HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-02978
?l
4,.
?y
7r!
to
t
1
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC. d/b/a
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
Plaintiff
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1999-2978
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set
forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this
Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by
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 may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for
any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the
Plaintiff(s). 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, PA 17013
717/249.3166
NOTICIA
LE HAFT DEMA TDADO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas
demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la
fecha de la demanda y la notification. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por
abogado y archivar en la torte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra
de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, Is torte tomara medidas y puede entrar una
orden contra usted sin previo avisob notifcacion,y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la
petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes pars
usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTA. SI NO TIENE
ABOGADO O St NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA
EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE
ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR
ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
717/249.3166
W •. ,
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC. d/b/a
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
Plaintiff
v
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1999-2978
COMPLAINT
AND NOW comes Plaintiff, Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc. d/b/a Auto Collision
Experts, by and through its attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, and hereby files the
within Complaint:
1. Plaintiff, Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc. (herein "K&H Ford") d/b/a Auto
Collision Experts, is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at
6320 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055.
2. Defendant, Allan Grossman (herein "Grossman") is an adult individual
residing at 815 Kent Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17055.
3. In March of 1998, Grossman brought his vehicle, a 1998 Ford Explorer,
to Auto Collision Experts (herein "ACE"), a subsidiary of K&H Ford, for an estimate
to repair stone chip damage to the vehicle's paint.
t .
y:
4. Grossman's insurer, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
(herein "USF&G") prepared an estimate dated March 11, 1998 authorizing certain
repairs to Grossman's vehicle. A copy of the March 11, 1998 estimate is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
5. ACE repaired the damage to Grossman's vehicle at his request in
accordance with the March 11, 1998 estimate prepared by USF&G and in
conformance with standards of good workmanship in the industry. A copy of the
invoice for the work performed by ACE is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a
part hereof.
6. After the work authorized by the March 11, 1998 estimate was
completed by ACE, Grossman came to pick up his vehicle. At that time he claimed
that additional work was required on his vehicle.
7. ACE informed Grossman that the work authorized by the March il,
1998 USF&G estimate had been completed and that any additional work would
require a supplemental estimate from USF&G authorizing the additional work to be
performed with insurance monies.
-2-
8. USF&G subsequently prepared a supplemental estimate dated April 30,
1998 authorizing the necessary additional work. A copy of the April 30, 1998
supplemental estimate is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof.
9. At Grossman's request ACE performed the additional work authorized
by and in accordance with the April 30, 1998 supplemental estimate prepared by
USF&G and in conformance with standards of good workmanship in the industry. A
copy of the invoice for the work performed by ACE is attached hereto as Exhibit "D"
and made a part hereof.
10. The total for repairs performed on Grossman's vehicle amounted to
$1,886.19. (See Exhibits "B" and "D").
11. After the additional work authorized by the April 30, 1998 supplemental
estimate was completed, Grossman claimed that he was not satisfied with the work
that had been performed cn the vehicle by ACE.
12. In an attempt to satisfy Grossman and despite believing that the work
performed to date was in accordance with industry standards, ACE agreed to redo the
repairs that Grossman had voiced dissatisfaction with and that were previously
authorized by USF&G at ne additional charge.
-3-
x?vti
13. In June of 1998, Grossman lodged a complaint with the Ford Motor
Company complaining of the quality of certain repairs.
14. Following Grossman's complaint, Robert Faircloth, then a Customer
Service Manager with Ford Motor Company, inspected the work performed by ACE
on Grossman's vehicle.
15. Mr. Faircloth determined after inspecting the vehicle that the work
performed by ACE was done in a workmanlike manner, in compliance with industry
standards and was commercially acceptable.
16. In July of 1998, Grossman's vehicle was delivered to him by a
representative of K&H Ford.
17. In September of 1998, Grossman sent a letter to K&H Ford and
enclosed a USF&G check, endorsed by him, in the amount of $743.30 made payable I`
to Allan Grossman and K&H Ford Body Shop. Grossman stated in his letter that he
was sending the check for only the satisfactory work performed on his vehicle.
18. By letter dated December 14, 1.998, 'Torn Dabler, Manager of ACE,
notified Grossman that there was an outstanding balance owed of $1,142.89 for work
-4-
performed on Grossman's vehicle. A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit
"E" and made a part hereof.
19. In February of 1999, when K&H Ford negotiated the $743.30 check they
were informed that the funds were not available and K&H Ford was charged a $10.00
fee by the bank.
20. It is believed.and therefore averred that the Defendant and/or his agent
contacted USF&G and requested that payment be stopped on the $743.30 check and
that K&H Ford be removed as a payee on any future insurance check(s).
21. There currently is an outstanding balance of $1,886.19 owed to K&H
Ford for the work performed on Grossman's 1998 Ford Explorer by ACE pursuant to
the USF&G estimates and $10.00 for the insufficient funds fee charged by the bank.
COUNTI
Breach of Contract
22. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 21 are incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
-5-
G
23. At Grossman's request K&H Ford performed the repairs to Grossman's
vehicle authorized by and in accordance with both the March 11, 1998 estimate and
the April 30, 1998 supplemental estimate prepared by Grossman's insurer, USF&G.
24. Despite requests for payment, Grossman has refused to pay the
outstanding balance due and owing to K&H Ford for the authorized work performed
by ACE.
25. Grossman's failure to make payment of the $1,886.19 due and owing to
K&H Ford constitutes a material breach by Grossman of the agreement with K&H
Ford.
26. As a direct and proximate result of Grossman's breach of the parties'
agreement, K&H Ford has suffered damages in the amount of $1,886.19, together
with interest thereon.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Defendant, Allan Grossman, in the amount of $1,886.19 and $10.00
for the insufficient funds fee charge by the bank plus interest and costs and such
other remedies as this Court shall deem proper.
-6.
CUNT II
Breach of Implied Contract
27. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 26 are incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
28. In the alternative to Count I above, if it is determined that no express
contract between the parties existed, then an implied contract existed which was
consistent with the course of performance and dealings between the parties.
29. Grossman's refusal to make payment to K&H Ford on the outstanding
balance of $1,886.19 which remains due and owing constitutes a material breach of
the implied contract.
30. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of the implied contract,
K&H Ford has suffered damages in the amount of $1,886.19, together with interest
thereon.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Defendant, Allan Grossman, in the amount of $1,886.19 and $10.00
for the insufficient funds fee charge by the bank plus interest and costs and such
other remedies as this Court shall deem proper.
-7-
COUNT III
Quantum Meruit
31. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 30 are incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
32. K&H Ford brings this Count III based upon the theory of quantum
meruit, in the alternative.
33. In reasonable and foreseeable reliance on the representations and
requests of Grossman, K&H Ford performed repairs pursuant to the March 11, 1998
estimate and the April 30, 1998 supplemental estimate prepared by Grossman's
insurer, USF&G.
34. In reasonable and foreseeable reliance on the representations and
requests of Grossman and despite believing that the work performed to date was in
accordance with industry standards, K&H Ford performed additional repairs to the
vehicle in an attempt to satisfy Grossman.
? 35. The fair market value of K&H Ford's services to Grossman is in the
amount of $2,711.19 which represents the $1,886.19 for the repairs pursuant to the
-8-
USF&G estimate and supplemental estimate (See Exhibits "B" and "D") plus $825.00
in labor and materials for the additional repairs performed by K&H Ford.
36. Grossman has accepted, used and benefitted from K&H Ford's
performance of the authorized repairs described herein.
37. As a direct and proximate result of K&H Ford's performance of the
repairs described herein, Grossman has become unjustly enriched at K&H Ford's
expense in the amount of $2,711.19.
38. It would be inequitable and unjust for Grossman to be enriched by his
acceptance of K&H Ford's repairs performed pursuant to the estimate and
supplemental estimate and the additional repairs and to retain the benefits of those
repairs without paying the fair market value for those repairs in the amount of
$2,711.19.
39. K&H Ford is entitled to receive the sum of $2,711.19 plus interest from
Grossman on the theory of quantum meruit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Defendant, Allan Grossman, in the amount of $2,711.19 and $10.00
-9-
for the insufficient finds fee charge by the bank plus interest and costs and such
other remedies as this Court shall deem proper.
COUNT IV
Fraud
40. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
41. Grossman provided K&H Ford with a USF&G insurance check endorsed
by him in the amount of $743.30 made payable to Allan Grossman and K&H Ford
Body Shop for what he claimed was the satisfactory work performed on his vehicle.
42. Grossman misrepresented that the $743.30 USF&G check was a partial
payment for the work performed by K&H Ford on Grossman's vehicle pursuant to
the USF&G estimates.
43. It is believed and therefore averred that the Defendant and/or his agent
contacted USF&G and requested that payment be stopped on the $743.30 check and
that K&H Ford be removed as a payee on any future insurance check(s).
-10-
44. K&H Ford justifiably relied on Grossman's misrepresentation that the
funds represented by the $743.30 USF&G check were available to them as partial
payment for the work performed on his vehicle.
