Release in favorofthe othcr
drivers and "all other persons...whether or not named herein...and insurers, and their respeetive
agents...from any and all causes of actions, claims and demands ofwhatsoevcr kind on account of
all known and unknown injuries, losses and damages allegedly sustained by Garth M. Sponagle and
Norma L. Sponag1c on October 15, 1996..." For tbe eonvenience of the Court, a eopy of said Full
and Final Release is attached hereto.
Recently, Defendant was allowed to amend its Answcr to raise as new matter a defense that
the Plaintiffs had executed a Full and Final Release whieh included their claims against Defendant
Donegal Mutual Insurancc Company. Thercafter, Defendant moved for judgment on lhe pleadings
and this case has been listed for Argument Court set for March 28, 2001.
,
I
,
QUESTION INVOLVE!):
Whether judgment should be entered for Defendant where Plainti ffs cxeeuted a Full and Final
Releasc discharging the drivers and all othcr persons fwm claims amI all causcs of actions arising
from injuries sustained by Plaintiffs on Oetobcr IS, 1996'1
DISCUSSION:
Based on the language ofthc relcase signed by Plaintiffs which is attached hercto, it is clear
that PlaintifTs intcnded to givc a completc releasc of all elaims and extend their disehargc to all
partics although not specifically named. Plaintiffs cxeeuted a gcneral rclease and aecordingly are
barred from bringing another action based on injuries they reccivcd from thc aceidcnt o I' October 15,
1996, Hansclman v. Consolidated Rail Comoration, 632 A.2d 607 (Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1996).
It is not necessary for alllhc partics who arc to bc discharged from liability to be speeifically named
within thc releasc ifit is clear that thc terms ofthc release extend to other parties. Estate of Bodnar,
472 Pa. 383, 372 A.2d 746 (1977).
It is anticipated that Plaintiffs will argue thaI this case is controlled by Soarler v. Fireman's
Insuranee Comoanv of Newark, 521 A.2d 433 (Pa. Supcr. 1987), In Soarler, the PlaintifT executed
a gcneral rclease to thc other drivcr of an aecidcnt and later filed a lawsuit against his first party
insurance carrier. Thc releasc signed by Plaintiffin favor ofthc other driver was a standard release
fonn with a blank space providcd for thc name of the other driver who is being released and
diseharged. The Lower Court dismissed Plaintiffs action against his first party carrier becausc of
this releasc. On appeal, thc Superior Court affirmed thc Lower Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs action
for other reasons but in dicta thc Superior Court noted that the release signed by Plaintiff did not
diseharge the first party earrier.
Defendant submits that this language by thc Superior Court in Soarler is not controlling
precedent beeause it was dieta. It was not neeessary for the Supcrior Court to discuss the release
when the Superior Court still affirmed the Lowcr Court for other reasons.
Nevcrtheless, years latcr thc Suprcme COllrt handed down the ease of Buttermore v.
AliQuiooa Hosoital, 522 Pa. 325,561 A.2d 733 (1989). In Buttermorc, the Plaintiff was involved
in a motor vehicle aceident. Thereafter, be reccived medical treatment in Aliquippa Hospital.
Plaintiff settled his casc with the driver of the other ear in the motor vehicle aecident and signed a
, '
FULL ANn FINAL RELEASE
FOR AND IN CONSlDERA nON oflhc .um ofTIITRTY.8GHT THOUSAND ONE
HCNDRl!O 111fllTY. TWO A!\1) NOIIOO DOLLARS ($38,131.00) paid 10 the undersi!lJled.
G.,.th M SponaJ:le llIld Nonna L. Spnnl8Je, .od the receipl ""d ",fticicucy of which i.< h",'eby
ackllowlcd~ed. the undc",i!llled :!Gree 10 fully releaso. di5cll''1!c,1101d hIll'mJ.... ond indemnify
ALLEN LEE FOGLE. GLENN EAVES, tI~IbI.OAK BLUFP FARl\.IS,I\'ATIO:-fW1DE
lNSURA'oICE COMPANY, l<JNstn CONSTRUCTION, rNC, ZL'RICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMI'~"-Y, 4Ild all other prnons, associalioas ilnd corporations, whether nr nO!
named hcreitl, their heirs, execlllO,", a.dmioisrrawr.l, ~uccessors, llSsigns and ic~urer;, and their
re~p=ctlve .gcnt.~. ,t:rw'tlI'IU, ~mplore~s and tUto~ys. frum allY or a.ll CDWCS of action. cloim9 ~nd
"""",,,ds ufwhllt>l<leVCl' kind on <>ccount afalll:nown, and unknown injuries. 1m... and d;UtUlses
aUegedly suslained by Garth M. Sponagle:md Sorma l. Spcn:l!!,le on October 15. 19~6, 3lld,
spccificaJJ1', trom any claims. or joinders, for sole liBbility, coembulioa. indemnity or olhcf"o;se
as ~ "':lUll of, arising from. or in ""y way caNleCtcd ,,;lh injuries suS'lained by Garth M.
