Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-08146 Attorney for Plaintiffs: Michael 1. Wilson Pa.ID No.: 52680 Attorney at Law 816 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011-8367 (717)774-7018 (717)774-7019 (fax) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY A. SHAUB -and - MARY-JO SHAUB 861 Mandy Lane Camp Hill P A 17011 Plaintiffs v. Civil - Law PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, an affiliate of Pennsylvania American Water Works 800 West Hershey Park Drive Hershey, PA 17033-0888 Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. dIXJ()- 81% 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 WITHING TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED ON YOU BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALL Y OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OF FOR ANY 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 OUR WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLEPA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Attorney for Plaintiffs: Michael J. Wilson Pa.ID No.: 52680 Attorney at Law 816 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011-8367 (717)774-7018 (717)774-7019 (fax) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY A. SHAUB -and- MARY-JO SHAUB 861 Mandy Lane CampHil1PA 17011 Plaintiffs v. Civil - Law PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, an affiliate of Pennsylvania American Water Works 800 West Hershey Park Drive Hershey, P A 17033-0888 Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 1iV.. Y I YC G.'v..J( 7,--v"~ COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs are married adult individuals residing at the above-captioned address and are owner of said residential property. 2. Defendant Pennsylvania-American Water Company is a public utility company who conducts business at the above-captioned address and is believed to be whol1y owned and affiliated with Pennsylvania American Water Works who conducts business from the same address. 3. On or about Saturday, January 9,1999, water pressure into the residence of Plaintiffs -1- decreased. 4. PlaintiffMary-Jo Shaub placed a telephone call at approximately 8:15 a.m. to Defendant or an individual who purported to take telephone calls on behalf ofthe Defendant and she reported to such individual about the drop of water pressure in the residence. 5. PlaintiffMary-Jo Shaub was instructed by the individual taking her call to examine the inside and outside of the residence and attempt to detect any break in any line. 6. Plaintiff could not detect any break and informed Defendant, through said individual, of her failure to detect any break in any line, 7. At approximately 8:45 a.m. of the same date, an individual appearing to be and believed by Plaintiffs to be an employee of Defendant arrived at the residence and dug a hole in and area between the sidewalk and curb immediately in front of the residence. 8. Immediately after digging the hole, water began to flow down onto the lawn area immediately in front of the residence and then followed a path on the lawn area to the lawn area between the residence and neighboring residence flowing further down several steps into the backyard of the residence of Plaintiff and finally into and through a retaining wall area at the rear of the residence as the water attempted to flow toward and down the steep embankment to the rear ofthe residence. 9. Upon seeing the path of the water, PlaintiffMary-Jo Shaub immediately asked the individual who had dug the hole causing the aforementioned flow to occur to stop or divert the flow of water onto the property. 10. Said individual refused to stop or divert the water. 11. Said individual immediately left the area following such refusal. -2- 12. After approximately 3 hours had passed since Plaintiffs request to the individual to stop or divert the flow of the water, another individual appearing to be and believed by Plaintiffs to be an employee of Defendant arrived at the residence and diverted the flow of the water into the street area. 13. During the period of approximately 3 hours of the flow of the water onto the property of Plaintiffs, the water reached depths of approximately 5 to 6 inches and mixed with snow which had been present on the lawn areas prior to the water line break. 14. The mixture of the snow with the significant amount of water which had flowed onto the property and into and through the retaining waJl during the stated time period caused the water to freeze and thaw at intervals during the days which followed the incident. 15. The combination of the initial flow of the water into and through the area of retaining wall and the subsequent freezing and thawing of the remaining water caused the retaining wall to be damaged. COUNT ONE - NEGLIGENCE Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 15 and further aver: 16. Defendant, by and through its employees or agents, acted negligently by: a. Causing the flow of substantial amounts of water onto the property of Plaintiffs when such flow had not occurred until the aJleged employee of Defendant dug the hole as described above; b. Failing to stop the flow of water onto the property of Plaintiffs once the flow had commenced; and/or c. Failing to divert the flow of water in another direction other than onto the -3- property of Plaintiffs once the flow has commenced. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court enter judgment for compensatory damages against Defendant in an amount less than the jurisdictional amount set by local rule requiring compulsory arbitration, plus attorneys fees and costs of litigation. COUNT TWO - GROSS NEGLIGENCE Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 16 and further aver: 17. Defendant, by and through its employees or agents, acted in a grossly negligent manner by: a.. Recklessly and without regard failing to immediately address and remedy the flow of water of water onto the property of Plaintiffs; and/or b. Recklessly and without regard leaving the area of damage unmitigated, unprotected, unresolved and without any proper supervision or care for the stated period oftime resulting in a flow of water onto the property of Plaintiffs in quantities extremely disproportionate to that amount which would have flowed onto said property if Defendant and its employees or agents had remained on the site ofthe damage and has taken reasonable and immediate measures to stop or divert the flow of water from entering the property of Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court enter judgment against Defendant for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys frees and costs of litigation in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount set by local rule requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT THREE - MISREPRESENTATION Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 17 and further aver: -4- 18. On the date of the incident, as set forth above, PlaintiffMary-Jo Shaub was contacted by an individual, Gene Irvin, who purported to be the distribution supervisor for Defendant, and informed by Irvin that the work to repair a break in a service line had been completed at approximately 3:15 p.m.. 19. While Irwin was on site supervising the repair of the service line break, Plaintiff informed Irvin that the water had flowed to the retaining wall area and could result in damage to the wall. 20. Plaintiff invited him to go to the rear of the property on that date to view the flow of the water and the retaining waJl area. 21. Irvin declined to go to the rear of the property that date. 22. Irvin further stated to Plaintiff that if the retaining wall did suffer damage from the flowing water, Plaintiffs should contact him. 23. On Monday, January 11, 1999, Plaintiff Jeffrey Shaub contacted Irvin and informed him that damage had occurred to the retaining wall and the retaining wall area. 24. Irvin told Plaintiff Jeffrey Shaub to submit three estimates to him and that Defendant will pay the damage claim. 25. On or about February 24, 1999, PlaintiffMary-Jo Shaub contacted Irvin following the Plaintiffs obtaining the three estimates Irvin had instructed them to obtain. 26. During the telephone conversation on the aforesaid date, Plaintiffs were informed by Irvin that the claim for damage was rejected and that Defendant would not pay Plaintiffs any amount. 27. Irvin represented to Plaintiff Mary-Jo Shaub that he had personally come to the -5- property on a date following the incident, without notice or contact with Plaintiffs, and had investigated the site ofthe damage and determined that the retaining wall had been damaged prior to the incident of the service line break. 28. Irvin represented to PlaintiffMary-Jo Shaub that he had an expertise in retaining wall construction and that his review of the wall indicated no damage by the flow of water. 29. Plaintiff again requested that Irvin come to the residence and view the area of the retaining wall they claimed was damaged by the flow with Plaintiffs present. 30. Irvin declined to view the area of claimed damage in the company of Plaintiffs. 31. Irvin then referred Plaintiffs to the purported liability insurer of Defendant, Travelers Insurance Company which company, according to Irvin, provided insurance coverage for the claim if was to be accepted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court enter judgment against Defendant for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys frees and costs of litigation in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount set by local rule requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT FOUR - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 15 and 18 through 31 and further aver: 32. Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to the doctrine of promissory estoppel in that its duly authorized employee or agent orally promised to pay Plaintiffs for the damages they had suffered to their property and is now estopped from defending against such claim. 33. To date, Defendant has failed to pay Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Court enter judgment for compensatory damages -6- against Defendant in an amount less than the jurisdictional amount set by local rule requiring compulsory arbitration, plus attorneys fees and costs of litigation. iJf~/ Michael J. Wilson Attorney for Plaintiffs -7- VERIFICATION Plaintiffs, Jeffrey A. Shaub and Mary Jo Shaub, verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct upon their personal knowledge or information and belief. Plaintiffs understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. CS 9 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~ ~. . ~ ------ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2000-08146 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SHAUB JEFFREY A VS PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER CO JASON VI ORAL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY AFFILIATE AM. WATER WK the DEFENDANT , at 0010:35 HOURS, on the 29th day of November, 2000 at 852 WESLEY DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to MICHAEL SALVO (ADULT IN CHARGE) a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: ." . .i/f'Ji{(> ~L'" #"~ ,,4"":A'''' , .U::~~ ,,""" .' 'P &> /~...A..~~~&.1t.l< r~_,~ 18.00 7.44 .00 10.00 .00 35.44 R. Thomas Kline 11/30/2000 MICHAEL J. WILSON Sworn and Subscribed to before By: ./, v-:7 /'./ ~. // _X7 , .-:; ~-/;. ,14~ /,/I1eputy erlff / / ,__JI;/ V . l-c- me this IS' day of h12a.R..Jc..