45. Grossman knew, or should have known, that by stopping payment on
the $743.30 USF&G check that had previously been transmitted to K&H Ford
without notifying K&H Ford the check would be returned by the bank for insufficient
funds causing inconvenience, embarrassment and cost to K&H Ford.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc., demands judgment in its
favor and against Defendant, Allan Grossman, in the amount of $1,886.19 and $10.00
for the insufficient funds fee charged by the bank plus interest and costs and such
other remedies as this Court shall deem proper.
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By: SQUIRE
DAVID *FITZ?SIMU"- ,
Supreme Court I.D. #17JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #81093
3401 North Front Street
P.U. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
144 S Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATED: J l,?V?
I ,
?;
A
1, i
IlhlTl'FI` STATES FIDELITY A61D GL64!'+-top i rnp.PAhl'
36732 01JEEI•J PAI-I'I i.F
TAMPA. FL 33619
TEL: (800) 873-2634
CD LOG NO 1231 .-0
ESTIMATE
03-11-98 2:09 PM
r m Trir..Fr!L.T t i•q I
CLAIM f4 9000029424011
COMPANY
INSURED ALLAN B AND ANNETTE GROSSM
CLAIMANT
LOSS PA'iEE Furd Motor Credit Coro
TkIC;PFf. ITT C,1.1
Cni'!i t;!;Y U F,y:O in;crance
TYPE FIELD
APPRAISER NAME GREG KENSKI
LICENSE ri 3001617
WORK PHONE (717) 671-7433
ADDRESS P.O.BOX 9700
L CITY STATE HARRISBURG
ZIP 17108-9700
OWNER
GROSSMAN. ALLAN
815 KENT DRIVE
Mechanicsburg PA 17055-
REPAIR-
ACE BODY SHOP
6365 BASEHORE ROAD
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055-
SHOP PHONE (717) 766-8758
FOLIC' 9
CL.M REF'/AGNT MARC PETERNELL
LOSS DATE 022-26-98
LOSS TYPE COMPREHENSIVE
ACCT o / PF'A11207166305
- W.I.-
y.
G32 9??.,?=r.:
FAX 't r Ltyf}e?t.?.
(717) 671-7051.,.
INSP DATE 03-11-98
PA LOCATION OWNERS RESIDENCE
CITY STATE Mechanicsburg', PA
WORKH(717) 732-7056
HOMEH(717) 651-0000
VEHICLE
1998 FORD EXPLORER LIMITED 4 DR WAGON
6CYL GASOLINE 4.0 SOHC
CAR IN CAR OUT
REPAIR DAYS
FAX (717) 796-0557 r
'.F iiONS
TWO-STAGE - EXTERIOR SURFACES AIR DAM/VAL PNL MTD FOG LAMB'S
RUNNING BRD MTD 5D DEFL POWER SEATS
HEATED REMOTE CONTROL MIRRORS POWER DOOR LOCKS
POWER WINDOWS LUGGAGE RACK
HEATED BACK GLASS
REAR IJIFCR njL?S'IIs O {!
WHEEL Di`:iVc
I)- WHEEL Dj,!!V;:
; i! f
CLIMATE CONTROLLED A/C
AUTOMnllI TRANS
CPUTSE C.O.HTROL AIR COHDIT'IONINC
vODY COLOR WHITE PEARL MILEAGE: 1.995 )
CONDITION GOOD VThJ 7r_I. f
LICE F 3E W ENJ4058 1FM-- 4L ul;-A:i?4R
CODE F643
! TLFh15C' S'TATF. FA .-
,411
kENAhhS:
tk*MiM:kkMkkkkklA:k:kK4kkkkAlRkkkfkkk:kk!Ki:kklkk:ik86t.kfi.kkVktk4Fkkkktk:kkA*k?kkkA:kt .
15!18 P'OkD L•.XF'LOhtF.fi I_11'I11'E:D 4 DI'i WA(iU1J ?"?'?"
CLFlr''h4? 900!11'39424011
r• LOG 1.r51 -0 0rll°98 2:0'i P'1'I
?TM?k?G1?8kYi** DATE. ASSIGNED: 03 04-S81kTY EIRIVEABLE: YES kkA4yTk it.?k• '
DRAT IvAD: YE DRAFT II: 65091641 DRAFT 4:1443.30
COMMEEITS: NO Ol-D DAMAGE: NO a•
TOW $: NO LKQC.,
TOTAL: NO SETTLED: STORAGE: STORAGE RATE $: A DAY I J
AMOUNT: OK TO MOVE: BY: DATE:
VEH WILL BE REPAIRED WT.TH NEW OEM FORD GLASS TO MAKI7AIFJ WARRANTY ? ?
PART
ODF. OPEPATTOhT FRICF. LABOR RT
FRONT BUMPER
Cover.Front Bum er
P 0023 Repair 0.5* SM
Cover.Front Bumoer 0023 Refinish - 2.4 RF
Surface ?- 1.5
T.wrsCage Setup
FRONT BODY AND WINDSHIELD 4 4 (i/ v , 7Yftao= -?4?16d
W;ndshield,Shaded 0143 Replace OEM 1257.79 2.7 SM
8 F57Z7803100A Discount 45%
i '>FORD ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT GLASS
j Sealant Kit.W/Shield 0144 Replace Economy- 36.00* INC SM
M1dq.W/S Reveal Upper 0179 Replace OEM `90.10 INC SM
FlTZ7803144A
I COLOR MATCH & BLEND Refinish 2.0* RF*
ADD TRI COLOR FINISH Refinish 2.0* RF*
Flex Additive 01103 Replace Econcmv 10. 00-1 RF
Grille.Upner Cowl LT 0180 Replace OEM 39.26 INC SM
F57Z78022A69A
Panel.Hood 0083 Repair k c
Panel,Hood 0083 Refinish -3.4 RF--
Surface 2.8
Two-stage 0.6
i
11. ITEMS
I FINAL CALCULATIONS & ENTRIES
PARTS
t GROSS FARTS
OTHER PARTS 1.387.15
$ 46.00
PAINT MATERIAL $ 156.80
ADJUSTMENTS DISCOUNT MARKUP
v LINE ITEMS $ 566.01
FARTS TOTAL
TAX ON PARTS & MATFRIAI.. C 6.000
LABOR RATE REPLACE HRS REP'AI'R HR5
i-SHEET METAL ,. 3.00 1„? q
2-MECH/ELEC 4 44.00
3-FRAME $ 735.00
4-REFINISH L ??.i'0 9.6 q
5-PAIN7 S 16.00
LABOR TOTAL.
TAX ON LABOR C 6.000%
SUBLET FEPAIFS
4 1.023.94
4 61.44
1.12.40
S 4;12.110
1 35.9'3
LXr'LUnck L1fI1TL'1? I DR WAGLIN
uVLA 91i461L LOU 1
231 ' (
.
u
03-1 1-98 2:09 F'Pi
•
.
1. NJ1
iTOFtRF;6
:OSS TOTAL
'
l
LESS: NET
DEDUCTIBLE $ 1.543.30
li 100.00- fl
?
IUI(lL ''•''?"
.
4 1,443. Su
Y/00/00/00.1110/00
rllhl pn,/pp!np: 0p/00 C;c:crud•_: 1.'17.0 H,ARRISDUr,G
(F' PENF'RO W0330
ES LOG 1231 -0 03-11-98 15:c^4:40 REL 3.30 CD 02/98
COPYRIGHT
AUTOMATIC D
.
ATA PROCESSING. INC. 1997
ru`eat.n.t. r!,_.1. ti! iHi>; Llil'tr(t 14ca U:h'.
4(
m17 1ufriGL i2t:PL5(
ULA: 20% OF REFINISH hJOUhS
AFT
,
ER OVERLAP. FLl1S 0-6 HOURS FOR THE FIRST
JOR PANEL, WHERE NOTED
.
;r 4;d
_-------------------------------
_- k +
-----. ------------------------------------ •1Cx.
F**********7H1S IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATIO14 TO REF'AII:.***********
)PPLEMENTAL CH
ARGES MAY BE DENIED UNLESS APPROVED BY USF&G.
"PAIRS MUST BE AUTHORIZED
BY THE OWNER.
.L REPAIRS AND OR REPLACEMENT'S LISTED HEREON ARE TO
BE MADE IN STRICT
:CORDANCE WITH THE ItANUFACTUFtERS SPEC IFICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
;F
.
EED BY:
m
!.
•A
pa
RI o Yon Nip m ppuA ly •/p pN?, Imo.
'
I •
I `
•
_K
' ff
IV
1l?
O
im
N
V
O
i
O
?
O
m
O
^
O
O J
`
O
N
C,
i
O
N
O
?_ . V
' 0 t
D t
0 t
p H
u t
p '
: O
m m co m m m m m c m -
t W
V 13 ? !
o
3
'
w w? n i i '
s' _ ?',
•41 "?p, AP Vii" .? ??+?? !?;l' ?
2O
3
m N O NO R
r
r
3
t ?
? a m ?
-
,.
.
Ri
o ?
?
?
v
m m
a
m
m
m /m
m
m
m
m
m
m m
o
/n v
0
m v
0
m
? '
K L O .
m 1
76 ,
N m
ca
0 r.
C7
r , ..