Spcnu~I'llI1d Norma L. Sponagle and on occcunr ofwbich il Legal ,....ction W:lS in.tinlled by the
uodcr.illlled in the Court ot'Common Pleas, Cumberland GoUDly, PeM~ylvani,l, lU Docket No.
98.5740 - Civil, and lit. de fens. Md handling thereof from tbe inc.ptioa of the claim U.l1liJ ilia
dale of this Full nnd final Rei"",.. The unc1cr;i~ned uode",tond lUld a~c.: that ~ ill:ceplancc of
said sum is not an admISsion of Ii obi lilY by any partY =ed berein. It;' ."pm..ly under>lOod
and aGl"Cd that this Rcleo;e and salllement i. intended to cover and dnes cover not oDly 311
known Injunes. losses. and damBces. bur BOy fanher injuries. losses, and damages which nrise
from or:lJ'e relAted to u.e ac<:urrcoccs set fDrlh in the f.egBI Actinn nuted ,buve :tItd thc ban.dlillg
and deieme thereoe.
,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jody L. Boore, an authorized agent of Marts 011 DcardorffWilliams & Otto, hcreby ccrtify
that a copy of thc foregoing Brief in Support of its Motion for Judgment on thc Pleadings was
served this date by dcpositing same in thc Post Offiee at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postagc
prepaid, addrcssed as follows:
Mareus A. MeKnight, Esquirc
IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES
60 Wcst Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By
Jody
Ten st High Strcet
Carlisle, PAl 70 13
(717) 243-3341
Dated: March 14, 2001
GARTII M, SPONAGLE
and NORMA l..
SPONAGLE, his wire,
Plaintiffs
IN TilE COUR'!' OF COMMON PLI':AS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
DONEGAL MUTUAl.
INSURANCE COMPANY:
lId/b/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Defendant
NO. 98-5741 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
!
,
I
i
i
i
.1
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
i
BEFORE HOFFER. P..!., HESS and OLER..I.I.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 29'h day or March. 200 I. upon consideration or Defendant's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and following oral argument held on March 28,
2001, the motion is denied. See. Sparler v. Fireman 'sins. Co. afNewark, 360 Pa. Super.
597,521 A.2d 433 (1987), appeal denied, 518 POI. 613, 540 A.2d 535 (1988),
BY THE COURT,
"
,0
'd-
,~ ~(~
0;)." 'Y.:Y--
.J.
Marcus A. McKnight, lII, Esq.
Mark D. Schwartz, Esq.
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
\J
Daniel K. Deardorff, Esq.
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, Pa 17013
Attorney for Defendant
. .-
GAInlll\1. SPONAGI.E lIud
i'lORl\IA L. SPOi'lAGI.E. his ",if,',
Plaintiffs
: li'l TilE COURT OF COI\IMON PLEAS OF
: Clii\IIIERI.ANI> COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANIA
",
9H 5741 CIVIL TERM
DONEGAl. I\IVTlJAL I:>iSURANCE
COi\Il'ANY, t/n/tl/h/n
DONEGAl. COMPANIES,
Defendallts
CIVIL ACTION
,JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPI.AINT
Ai'lD NOW, this 19th day ..r r..;owmbcr, 19')9, comcs the Pluintifl:" Garth M. Sponagle
and Nonna L. Sponagle. his wire. by their AUl'fIIC}S, In\ ill, McKnight & Hughes and make the
fllllowing complaint against the Delendant. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, t1a/dlb/a
Donegal Companies:
\.
The PluintilTs are Garth M. Sponagle and Nonml L. Sponagle, his wife, who reside at
2156 Twin Brooks Drive, York, Pennsylvania 1740 I.
2.
The Defendant is Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, t/dlb/a Donegal Companies. Box
302, Marietta, Pennsylvania 17547.
....
I).
In addition thc Delendant has I;,ilcd to pay mcdical hills lilr Norma M. Sponagle and lilr
Garth M. Sponaglc.
Ill.
The Detendant despitc rcpcated rcquests has refuscd to pay thc lost wages and lhe
medical bills.
II.
The I'laintifts havc paid thc sum IiII' thc hills, which should havc been paid by thc
Delendant.