- J />Vu A . D . (+r'-- C. }h,th.~ ~~ Prothonotary Thomas A. French, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 39305 RHOADS & SfNON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrishurg, P A 17108-] ] 46 (717) 233-573] Attorneys for Defendant Pennsylvania-American Water Company JEFFREY A. SHAUB and MARY-JO SHAUB, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER NO. 2000-8146 COMPANY, an affiliate of Pennsylvania American Water Works, Defendant PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Defendant Pennsylvania-American Water Company regarding the above-captioned matter. RHOADS & SINON LLP By ~ Thortfus A. French One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendant Pennsylvania-American Water Company 370252.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 14, 2000, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Michael 1. Wilson, Esquire 816 Derby Avenue CampHill,PA 17011-8367 cY~ .)J~ "12jji~_ Lynne G. tter Thomas A. French, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 39305 Kimberly L. Snell-Zarcone, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 85713 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendant JEFFREY A. SHAUB, and MARY 10 SHAUB : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION LAW : NO. 2000-8146 PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE To: Jeffrey A. Shaub Mary Jo Shaub Michael J. Wilson, Esquire 816 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011-8367 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, By: Thomas A. French, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 39305 Kimberly L. Snell-Zarcone, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 85713 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg,PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendant JEFFREY A. SHAUB, and MARY JO SHAUB : IN THE eOURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION LAW : NO. 2000-8146 PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER NOW COMES, Defendant Pennsylvania American Water Company (hereinafter "P AWe"), by and through its attorneys Rhoads & Sinon LLP and files the within Answer and New Matter as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that P A we is a public utility company which conducts business at the stated address. It is denied that P A WC is wholly owned and affiliated with Pennsylvania American Water Works. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, P A we IS without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 3 and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 373392.1 4. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff called P A WC regarding her water pressure and spoke to an individual who accepts telephone calls on behalf of P A we. After reasonable investigation, P A we is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as to the specific time when Plaintiff placed the telephone call. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, P A WC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 5 and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, P A WC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6 and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that a P A WC employee arrived at the Plaintiff's resident on January 9, 1999. It is also admitted that this employee accessed the curb stop and shut it off. After reasonable investigation, P A WC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 7, and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, ifrelevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that after the PAWC employee accessed the curb stop, some water entered onto the lawn area in front of the residence. It is also admitted that some water entered the lawn area to the side of the Plaintiffs residence and the neighboring residence. It is specifically denied that the water flowed down several steps into the backyard of the residence of the Plaintiff. It is also specifically denied that the water flowed into and through a retaining wall area at the rear of the property. After reasonable investigation, 2 P A WC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 8, and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, P A WC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, P A WC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 10 and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that the first P A WC left the property. After reasonable investigation, P Awe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 11, and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that another P A we employee arrived at the Plaintiffs residence on January 9, 1999. It is admitted that this employee diverted the water into the street area. After reasonable investigation, P A WC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of paragraph 12, and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, P A WC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 13 and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. " -' 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that any water flowed into and through the retaining wall as a result of the water line break. 15. Denied. It is specifically denied that any damage was caused to the retaining wall as a result ofthe water line break. COUNT I -- NEGLIGENCE 16. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 16 a-c constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required and the same are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant P A WC demands judgment m its favor against Plaintiff dismissing the Complaint, and for costs. COUNT II - GROSS NEGLIGENCE 17. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 17 a-b constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required and the same are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant P A we demands judgment m its favor against Plaintiff dismissing the Complaint, and for costs. COUNT III -- MISREPRESENTATION 18. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that on January 9, 1999 the Plaintiff was contacted by Gene Irvin, who presented himself as a distribution supervisor of P A we. After reasonable investigation, P A WC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that Gene Irvin represented that the work to repair the service line had been completed at approximately 3:15 p.m. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Admitted. 4 20. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff asked Gene Irvin if he would like to view the retaining wall area. It is denied as stated that Plaintiff asked Gene Irvin to view the flow of the water. It is admitted that Plaintiff asked Gene Irvin if he would like to view the path of the purported water flow. 21. Admitted. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, P Awe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 22 and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Admitted that Plaintiff made such communication. 24. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that Gene Irvin instructed the Plaintiffs to submit three estimates to him. It is specifically denied that Gene Irvin told Plaintiff that P A we would pay for the damage. 25. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that on February 24, 1999 Plaintiff contacted Gene Irvin. It if further admitted that Gene Irvin instructed Plaintiff to obtain three estimates. After reasonable investigation, P A we is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that Plaintiff obtained three estimates. 26. Denied. It is specifically denied that on February 24, 1999 Gene Irvin informed Plaintiffs that the claim was rejected and that P A we would not pay the claim. 27. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that Gene Irvin told Plaintiff that he had investigated the claim of damage by personally visiting the property. It is further admitted that Gene Irvin represented to Plaintiff that he believed the damage to the retaining wall 5 had been done prior to the incident of the service line break. It is denied that Gene Irvin entered onto the property without permission of the Plaintiffs. 28. Admitted, in part, denied, in part. It is admitted that Gene Irvin represented to Plaintiff that it was his opinion that no damage was caused to the retaining wall as a result of the service line break. It is specifically denied that Gene Irvin represented to Plaintiff that he had expertise in retaining wall construction. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, P Awe is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 29 and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, P A we is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 30 and the same are denied. Proof, thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 31. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Defendant P Awe demands judgment III its favor against Plaintiff dismissing the eomplaint, and for costs. COUNT IV - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 32. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 32 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required and the same are denied. 33. Admitted. It is admitted that to date P A we has not paid any sum of money to the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendant PAWe demands judgment III its favor against Plaintiff dismissing the eomplaint, and for costs. 6 NEW MATTER 34. P A we incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 above. 35. Plaintiffs' eomplaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 36. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. 37. The damages claimed by Plaintiff existed prior to the break of the service line on January 9,1999. 38. The damages alleged were caused, if at all, by persons, firms, or entities other than Defendant. 39. The damages alleged were cause, if at all, in whole or in part by the conduct and negligence of Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendant P A we demands judgment III its favor against Plaintiff dismissing the eomplaint, and for costs. Respectfully submitted, RHOADS & SINON LLP By: 7 VERIFICATION I, Kimberly 1. Snell-Zarcone, depose and state that I am the attorney for Pennsylvania American Water eompany, that I am acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter and verify that the statements made are true and correct. I am signing this verification in order to file the Answer and New Matter, and a substituted verification will be filed in a timely manner hereafter. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. e.s. 9 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 262097.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 17,2001, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Michael 1. Wilson, Esquire 816 Derby Avenue eamp Hill, PA 17011-8367 eOo<~ (}l~ earolyn Ho cker Thomas A. French, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 39305 Kimberly L. Snell-Zarcone, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 85713 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1 ]46 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendant JEFFREY A. SHAUB, and MARY JO SHAUB IN THE eOURT OF eOMMON PLEAS OF eUMBERLAND eOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. eIVIL AeTION LAW : NO. 2000-8146 PENNSYLVANIA AMERIeAN WATEReOMPANY Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO: PROTHONOTARY Kindly attach the enclosed original verification to Defendant, Pennsylvania American Water eompany's Answer