O
Q
?? a o= ?
a -- ,.t m. V Q o
Y
' \ W Y:
b t w?mooo?E?
i3
= m m
L n°j m~Z
ui
m
, v C ; z x c
m5AU
i° [7
S Y Q V '•i r"-'? Yb L ?t E a o m 6 i o ? . p_
gg
y yes , ::N f r o?
`, ? s Q
y
v m
o
w `
4 Ma W%
?/
= O
? r4f
,. .s;!' .,.,
?" y
. m
`m mmuc
Cat °m9°a .
WW
¢ m'
W
\ O
?A `, \
VW _ J m t c m L
? m5•? 3rd
??? o
p
g 200
?d
2 ` •
? n
c 9 0 o? W
H
ro 8
- Cj
!?// ?j
O m m m 2
g c 8
8F2
2
w ` Q ?
¢ m m$ m_ m °w m m ¢¢
O E W N
?
3,
? W m c ° 9? '? n? m a
~ L
° ?? a? '
'
o m yr- ? 2 W
n
m
?° r
x
v o
m u
? n ?
X
Q
I?
N
•M r, ?
? a
Z5 w
m V `Q
? nt v r
- I
li d H IT .
,
I ?
i
?I
a
p
CD LOG NO 1472 -1
03-11.-98 2:09 F'M
SUPPLEMEId'r 51' 04-30-98 9:1.4 P11
CLAIM INFORMATION
CLAIM It 9000Ou4r2^.4011
COMPANY ^
INSURED ALLAN D AND ANNETTE GROSS41
CLAIMAIJ'I
LOSS FAYEE`rd Motor Credit Corp
INSPECTI(!P.I
COMPANY USF&G Insurance
TYPE FIELD
APPRAISER NAME GREG KENSKI
LICENSE 0 3001617
WORT( PHONE (717) 671-7433
ADDRESS P,O.BOX 9700
CITY STATE HARRISBURG
ZIP 17108-9700
OWNER
GROSSMAH, AU_AN
815 KENT DRIVE"
Mecha.nicsb arn PA 17055-
REPAIR
WORK.H(717) 7322-7056
HOME11(717) 651-0000
ACE BODY SHOP CAR IN
6365 BASEHORE ROAD CAR OUT
MECHANICSBUR'G PA 17055- REPAIR
SHOP PHONE (717) 766-8758 FAX
i,
VEHICLE
1998 FORD EXPLORER LIMITED 1 DR WAGON
6CYL GASOLINE 4.0 SOHC
OPTIONS.
T140-STAGE- EXTERIOR SURFACES
RUNNING BRD MTD °D DEFL
HEATED REMOTE CONTROL MIRPiORS
POWER WINDOWS
H'ATE•D E;r,rI' ,
4-WHEEL. DRIVE
CL_IM,4TF C01ITF'nL.LFD A/C
CRIJISF CNITPCIL
BODY COLOR WHITE PFARI
01IIL1I.TION G0 1,
LICEifI S', 4, TC F'A
POLICY It
CL.M REP%AON'T
LOSS DATE
LOSS TYPE
ACCT It
MARC PE TER)4ELL
02-26-98 :
COMPREHENSIVE
PPA11207166305
FAX. (717) 671-7351
INSP DATE 03-1i-98
PA LOCATION OWNERS RESIDENCE
CITY STATE Me chaniCSUUra
DAYS
(71.7) 796-0557
AIR DAM: VAL_ F'NL MTD FOG LAMP'S
POWER SEATS
POWER DOOR LOCKS
LAIGGAGE RACK
TILT STEERING WHEEL.
4U1'OM,,4rTC TPOIS
ATP COHDITT01•JIHG
MTL F:iGF 1.995
>+IIJ 1i"I'IZU?4C,iid.(-i:i?:T•TLi
rnG{- r 8i3
PE:H Itr P ti
i
PA u.
REMARKS:
k+k?9t;'i1:IkPrWr't?kf A'Yi.'tt1.1.P{'l'kx(vkl'.k!6?FYS'1Ei?x:1rMVtYY11.?1XYPA,p;Ki:y9'k5ilikk-11?I'k1,W11
I.IFIT.TF..D STATES FIDFI..TTY AHD 6711ARAHTY COMP,,He
•3632 'QUEEN PALM DR
TAMPA. FL 33619
TEL.: (800) 873-22634
f
I
i
L•ir8 FORD EXFL.O''RFR LIMITED 4 DR WAGON 03-il-98 2:09 F'MI
CLAIN •s1 900002-?424011 LOG 1472 -1 S1 04-30•-96 9:14 PM
SUP'P'LEMENTAL. RF.PATR ESTIMATE
THIS IS A SUPPLEMENT FOR REFINISH OF RT AND LEFT FOR MINOR CHIPS ON SURFACE
OF FENDER AND FOR COLOR MATCH DUE. TO TRI COLOR FINISH
RT AND LT FENDER STRIPES WERE NEEDED TO ELIMINATE FAINT EDGE BUILDUP
DRAFT TSSLIF.D: YES DRAFT 0. 55091738 DRAFT 6347.8? TO 014INEP AND SHOP
• cP oiD r{i?:?i>? i/nil.. na .,iw i.,u: V-.:"vi "T O$Tk 1• LIt't Ytrt4 L`.: It.b re Oted•rx mnn t
DRAFT ISSUED: YES DRAFT H: 65091641 DRAFT 3:1443.30
COMMENTS: NO OLD DAMAGE: NO NO TOWING OR,STORAGE
1 VEH WILL BE REPAIRED WITH NEW OEM FORD GLASS TO PIANTAIN WARRANTY
GLASS DISCOUNTED 45%
PART GDE OPERATION PRICE LABOR RT
Stripe Assembly LT 0129 Replace OEM 41.24 S1 0.3k S11
O1 F5TZ7820001CA
Strive Assembly PT 0130 Replace' 'OEM 41,24 S1. 0.3M SM
01F5TZ7820000CA
r
FRONT BUMPER ... _,
;•_
Cover.Front Bumper 0023 Repair 0.5:* SM
Cover•,Front Bumper 0023 Refinish 2.4 RF
Surface 1,5
Two-stage 0.3
Two-staqe setup 0.6
FRONT BODY AND WINDSHIELD
Fender,Front LT 0103 Refinish
Surface
Two-stage
Fender,Front RT 0104 Refinish ..
Surface
Two-stage
Windshield. Shaded 0143 Replace OEM
F57Z7803100A Discount 451,
`SPORE- ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT GLASS
eAlant Y.it.41!Shield 0144 Replace Economy
M1dp.W/S Reveal Upper 0179 Replace OEM
F1TZ780314•1A
COLOR MATCH ? BLEND Refinish
A1'1- TRI COLOR F11-II--`H Refinish
S Flex Additive OM03 Replace Economy
Grille,Upper Cowl LT 018.0.Replace,.0.E0,...,....
! F57Z78022A69A
Penel.Hood 0083 Repair
Pane1.4oer1 0083 Refinish
l,,r rn.co
Two-stage
15 TfEh;S
MI' Mrrr,., ?p
01 CALL Di 41L+k 0f1 EXACI' PAR1 8 PRICE
FINAL 0!."01-ATIONS K ENTRIES
FARTS
GF:O': ° F 5f' i s
S1 2.4 RF
2.0
0.4
_S1 _ 2.4 RF
^c.0
0.4
1257,79 ^c.7 SM
36.00k INC SM
90.10 INC SM
2.0* RF*
2.0* RF*
1.0.00* RF
39,26 INC SM
0.5* SM
3.4 RF
0.6
I !.,15'?._:
-21-
lS*"'' FOPG F,'17 ORER I,.IMT i F!? at nr-, y1:P !?"I
L?.119 k; r'I 00 !.'!"'2.
OTHER FARTS
PAINT MATERIPL
ADJUSTMENTS DISCOUNT MARKUP
LINE ITEMS $ 566,01
0: 11 94 2:09 PM
? n6.DD
225.00 f
TAX ON FARTS & MATERIAL @ 6.000':
1
LABOR
RATE
REPLACE HRS REPAIR HRS
1-SHEET METAL $ 32.00 3.3 1.0
i 2-MF.CH/ELEC $ 44,00
3-FRAME $ 35,00
4-RFFTNTSFI
LABOR TOTAL
TAX ON LABOR @ 6.000%
SUBLET REPAIRS
TOWING
STORAGE
70.48
$ 1.37,60
.. ?r 4Ia
.;c
L
j
$ 604.80 `
$ 36,29 I
i
j NET SUPPLEMENT TOTAL 1 342.89
LESS: ORIGINAL NET TOTAL $ 1,443.30-
GROSS TOTAL i 1,886.19
j LESS: NET DEDUCTIBLE $ 100.00-
NET TOTAL s. 1,786.19
i PXN Y/00/00/00/00/00 CUM 00/00/00/00/00 Geocode: 17110 HARRISBURG
ADP PENPRO W0330 S1 LOG 1.472 -1 04-30-98 21:24:27 REL 3.30 CD 04/98
COPYRIGHT, AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING,. INC. 1997
** USER-ESTAPLTSHF..D iHP.FSf101_D FOR PAINT MATERIAL. HAS BEEIJ REACHED,
ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER APPROVAL. **
I
2.3 HOUP.S WERE ADDED TO THIS ESTIMATE BASED ON ADP'S TWO-STAGE REFINISH
FORMULA: 20% OF REFINISH HOURS, AFTER OVERLAP, PLUS 0.6 HOURS FOR THE FIRST
MAJOR PANEL, WHERE NOTED.