12.
The bills havc also bl'ell paid by Bluc Cross/Bluc Shicld. which seeks rcimburscment of
the amount paid by Blue Cross/Bluc Shicld related to the injuries.
13.
The defendant has aetcd in bad tllith in tl,iling to pay lhe lost wages and medieal expenses
of the plaintiffs. The plainti ffs seek reasonable legal tees, interest and penalties as provided by
law for the bad lllilh of the dclelldanl.
3
:':~'.."''''. .
WHEREFORE. lhc plaillli 1'iS, (iarlh :\1. Sponagle ami :'I:orma L. Sponagle, rClJucsts
judgmcnt against the dclendant. Donegal i'vIutuallnsurance Company l/a/d/b/a Donegal
Companics, in the amounl in excess ofTwenly Five Thousand and no/IOO ($25,000.00) Dollars
with rcasonable legal Ices, damages ti,r had t'lith, costs, and intercst as pcnnitted by law.
Respectfully Submitted:
By:
IRWIN, MeKNICHT &. IWCHES
44({!',. {:::
GO Wcst Plll1lfrct Street
Carlisle. PA 17013
(717) 249.2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 2547/\
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
Garth M. Sponagle and
Nonna L. Sponagle
Date: November 19, 1999
docs'.rll'ad i ngs" sr\ll\;, gll,.'
4
J
GARTH M. SPONAGLE and
NORMA L. SPONAGLE, his wife,
Plaintiffs
v.
DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, tia/d/b/a DONEGAL
COMPANIES,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 5741 CIVIL 1998
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
OATH
We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the
Constitution of the united States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that
we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity, .
/1 /b. /,
.. . / /
-< .' lU::L.-~)kLI-
AWARD
We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or
affirmed), make the following award:
The Board of Arbitrators aooointed in the above-caotioned matter herebv find for
the Plaintiffs in the amount of $2.750.00. Defendant shall further oav to Plaintiffs anv
record or docket costs. toaether with the deoosition transcriot costs of three (3)
de ositions incurred b the Plaintiffs in this matter.
Date of Hearing: Seotember 20. 2001
-0
~ A~
'. IT('I(.j(/ Dill:( N Y/Ol"
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD'
Now, the 21..ilcJay of S~rlel"'be'" , 2001, at /,'3, , Pm., the above
award was entered upon the doc et and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or
their attorneys,
Arbitrators' compensation to be
paid uRon appeal:
$ d/It..)rIO
1i'I(l JJf\.t~ .f.-f/r."if
Prothonotary
By: 4eur. //I) 1t;Lt~ rr
Deputy
/
"
.:,f.
~
~
<:......,'
,.
,j
C
..\
J
'.
>
~~ ~. ;
(- .
':'\
. ~
, ,"
..
'-
~
,,' \'~ '.
'< C.
,.
C'
'-' --l
.-
~ .,
..
s:.
,$;..
r
c.~)
.~
<~-
(~
. ,
('
-----\
~-.:..
I"'!'.?I ""
. c/
17'>7) ';./
'(/~'n rs "Y>f>orYI"1'l S I,()I
o rvYfJ 41.(. "?"oy ~.J...
"OL";!), ~
r"' (/ "'
(\-?C -m' '):3' '?rr>'J. .r3 01 Go"
O'~o "";!::)rrf
.,,~~ ' ~~r
. 9~? Ir",--nrt1;YVlV'-!.Jr'1' ;-r. ~b
C;,\IHII n SI'O'A(;I.E 1111"
'01(:\1,\ J.. SI'O'ACa,E, hi'; IIlf,',
1'1.""TlFF
: TilE conn OF ('0\1\10:'1 I'I.L\S OF
: (,DIJlEIU.A:'I1I ('OIXI'Y, "E:'I'SYI.\',\,J,\
",
'0. 57~1 ('(\'11. I'IIIM
1l0'EG,\1. :\IlTl',\1. I'iSI'R'\:'ICE
COMPA'Y, t/ll/d/h/Il/IlO'EG,\I.
CO:\lpA:'m:s,
IlEFE'Il'\'T
(''''11. ACTIO' - 1.,\ \\'
,lun'TlUAI.IlE:\I,\:\IlEIl
PRAECIPE TO SETTLE ANI> IlISCONTINVE
To Curtis R, Long, Prothonotary:
Please mark lhc abovc.captioned casc seltlcd and discontinucd and issue a Selllcment
Certificate to Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquirc, al 60 Wcsl Pomlrcl Strcet, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania 17013.
Respectfully suhmitted,
By:
VGHES
Date: Octobcr 23, 200 I