and New Matter filed on January 18, 200 I in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, By: 370893.1 VERIFICATION John Ihli, deposes and says, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. e.s. Ii 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, that he is the Director of Loss eontrol of Pennsylvania American Water eompany, that he makes this verification by its authority and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. Date: / )/q j() I I I Name~ (. ~. e', CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 19, 2001, a true and correct copy of the Praecipe to Attach Verification was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Michael J. Wilson, Esquire 816 Derby Avenue eamp Hill, P A 17011-8367 2 Attorney for Plaintiffs: Michael 1. Wilson Pa.ID No.: 52680 Attorney at Law 816 Derby Avenue eampHiII,PA 17011-8367 (717)774-7018 (717)774-7019 (fax) IN THE eOURT OF eOMMON PLEAS, eUMBERLAND eOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JEFFREY A. SHAUB -and - MARY-JO SHAUB 861 Mandy Lane eamp Hill PA 17011 Plaintiffs v. eivil - Law PENNSYL V ANIA-AMERIeAN WATER eOMP ANY, an affiliate of Pennsylvania American Water Works 800 West Hershey Park Drive Hershey, P A 17033-0888 Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 2000-8146 REPLY TO NEW MATTER 34. No responsive pleading is required. 35. No responsive pleading is required 36. Denied. Plaintiffs attempted to mitigate their damages by contacting Defendant who they believed was the entity responsible for effecting any repair necessary to stop the flow of water onto their property as further described in the eomplaint. 37. Denied. The damages to their property caused by the flow of water as further described in the Complaint did not exist prior to the date ofthe incident. By way of further -1- answer, Plaintiffs believe that Defendant now contends the pre-existence of the damage to the property solely as part of a fabricated attempt to avoid the payment of such damages since the liability of Defendant is undisputed or will be proven indisputable. Alternatively, Defendant's employee or agent who inspected the premises damage inspected the wrong retaining wall. 38. Denied. The damages to their property caused by the flow of water as further described in the eomplaint were caused by Defendant. Plaintiffs are without knowledge of any action or omission by any other person, firm or entity which caused the damages alleged herein. To such extent any such person, firm or entity caused such damage, Plaintiffs aver that he/she/it was/were acting or failing to act at the direction of Defendant. 39. No responsive pleading is required. /I!~- Michael 1. Wilson Attorney for Plaintiffs -2- VERIFIeATION I verifY that the statements made in this Reply to New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.e.S. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ',~ ~.,--, (j =-.~ '~' =:? ~f"-- _, Jeffrey A. aul<} Plaintiff VERIFIeA nON I verifY that the statements made in this Reply to New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.e.S. 94904 rel.;o, '" =w~ foJ"ifi,,""o '" '"th~it;re~~ Mary- h~ub PlaintIff Attorney for Plaintiffs: Michael J. Wilson Pa.ID No.: 52680 Attorney at Law 816 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011-8367 (717)774-7018 (717)774-7019 (fax) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA -and- Civil - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 2000-8146 JEFFREY A. SHAUB MARY-JO SHAUB Plaintiffs v. PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned counsel, hereby certifies that on the date(s) set forth below, the listed paper(s) or document(s) and this Certificate were served upon the individual(s) and addressees) noted by placing an original or duplicate photostatic copies of the originals in the regular and/or certified United State mail, first class postage pre-paid. P APER(S) OR DOCUMENT(S) SERVED I. Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter; 2. Plaintiffs' Answers to First Set ofInterrogatories; 3. Plaintiffs' Answers to Request for Production of Documents; and, 4. Certificate of Service dated March 7, 2001. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF INDIVIDUALS SERVED Attorney Kimberly L. Snell-Zarcone Rhoads & Sinon One South Market Square Twelfth Floor PO Box 1146 Harrisburg P A 17108 Date: March 7, 2001 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. WILSON ;1t~L- Michael 1. Wilson Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs: Michael J. Wilson Pa.ID No.: 52680 Attorney at Law 816 Derby Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011-8367 (717)774-7018 (717)774-7019 (fax) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA -and- Civil - Law JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No. 2000-8146 JEFFREY A. SHAUB MARY-JO SHAUB Plaintiffs v. PENNSYLVANIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned counsel, hereby certifies that on the date(s) set forth below, the listed paper(s) or document(s) and this Certificate were served upon the individual(s) and addressees) noted by placing an original or duplicate photostatic copies of the originals in the regular and/or certified United State mail, first class postage pre-paid. P APER(S) OR DOCUMENT(S) SERVED 1. Plaintiffs' First Set ofInterrogatories Directed to Defendant; 2. Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents; and, 3. Certificate of Service dated March 12, 2001. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF INDIVIDUALS SERVED Attorney Kimberly L. Snell-Zarcone Rhoads & Sinon One South Market Square Twelfth Floor PO Box 1146 Harrisburg PA 17108 Date: March 12,2001 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL 1. WILSON /~JJ:w~-' Michael J. Wilson Attorney for Plaintiffs