*%***'R******THIS IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO F'Ef'AIF'.,$+K****1*k'1.
SUPPI•FMEN'TAL CHARGES MAY BE DENTED UNLESS APPP!IVFD $'i UFCKC,
REPAIRS MUST 5E AUTHORIZFD PY THE OWNER.
ALL REPAIRS AND, OR REPLACEMENTS LISTED HEREON ARE 10 1:17- MADE IN STRICT
(-CCOFDANCE WITH THE MANVFACTUF'FRS SFECTFTCATIONS P'ECOM^FflDAT1.ONS,
r;GFEED Bf: DATE:
06,00
*'k'k S1.1PF'I.FPIENI REC[INCTI .1'AT111H k'k.i;
CD LOG 1,40 1.472 -1. SUPPL EMENT S1
CLAIM N 900002942 4011
POLICY N
IhISURED ALLAN B AND ANNETTE• GRO INSP DATE
! OWNER GROSSMAN.ALLAN
03-11-98
'rFFlTrI, G' 1.:qR FI)E6 APPRAISER
F"?F'i. n-'F::6' L
IMTTEI, ,
P GREG KENSKI
1
.
C-
liuE F'ARP- '- - _ '- - - ' _ ADDED LINES
01.03 Fender,Froni OPERATION
LT
Refinish
PRICE ADJ
LABOR RATE
1 4104 Fendar,Frunt
RT Refini
sh S1
2.4 RF
0129 Stripe Assembly .
LT. Replace OEM S1 2.4 RF
0130 c+ O
rip. Assembly
?`T F.eolgro OF11 S1 41.24
b•.'i 3SM
1
S1 4 1, a`1 0.3* SM
CALCULATION CHANGES FROM
GROSS PARTS
1
387
15 _
" -
" TO
DIFFERENCE
PAINT MATERIAL
TAX O ,
.
16.06
156.80
16
00 1,469.63 82.48+
N FARTS &. MATERIAL 6.0001
61
.44
SM - .
:a?,00
6
000% 68.201
SHEET METAL
RF - REFINISH 32.00
1.18.40 .
32:00 70.48
137.60 9.04+
10
20+
TAX ON LABOR 12.00 313.60
6
0001 32.00 467.20 •
153.60+
.
25,
92 6.00 0:. 36.29 10.37+
Supp 1 NET TOTAL
! Sl1MMARY NET 'TOTAL DATE
Oriq Est .CTIME
.9 APPRAISER
11443.36 03-1.1-?8 ^.
Sup 1 2.69 F'II GREG KEhJSKI
P. 342.89 04-30-98
9;14 PM GREG KENSKI
t
34^2.89+
I
I '
i.:
. e twso vsn O wl
R,eW
fy(p
pW{y
•'/ ,
O \ r}i 'i
I'
e
J O
O
C' O
N
m O
0 O
0
Ili O
0
f0 O
0
1? O
0
l0 J
< O
0 O
0 O
0 O
O
'
O
O
f0
t0
0 N O
O N
r..
p
v
? L7 M
07 f7 M O N O m` N fh r -r
`\\ o
N
X
o
f
> f
1
.
. a F ?3 Hs o xx u
I Zw ? Iy .- . d
W Wx LL zw 2 jm
1
?.
.,
.
x0 NO vi0 ¢r
N -?-
l
am
;
'
?
O
N
O
.O
O
O
'a
O
O
O
O
Z'f"w?4Sr
F ^ _ O O
g ?
x
0
z
?
Mm
0 CO
in
a 2
!
.
OW -
< t
o rr.
t
m
c
f =
-
?LS 0 m S
?il
y
V ommi m9? 'a og ??,Qp
.
m
`U
o
i
r
?
Z 'c ? if3mo???: mE 42rzo " g
12
o
2
r
m
'
y
?^ f'
I. mn_uc .O
m wW W
Y m c 5 -i; c 8° m m O C ¢
m L_ < W
J E o c
V
` Q
0 0
°_J¢r 0x
; am Xn g'
?vc
i g
_
- c o P 0 m U
,
m .
W s
W
y m o
m m Z'O.?a
L
Q
c?
? W ?
¢ a. m
m
F
?
_
¢ ?m c m 00= 5 LWN
$
S
q
q
Y u a m L m 2 w
w m°
°N 6 ?Y pp
1-2
i
Q
4 a
4 ?
z
P I
l
??
;,
,y .
??.
,.
::
{
`:
.._,.
(J L._ X L F P= L-21 r
A SUBSIUTARY OF K & H FORD INC.
6365 BASEHORE ROAD
MCCHANICSBURG, PA 17055-
(717) 766-8758
December 14, 1998
ALLAN GROSSMAN
815 KENT DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG. PA 17055-
Dear ALLAN GROSSMAN:
RE:1998 FORD EXPLOYER
VIN# 1FMZU34E3WZA50748
WE HAVE
ON THE RE TRIED ON
PAIRS TO SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO REACH YOU ABOUT YOUR BALANCE
YOUR 1
INSURANCE
CHECKS 998 F.XPLOYER
FOR PAYMENT WHICH YOU ARE IN PROSESSION OF
I WOULD
I WOULD
LIKE TO
LIKE TO .
ADVISE YOU THAT THE
ADVISE
BALANCE OWED IS $1142
89 TO
MY OFF.ICF
WITHIN
YOU THAT IF
15 DAYS I WILL .
DATE.
THE BALANCE OWED IS NOT RECEIVED IN
COLLECTIO
N OF THE BE FO
BALANCE OWED RCED TO TAKE OTHER MEASURES FOR
AT THIS '
THIS ONCE .
IIMF I HOPE THAT THIS MATTER
AND FOR ALL
CAN BE PUT BEHIND US & SE
.I HOPE YOU FEEL TTLE
THE SAME.
• rely,
TOM GABLER
MANAGER
JUN 4 '99 15:37 PAGE.001
JUN-04-ea 14.48 FROTI,METYE EVANS WOODSIDE ID.717 238 1016 ... PAGE 14/14
It I{ARRN J. DETBLER, as rice President and on behalf of Kuhns-Hernish
Ford, Inc., the Plaintiff in the foregoing action, execute this Verification; have read
the foregoing document and to the extent that it contains facts supplied by me, they
are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief,
however, to the extent that the foregoing document and/or its language is that of
counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification.
Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc. 0/a
Auto Collision Experts
gY.
DATE:
PAGE. 014
»' TOTAL PAGE.001 **
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the
person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of
same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, certified, return receipt
requested, prepaid, as follows:
Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire
Johnston, Aronson & Diamond, P.C.
150 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 100
PO Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0098
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:?1 1 Q
DAVID A. FITZSIl1 ONS, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #41722
JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #81093
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
DATED: Jut ? t_ q, 1111 Attorneys for Plaintiff
0
?ee ml
m
0
F
Q o
0 3
0 a a
F a "m
a > m
i
a u z l m
m w m
k 6 d
,
N
_
V.
M m
A. a
I
.n
r. r_ .
_r
L,1 ?n it
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC., D/B/A
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
CUM13EIII.AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1999-2978
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOTICE
The following Answer contains New Matter and Counterclaim to which a
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
DEFENDANT
written response is required. If you fail to respond, in writing, to this New Matter
and Counterclaim of Defendant Allan Grossman within twenty (20) days of service
of the same upon you, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be en-
tered against you by the Court without further notice for any relief requested in the
New Matter. 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, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
or
(800) 990-9108
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC., Dh3/A
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
PLAINTIFF
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1999-2978
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ANSWER. NEWMATTF.R AND COUNTERCLAIM
And now comes Defendant, Allan Grossman, by and through his attorneys
Johnston, Aronson & Diamond, P.C. and Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire, and hereby
files the within Answer to Complaint, New Matter and Counterclaim.
1. Admitted.
2. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, it is admitted that the
Defendant, Allan Grossman, is an adult individual. It is denied however that his
residential address is 815 Kent Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Penn-
sylvania 17055. By way of additional further answer, the proper residential ad-
dress of the Defendant, Allan Grossman, is 371.4 Leyland Drive, Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania 17055. By way of additional further answer, the Defendant, Allan
Grossman, is a Doctor of Podiatric Medicine licensed to practice in the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania and is engaged in the private practice of Podiatric Medicine
and Surgery in a practice known as Harrisburg Foot and Ankle Center with loca-
tions in Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania and Hershey,
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
-1-
3. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff did prepare an es-
timate for the repair of the damage to the Defendant's vchicl:e which estimate was
substantially in excess of that amount which the Defendant's insurance company
felt was necessary to properly and completely repair the damage to the Defendant's
vehicle in a timely and workmanlike fashion.
4. Denied as stated. It is admitted that the Defendant's insurer prepared
an estimate dated March 11, 1998. It is specifically denied that the said estimate
authorized any repairs to the Defendant's vehicle. To the contrary, the said esti-
mate plainly states, "This is not an authorization to repair. . ." on its third page. It
is admitted that the document attached to the Plaintiffs Complaint and marked as
Exhibit A is a copy of the March 11, 1998 estimate prepared by the Defendant's in-
surer.
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that an invoice
prepared by the Plaintiff is attached to the Plaintiffs Complaint as Exhibit B and is
made a part thereof. It is denied, however, that the said invoice represents any ob-
ligation on the part of the Defendant. It is further specifically denied that the
Plaintiff, ACE repaired the damage to the Defendant's vehicle in conformance with
standards of good workmanship in the industry or otherwise or in accordance with
the March 11, 1998 estimate prepared by USF&G. Moreover, it is further denied
that any work performed on the Defendant's vehicle by the Plaintiff was in confor-
mity with any request by the Defendant of the Plaintiff to do so as the Defendant
only requested that his vehicle be repaired in a timely and workmanlike fashion in
2 -
conformance with reasonably acceptable standards of quality workmanship which
the Plaintiff did not do, has never date and has failed and refused to do. All other
averments in this paragraph 5 of the Plaintiffs Complaint which are not admitted
in this Answer are specifically denied.
6. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, no work was ever author-
izzed by the March 11, 1998 estimate and at no time has the Plaintiff, ACE, ever
completed the work required to repair the vehicle or to justify the invoice incorpo-
rated in the Complaint as Plaintiffs Exhibit B. By way of additional further an-
swer, at the various times the Defendant, Grossman, came to the Plaintiffs facili-
ties upon the Plaintiffs request, to pick up his vehicle, the Plaintiffs representative
advised the Defendant that work performed and redone on the vehicle was incom-
plete and failed to meet acceptable standards of quality and workmanship and that
the Defendant therefore should not take the vehicle with him but instead should
leave it at the Plaintiffs facilities for an additional opportunity on the part of the
Plaintiff to complete the repairs in a fashion which conformed with those standards
of quality and workmanship. At no time did the Defendant claim that additional
work was required on his vehicle, instead the Defendant was so advised by the
Plaintiffs agent.
7. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, the answers to para-
graphs 4 and 6 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by this reference as if
fully set forth herein. By way of additional further answer, it is admitted, gener-
ally, that additional work if necessary subsequent to the workmanlike completion of
3
the necessary work by the Plaintiff, if such had ever happened, would require a
supplemental estimate.
8. Denied as stated. It is admitted that USF&G prepared an estimate
dated April 30, 1998. It is specifically denied that such estimate authorized any
additional work. To the contrary, the estimate, which is incorporated into Plain-
tiffs Complaint as Exhibit C and made a part thereof specifically states, "This is not
an authorization to repair ..."
9. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, it is admitted that Plain-
tiff, ACE, performed some additional activities on the Defendant's vehicle. It is,
however, specifically denied that the activities performed in this regard were addi-
tional work authorized by, or in accordance with, the April 30, 1998 supplemental
estimate prepared by USF&G or that this work was in any way in conformance
with the standards of good workmanship in the industry or in any way met the ex-
pected standards for quality and timely workmanship. It is admitted that a copy of
a document which purports to be an invoice for work allegedly performed by Plain-
tiff, ACE, is attached to the Plaintiffs Complaint as Exhibit D and made a part
thereof. It is denied, however, that the said invoice represents any obligation on the
part of the Defendant.
10. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, while the sum of
$1,886.19 is claimed by the Plaintiff to be due and payable by the Defendant for re-
pairs allegedly performed on the Defendant's vehicle, it is denied that this amount
of money, or any amount of money, is due and payable to the Plaintiff by the Defen-
dant because no repairs were performed by the Plaintiff which conform to standards
4 -
of good quality workmanship in the industry as was admitted by Plaintiffs repre-
sentatives in their dealings with the Defendant.
11. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, it is admitted that after
additional activities were undertaken on the Defendant's vehicle by the Plaintiff,
the Plaintiff claimed its work was complete, however, the work was not, and has
never been, completed by the Plaintiff on the Defendant's vehicle and, in order for
the work to repair the damages which the Plaintiff was engaged to perform to be
completed, the Defendant will be compelled to expend a sum estimated to be ap-
proximately $1,600.00.
12. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation your answering De-
fendant is without information sufficient to formulate a determination as to the
truth or falsity of the averments by Plaintiff in this paragraph 12 of the Plaintiffs
Complaint and, as such, they are denied. Strict proof of all allegations in this para-
graph 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint, if relevant, is hereby demanded.
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted.
15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is
without information sufficient to formulate a determination regarding the truth or
falsity of the averments in this paragraph 15 of the Plaintiffs Complaint and, as
such, they are therefore denied. Strict proof of allegations in this paragraph 15 of
Plaintiffs Complaint, if relevant, is hereby demanded.
16. Admitted.
5 -
17. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that in September
of 1998, the Defendant sent a letter to K & H Ford and enclosed a USF&G check,
endorsed by him in the amount of $743.30 made payable to the Defendant and the
Plaintiff. It is denied that the Defendant stated in his letter that he was sending
the check for only the satisfactory work performed on his vehicle.
18. Denied as stated. It is admitted that by letter dated December 14,
1998 Tom Dabler, Manger of ACE, notified the Defendant of a claim of an out-
standing balance owed of $1,142.89. It is denied that this claim, or any claim for
any amount of money by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, is appropriately made
for any work allegedly performed on any vehicle owned by the Defendant. It is ad-
mitted that a copy of the said letter is attached to the Plaintiffs Complaint as Ex-
hibit E and made a part thereof.
19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is
without information sufficient to formulate a determination regarding the truth or
falsity of the averments in this paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Complaint and, as such,
they are denied. Strict proof of all allegations in this paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs
Complaint, if relevant, is hereby demanded.
20. Denied.
21. The averments in paragraph 21 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree any answer is deemed to
be required to the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, they are
hereby denied.
6 -
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
22. The answers to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 21 of the
Plaintiffs Complaint, inclusive, are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully
set forth.
23. Denied as stated. At no time were any repairs authorized by the
March 11, 1998 and/or the April 30, 1998 estimates prepared by the Defendant's in-
surer, USF&G and at no time was any work performed by K & H Ford on the De-
fendant's vehicle at the Defendant's request. By way of further answer, it is denied
that any work allegedly performed on the Defendant's vehicle by ACE was work
performed in conformity with any request to perform work made by the Defendant.
24. Denied as stated. While requests and indeed demands for payment
have been made on the Defendant, no such demand has ever been made of the De-
fendant by K & H Ford and no balance is due and/or owing to K & H Ford from the
Defendant for any work performed and in no event has ACE ever performed any
work authorized by the Defendant in conformity with quality and workmanlike
standards.
25. The allegations in paragraph 25 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is deemed to
be required to this paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations therein are
hereby denied.
.7.
26. The allegations in paragraph 26 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is deemed to
be required to this paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations therein are
hereby denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Allan Grossman demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT
27. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint, in.
elusive, herein are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth.
28. The allegations in this paragraph 28 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are
legal. conclusions to which no answer is required.
29. The allegations in this paragraph 29 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are
legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is
deemed to be required to this paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations
therein are hereby denied.
30. The allegations in this paragraph 30 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are
legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is
deemed to be required to this paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations
therein are hereby denied.
8-
WHEREFORE, Defendant Allan Grossman demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc. and such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III - QUANTUMMERUIT
31. The answers to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 30 of Plaintiffs
Complain, inclusive, herein are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth
herein.
32. The allegation in paragraph 32 is a legal conclusion to which no an-
swer is required. To the degree an answer is deemed to be required to this para-
graph 32 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations therein are hereby denied
33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is
without information sufficient to formulate a determination regarding the truth or
falsity of the averments in this paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs Complaint and, as such,
they are therefore denied. Strict proof of all allegations in this paragraph 33 of
Plaintiffs Complaint, if relevant, is hereby demanded.
34. Denied.
35. The allegations in paragraph 35 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is deemed to
be required to this paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations therein are
hereby denied.
- 9 -
'I 36• Denied. By way of further answer, the Defendant has never accepted,
used and/or benefited from K & H Ford's performance of any activities on
the De-
fendant's vehicle. By way of additional further answer, whatever activities were
I
performed by K & H Ford on the Defendant's vehicle, if any, were never authorized
and do not, and have never, conformed with timely and workmanlike standards of
i
quality acceptable in the industry.
37. The allegations in paragraph 37 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree any answer is deemed to
be required, the allegations in this paragraph 37 are hereby denied.
38. By way of further answer, the allegations in this paragraph 38 of the
Plaintiffs Complaint constitute legal conclusions for which no answer is required.
To the degree any answer is deemed to be required, the allegations in this para-
graph 38 are hereby denied.
39. The allegations in paragraph 39 are legal conclusions to which no an-
swer is required. To the degree any answer is deemed to be required, the allega-
tions in this paragraph 39 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are hereby denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff
and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV- FR,4UD
40.
Complaint are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
The answers to paragraphs 1 through 39, inclusive, of the Plaintiffs
10 -
Ir
I
41. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, at no time did the Defen-
dant claim that work performed on his vehicle by K & H Ford, if any, was satisfac.
tory.
42. Denied. By way of further answer, the allegations in this paragraph
42 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
To the degree any answer is deemed to be required to the allegations in this para-
graph 42 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, they are hereby denied.
43. Denied.
44. Denied. By way of additional answer, the allegations in this para-
graph 44 of Plaintiffs Complaint are legal conclusions to which no answer is re-
quired. If any answer to the allegations in this paragraph 44 of the Plaintiffs Com.
plaint are deemed to be required, the said allegations are hereby denied.
45. Denied as stated. By way of further answer the Defendant at no time
stopped payment or had the capacity to stop payment on a check issued by any en-
tity outside of his dominion and control. By way of further answer, Defendant is a
Doctor of Podiatric Medicine and has no specific knowledge of what K & H Ford's
banking institution or banking practices are.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Allan Grossman demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
- 11 -
NEwMmyy? AND COUNTERCLAIM
ALLAN GROSSMAN v. KUHNS-[LtltNlSH FORD INC.
D/BIA AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS
46. Defendant's answers to paragraphs 1 through 45, inclusive, of Plain-
tiffs Complaint are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
47. In March of 1998 the Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, Allan
Grossman, entrusted his vehicle to the Plaintiff, K & H Ford, Incorporated d/b/a
ACE, for the purpose of securing repairs to his vehicle which were occasioned as a
result of damages sustained to the hood and front bumper areas of the vehicle.
48. Defendant entrusted the vehicle to the Plaintiff for the said repairs,
despite the Plaintiffs original estimate for the cost of repairs which exceeded that
which was estimated by the Plaintiffs motor vehicle insurance carrier.
49. The Defendant so entrusted his said vehicle to the Plaintiff because of
the Plaintiffs agent's representations to him that the vehicle could be perfectly re-
paired and that the Plaintiff had the capability of performing the repairs in a lash.
ion which would render the repaired damage to be totally unnoticeable and unde.
tectable on the part of the Defendant.
50. On four or more separate occasions, Plaintiff, Defendant on the Coun-
terclaim, contacted Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, and represented that
the vehicle had been completely and satisfactorily repaired and on each such occa-
sion the Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, upon attempting to retake pos-
session of his vehicle, discovered that the repairs putatively performed by the Plain-
tiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, were substandard and inadequate and on each
12 -
such occasion the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, agreed with, or acqui-
esced in, that judgment.
51. Over a period of several months, the Defendant, Plaintiff on the Coun-
terclaim, gave the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, ample opportunity to
correct its flawed, inadequate and non-conforming efforts at repairing the vehicle to
the standards represented by Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, to have
been within its capacity at the time it accepted the vehicle for repair work.
52. At no time has the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, ever
completed any work on the Defendant's, Plaintiff on the Countereclaim, vehicle in a
quality and workmanlike fashion in conformity with its representations to the De-
fendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim.
53. At all times relevant herein, the Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counter-
claim, has been ready, willing, able and. desirous of securing complete, adequate,
quality workmanlike repairs to his vehicle as was represented to him by Plaintiff,
Defendant on the Counterclaim, to have been within its capability and had always
been willing to pay for such repairs in conformity with estimates prepared by his
motor vehicle insurer.
54. At no time has Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, despite mul-
tiple opportunities to do so, ever repaired the vehicle in a quality, workmanlike
fashion which conforms to the representations made to the Defendant, Plaintiff on
the Counterclaim, by the Plaintiffs agent at the time the Plaintiff, Defendant on
i
the Counterclaim, initially prepared its over-expensive estimate for repairs to De -
fondant's vehicle.
- 13 -
I?
55. Because of Plaintiffs, Defendant on the Counterclaim, conduct and
representations with respect to the completeness and adequacy of its repair work on
the vehicle, the Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, has been compelled to
lose four separate full days of work at a cost to him of approximately $1,000 per day
for a total of approximately $4,000•
56. Upon receipt of his vehicle, after multiple attempts to secure conform-
ing performance of repairs from the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, the
Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, took his vehicle to Leahy's Auto Collision
Repair Service for an independent assessment of the quality of activities performed
by the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim.
57. Leahy's Auto Collision Repair Service has advised Defendant, Plaintiff
on the Counterclaim, that it will cost $1,489.27 to repair the damage to his vehicle
which damage is claimed to have been repaired by the Plaintiff, Defendant on the
Counterclaim, herein. (A true and correct copy of the estimate of Leahy's Auto Col-
lision Repair Service is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as if fully
set forth herein as Exhibit F.)
58. As a result of Plaintiffs, Defendant on the Counterclaim, conduct and
failure to adequately perform its work, Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim,
has suffered damages in the nature of lost income and unrepaired damages to his
vehicle in a total amount of $5,489.27.
59. In the alternative, Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, is entitled
to a setoff in the amount of $5,489.27 against any judgment awarded to the Plain-
tiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim.
- 14
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, demands judgment
against Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, in the amount of $5,489.27, or, in
the alternative, a setoff in the said amount against the Plaintiff, Defendant on the
Counterclaim, plus counsel fees and costs, along with such other and further relief
as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSTON, ARONSON & DIAMOND, P.C.
Suite 100, 150 Corporate Center Drive
P.O. Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17001.0098
(717) 975.5500 ,
By
IRWIN W. ARONSON
PA. REG. No. 36921
Dated: June 28, 1999
1.5 -
EXHIBIT F
FROM FOAFR LSBURG FOOT & ANKLE CENTER PHONE NO. :.717 651 60471 Mar. 18 1999 12:54PM P3
DMS: 0=1011 /1:10 AM
Eww""s V. 111
PnRNnsfY
Prof1k V. Mkow
LEAHY'$ AUTO COLUBIO !'REPAIR
A DYEaT-RUTE, INC.1M/ Cobrtmus Avs80a Lamyns, PA 17003
(717) 7314.40
Fes: (717) W6a04t
OM W Assessed By: 300800 JQM Lally
!Damage Appraiser Liaonse 113006086
Dsdudble: UNKNOWN
Poky No: PPA112070 M
hrmW: ALLAN OROSSMAM
Addm= 010 KENT DRIVE MECN., PA 17040
TabFhsne: Roma Phmu( 17324066
Mitchel S¢rvke: 570422
Dosalptloe: 1066 Fo!d_ l:cpkror XL
EOdy sw. 40 U 112' VMB
VIN: IFMZU34OWZAGOTAI
Lim Entry Labor
Rem Number TY
1 too"ll BDV
2 82181 ROY
3 AUTO REF
4 500371 BOY
0 UM REF
a "m spy,
7 "121M say
6 Noso Bolt
6 MM4t BDY
10 "m my o
11 1INION REF"
12 M0006 REP
13 SO" REP'
14 mw BDY
10 Mote DOY
10 M "S BOY
17 0MM0 REF'
1s wow REP
is 141W RQF
20 AUTO REF
21 $311M REP
22 AUTO REF
23 AUTO
24 W70
26 AUTO
TAlve Troll: 4.0L 01(0 Cyl4WD
Line Rom Part Type)
.ratim oese+wkm , Pan Mnltw
REMOVEANSTALL FRY BUMPER ASSY
REPAIR FRT BUMPER PACE EAR.. Exlstlng ..
REFMMSH FRT FACEIAAR ..
REMOVEANSTALL FRT BUMPER IJCENMEBRACKIFT assUng
REFINISH GRILLE
RAMOVLWXTALL GRILLE EMBUM?.. ExfaOrq
REMOVS11046TALL GRILLE ASSY
REPAIR GRILLE EXIS&V
REMOVEMPLAC! R VW LAMP ASSEMBLY FSTZ 15200 GS
REMOVEAtEPLACE COVER CAR FOR OVER&PRAY Sublet
REFWISWREPAIR PEARL COAT REFINISH ExbOng .
REFIllm NOODOUFSIDE
REFWIBWItEPAot eumo FRONT FENDERS Existing
REMOVEAWLACE R t" STRIPE TAPE DODY SIDE ORDER FROM DEALER
REMOVFJREPLACE L UPR STRIPE TAPE BODY SIDE ORDER FROM DEALER
REMOVEBHSTALL L FENDER APRON ASSY Exbom
REFINWUREPAIR LEFT FEWER LINER Exlslag
RWWM R I!PAR1 RADIATOR SUPPORT AREA (OVEMPRAY) Exlss"
AOD'LOPR TWO TOW
ADD'L OPR CLEARCOAT
ADD!. CPR TRY COLOR
ADDL OFR COLOR SAND A EUFF
ADDLCOST PAWTIMATERYW
ADM COLT SHOP MATERIALS
AOD'L COST HAZARDOUS WASTE DROPODAL
DOW Labor
AmwirA Unto
0.6
3A•
C ZA
. .e.r
C 1.0
s.r
0A 0
1're
WAS 0.88
3.00 • f r
3.3•
cu
2.C'
4114
4124
o.r6
t.r
LV
13•
1.0
0.6•
0.0
32530•
L"
730•
ESTIMTE RECALL MAVSER: 9434510:81:10 1271
MoNloole M • Tradamult oM MReboll bolorna6mal
fARcbd Do vocal"; AUO_S8 A CopyWM (001034.11537 MOcbd k0ow lonal raw 1 of 3
AN "s ResnvW
F'RnM : HRSRISSUR7 FOOT & ANKLE CENTER PHONE NO, 71.7 651 200: Mar. 18 1999 12:54PM P2
Data: 09120110 11:10 AM
EtlenattID: 1211
pmkmnwy
Pronle ID: Mncht6
Judgement I6em
A - Labor Note Applies
C - Included in Clear Coat Calc
Addl
Labor Sublet
L LaborSubtotals unhr Rase Amount Amount Totals 0. Part lasplatement Summary' Amount
Bod7 6.6 SA.AO
Reanlsb 20
2 56
00 0.00 0,09
0
00 0 224AC T Taxabe Parts 162J7
.
. .
.00 02080 T Sales Tax ? 0.000% 0.16
Taxable tabor 011.20 ToW Rapiaeemad Parts Anrowrt 162
16
LaborTax Q OA00% 66.01, .
l abof 6ummary 26.0 COZY
IIL Addnlonal Costs Amount IV. Aejuaflwnta Ammrtt
Taxable Costa
Saks Tax
O
OWA 340AD Cuttonwr ResponalbSRy 0.00
. 20.00
Total Addnlonal Ceacs 311126
1. Total labor
IL Total Reptacanssy Parts;
In. Total AWKWW Costs:
Gram Total:
11F. YOU Adjuzbmnts:
Net Total:
ewer. 3pdoial Note: We do not warrant any rust repairs e?•*e
ESTIMATE RECALL NWMa6R: WMU 10:61:10 1211
UlbaMa% Is a Tradmwrk of M6x1wa Yrtam&"mW
MRch a osa Version: AUG la A Copyright fC119% • 1607 Mltc we bllerrradorral
All Rights R"#m4
a66.67
102.10
361.20
1AW.27
CA
1Aae.27
Papa 2 of S
05/25/1995 16:34 717975551: 143j3A PAGE 02
VERIFICATION
I; ALLAN GItossm.AN, hereby verify that the statements contained in the
foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct to the beet of
my knowledge, information and belief, and are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
J
ALLAP.' GRO
Dated: June 28, 1999
CERTIFICATE Or SERVICE
I, IRWIN W. ARONSON, EsQuii 3, hereby certify that I have this date caused a
copy of the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to be served upon the
Plaintiff in this matter by placing the same in the United States First Class Mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
James A. Strong, Esquire
3401 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Dated: June 28, 1999
u
ci
z
_U
?'
,( o
W
'I.
C
O
lu
N ?
W
U
O
K
O
ct g
Y
?
???t
Q
Z
N
Z O
v
^
S
r
V
S -
O
t +"
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc. d/b/a
Auto Collision Experts,
Plaintiff
V.
Allan Grossman,
Defendant
No. 2978 Civil 1999
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to
complaint, etc.):
Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) Plaintiff: James M. Strong, Esquire
(b) Defendant: Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire
SEE ATTACHED CERTIFICA'rF. OF SERVICE FOR ADDRESSES
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for
argument.
4. Argument Court Date: October 13, 1999
David A. Fitzsimon squire [#417221
James M. Strong, Esquire [#810931
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATED: September 16, 1999
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, JAMES M. STRONG, hereby certify that on the 16th day of
September, 1999, I served a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Listing Case for
Argument upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service
satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure:
Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire
JOHNSON, ARONSON & DIAMOND, P.C.
150 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 100
P.O. Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17011-0098
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
BY:
DAVID A. FITZSI NS, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #41722
JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #81093
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
1072fN1
J
A
-T j
? a
1
Y J r
y
V
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC.
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
Plaintiff
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
Defendant
TO: THE PROTHONOTARY
d/b/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1999-2978
PRAECIPE
Please affix to the Complaint previously filed in the above-captioned action the
original Verification which is attached to this Praecipe.
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
I
By: )OAN
DAVE) A. FITZSIMO , E SQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #41722
JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #81093
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
1 Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATED: VtiVq, 7 i 1q4y
JUN-Oq-oEl 14„1E FROMOIETTE EVANS WOODSIDG
113,717 22r 191c
YJ?R ON
PACE 1.1./14
1, liLltli.A' .l, i?l;ilii. us ?7cr. i residerll :?1t(1 on f.1eh.11fof Iiullns Harnish
Ford, II1C•r thl+ l'lalllGltl 111 Lt1..' u!t'(:bblllc i1Ct1071, (Jie('(l(e Lids Vur111CaLIon; have read
the £bregoing docl_mient and to the et-i;ent that it contains facts supplied by me, f,h
are true and correct to the best of mN, personal kil )wled o, information and belief;
howe??er. to t.ite e?aeat rhay the furegonl cfacun,. a-r :and/or its langruage is that of
coon el, l have relied upon counsel in lxiabzl;?r, ;his ;erzfcation.
Kuhns :H, r; h Ford, Inc. d/b/a
Auto C;olli I Experts
DATE: (oW\Cl?
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the
person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of
same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, certified, return receipt
requested, prepaid, as follows:
Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire
Johnston, Aronson & Diamond, P.C.
150 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 100
PO Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0098
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
DAVID A. FITZSIM , ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #41722
JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #81093
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
\ Q 411 Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATED: ??til !
:186919 1
r
L.
-I
rl
-
O G U
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC., D/B/A IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
V.
NO. 1999-2978
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
Defendant
NOTICE
TO: Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire
Johnston, Aronson & Diamond, P. C.
Suite 100, 150 Corporate Center Drive
P. 0. Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0098
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DF HEARING
David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire
James M. Strong, Esquire
Mette, Evans & Woodside, P. C
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned Arbitrators appointed by the Court in
LAW omcts
SNELOAKER.
BRENNEMAN
& SPARE
the above-captioned matter will meet for the purpose of their appointment on Thursday, June 1,
2000 beginning at 9:30 o'clock A.M. in the Fifth Floor Hearing Room in the new Courthouse in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, at which time and place you may appear and be heard, together with your.
witnesses and counsel, if you so desire.
Date: April 11, 2000
Keith 0. Brenneman, Esquire, Chairman
Susan Candiello, Esquire
Thomas Flower, Esquire
CC: Court Administrator, Cumberland County
SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN Fa SPARE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
!A WEST MAIN STREET
MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17055
RICHARD C. 5NELBAKER
KEITH O. BRENNEMAN
PHILIP H. SPARE
Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire
Johnston, Aronson & Diamond, P. C.
Suite 100, 150 Corporate Center Drive
P. 0. Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0098
Re: Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc. v. Grossman
No. 99-2978
Dear Gentlemen:
P. O. BOX 318
FACSIMILE (717) 697.7681
David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire
James M. Strong, Esquire
Mette, Evans & Woodside
P. 0. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
Enclosed please find a Notice of Hearing scheduling the above maiter for arbitration on
Thursday, June 1, 2000 at 9:30 A.M. in the Fifth Floor Hearing Room in the new Courthouse, in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Yours truly,
KOB/sz
Enclosure
CC: Susan Candiello, Esquire (w/enclosure)
Thomas Flower, Esquire (w/enclosure)
717-6W 8526
April 11, 2000
Keith 0. Brenneman
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC. d/b/a
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
Plaintiff
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
:PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 1999-2978
ORDER
AND NOW, this pfday of October, 1999, upon consideration of the
Preliminary Objections to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim, filed in the
above-captioned matter by the Plaintiff, Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc., d/b/a Auto
Collision Experts, it is hereby ordered that the Preliminary Objections are granted.
BY THE COURT-/
J.
1 '
,?
,.
r? ? '?
.;;?_ ..t
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC. d/b/a
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
Plaintiff
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
:PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1999-2975
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: ALLAN GROSSMAN, Defendant and
IRWIN W. ARONSON, ESQUIRE, his Attorney:
You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty (20)
days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you.
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
DAVID A. FITZSIMONS, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #41722
JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #81093
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
DATED: '71 fu ('6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC. d/b/a
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
Plaintiff
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1999-2978
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
Defendant
PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
Plaintiff, Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc. d/b/a Auto Collision Experts, by and
through its attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, hereby files the following
Preliminary Objections to Def'endant's New Matter and Counterclaim pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1028 and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc. (herein "K&H Ford") d/b/a Auto
Collision Experts (herein "ACE") filed a Complaint in the above-captioned action on
June 4, 1999 against the Defendant, Allan Grossman (herein "Grossman").
2. K&H Ford alleges in the Complaint that ACE, a subsidiary of K&H
Ford, performed repairs to Grossman's vehicle in 1998 pursuant to estimates
prepared by Grossman's insurer and as authorized by Grossman. The repairs were
performed in accordance with industry standards. ACE demanded payment for the
repairs and has not. been paid by Grossman for the repairs to the vehicle performed
by ACE.
3. On or about June 28, 1999, Grossman fled the Answer, New Matter and
Counterclaim in the above-captioned action a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
4. In the New Matter and Counterclaim Grossman alleges that ACE did
not perform the repairs in a workmanlike fashion. Grossman further improperly
claims that he is entitled to approximately $4,000 in consequential damages for lost
work missed by Grossman in addition to improperly demanding $1,489.27 in
damages, or alternatively as a setoff, claiming he must still have the vehicle repaired.
5. The objections of K&H Ford are directed to all or part of the allegations
contained in the New Matter and Counterclaim filed by Grossman in the above-
captioned matter.
NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER
FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING
PURSUANT TO PA. R C P 1028(x)(4)
6. Paragraphs i through 5 hereof are incorporated herein by reference
-2-
7. In the New Matter and Counterclaim, Grossman has alleged that he was
compelled to lose four (4) separate full days of work due to ACE's conduct and
representation as to the adequacy of the repair work on Grossman's vehicle.
Grossman alleges that this has resulted in a loss of approximately $1,000 per day for
a total of approximately $4,000.
8. In Pennsylvania, for consequential damages to be recoverable, they
must have been reasonably foreseeable and within the reasonable contemplation of
the parties at the time the contract was made.
9. Grossman fails to plead in the New Matter and Counterclaim any facts
supporting a conclusion that lost work was reasonably foreseeable and within the f
reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the repairs were authorized. In
fact, Grossman alleges that he is a Medical Doctor practicing podiatry and does not
allege that his Ford Explorer is necessary or crucial to the maintenance of his medical a
practice.
10. It was not reasonably foreseeable that Grossman would miss any days of
work at the time the contract was entered into between the parties and it certainly
was not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract
was entered into.
-3-
WHEREFORE, K&H Ford respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
sustain K&H Ford's objection in the nature of a demurrer to the request for
consequential damages in the amount of $4,000 and enter an Order dismissing the
request for consequential damages, with prejudice.
NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER
FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF A PLEADING
PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4)
11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 hereof are incorporated herein by reference.
12. In the New Matter and Counterclaim Grossman alleges that it will cost
$1,489.27 to repair the vehicle that he claims was repaired inadequately by ACE.
13. In the New Matter and Counterclaim Grossman does not claim or plead
any facts that would support a claim that the allegedly inadequate repairs performed
by ACE resulted in any additional damage to the vehicle.
14. Grossman has attached to the Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim as
Exhibit F an estimate prepared by Leahy's Auto Collision Repair of Lemoyne,
Pennsylvania in the amount of $1,489.27.
-4-
15. Grossman has requested damages in the amount of $1,489.27 or, in the
alternative, a setoff in the amount of $1,489.27.
16. Even if this Court were to determine that K&H Ford breached a
contract with Grossman for the repair of his vehicle, the appropriate remedy would
be to deny ACE payment or reduce the recovery for the repairs. Grossman would
not, as a matter of law, be entitled to duplicative damages in the amount of $1,489.27
as requested.
17. Grossman has not paid ACE any part of the contract price of $1,886.19
as set forth in the Complaint filed in the above-captioned action by K&H Ford.
18. The unpaid contract price of $1,886.19 for the repairs performed by
ACE to Grossman's vehicle exceeds the amount of $1,489.27 claimed by Grossman as
the amount now required to repair the vehicle.
19. Grossman is not entitled to an award of damages of $1,489.27, even if
the Court determines that the contract was breached by ACE, because the unpaid
part of the contract price exceeds the claim for damages, and repeating the work
already performed by ACE, as Grossman alleges is necessary, cannot result in
payment by ACE for work by Leahy.
-5-
WHEREFORE, K&H Ford respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
sustain K&H Ford's objection in the nature of a demurrer to the request for
$1,489.27 in damages and enter an Order dismissing this claim for damages, with
prejudice.
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
DAVID A. FITZSIMONS, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I. D. #41722
JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #8143
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
DATED: -2 1 la ?C? Attorneys for Plaintiff
Exhibit A
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC., D/B/A
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1999-2978
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DEFENDANT
NOTICE
The following Answer contains New Matter and Counterclaim to which a
written response is required. If you fail to respond, in writing, to this New Matter
and Counterclaim of Defendant Allan Grossman within twenty (20) days of service
of the same upon you, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be en-
tered against you by the Court without further notice for any relief requested in the
New Matter. 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, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
or
(800) 990-9108
KUIINS-HAIINISI-I FORD, INC., D/B/A
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1999-2978
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DEFENDANT
ANSWER. NEWMATTERANDCOUNTERcmrM
And now comes Defendant, Allan Grossman, by and through his attorneys
Johnston, Aronson & Diamond, P.C. and Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire, and hereby
files the within Answer to Complaint, New Matter and Counterclaim.
1. Admitted.
2. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, it is admitted that the
Defendant, Allan Grossman, is an adult individual. It is denied however that his
residential address is 815 Kent Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Penn.
Sylvania 17055. By way of additional further answer, the proper residential ad-
dress of the Defendant, Allan Grossman, is 3714 Leyland Drive, Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania 17055. By way of additional further answer, the Defendant, Allan
Grossman, is a Doctor of Podiatric Medicine licensed to practice in the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania and is engaged in the private practice of Pediatric Medicine
and Surgery in a practice known as Harrisburg Foot and Ankle Center with loca-
tions in Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania and Hershey,
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
1
3, Admitted. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff did prepare an es-
timate for the repair of the damage to the Defendant's vehicle which estimate was
substantially in excess of that amount which the Defendant's insurance company
felt was necessary to properly and completely repair the damage to the Defendant's
vehicle in a timely and workmanlike fashion.
4. Denied as stated. It is admitted that the Defendant's insurer prepared
an estimate dated March 11, 1998. It is specifically denied that the said estimate
authorized any repairs to the Defendant's vehicle. To the contrary, the said esti-
mate plainly states, "This is not an authorization to repair. .:' on its third page. It
is admitted that the document attached to the Plaintiffs Complaint and marked as
Exhibit A is a copy of the March 11, 1998 estimate prepared by the Defendant's in-
surer.
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that an invoice
prepared by the Plaintiff is attached to the Plaintiffs complaint as Exhibit B and is
made a part thereof, it is denied, however, that the said invoice represents any ob-
ligation on the part of the Defendant. It is further specifically denied that the
Plaintiff, ACE repaired the damage to the Defendant's vehicle in conformance with
standards of good workmanship in the industry or otherwise or in accordance with
the March 11, 1998 estimate prepared by USF&G. Moreover, it is further denied
that any work performed on the Defendant's vehicle by the Plaintiff was in confor-
mity with any request by the Defendant of the Plaintiff to do so as the Defendant
only requested that his vehicle be repaired in a timely and workmanlike fashion in
's
-2
conformance with reasonably acceptable standards of quality workmanship which
the Plaintiff did not do, has never done and has failed and refused to do. All other
averments in this paragraph 5 of the Plaintiffs Complaint which are not admitted
in this Answer are specifically denied.
6. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, no work was ever author-
ized by the March 11, 1998 estimate and at no time has the Plaintiff, ACE, ever
completed the work required to repair the vehicle or to justify the invoice incorpo-
rated in the Complaint as Plaintiffs Exhibit B. By way of additional further an-
swer, at the various times the Defendant, Grossman, came to the Plaintiffs facili-
ties upon the Plaintiffs request, to pick up his vehicle, the Plaintiffs representative
advised the Defendant that work performed and redone on the vehicle was incom-
plete and failed to meet acceptable standards of quality and workmanship and that
the Defendant therefore should not take the vehicle with him but instead should
leave it at the Plaintiffs facilities for an additional opportunity on the part of the
Plaintiff to complete the repairs in a fashion which conformed with those standards I
of quality and workmanship. At no time did the Defendant claim that additional
work was required on his vehicle, instead the Defendant was so advised by the E
Plaintiffs agent.
7. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, the answers to para-
graphs 4 and 6 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are incorporated by this reference as if
fully set forth herein. By way of additional further answer, it is admitted, gener-
ally, that additional work if necessary subsequent to the workmanlike completion of
- 3 -
the necessary work by the Plaintiff, if such had ever happened, would require a
supplemental estimate.
8. Denied as stated. It is admitted that USF&G prepared an estimate
dated April 30, 1998. It is specifically denied that such estimate authorized any
additional work. To the contrary, the estimate, which is incorporated into Plain-
tiffs Complaint as Exhibit C and made a part thereof specifically states, "This is not
an authorization to repair ..."
9. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, it is admitted that Plain.
tiff, ACE, performed some additional activities on the Defendant's vehicle. It is,
however, specifically denied that the activities performed in this regard were addi-
tional work authorized by, or in accordance with, the April 30, 1998 supplemental
estimate prepared by USF&G or that this work was in any way in conformance
with the standards of good workmanship in the industry or in any way met the ex-
pected standards for quality and timely workmanship. It is admitted that a copy of
a document which purports to be an invoice for work allegedly performed by Plain-
tiff, ACE, is attached to the Plaintiffs Complaint as Exhibit D and made a part
thereof. It is denied, however, that the said invoice represents any obligation on the
part of the Defendant.
10. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, while the sum of
$1,886.19 is claimed by the Plaintiff to be due.and payable by the Defendant for re-
pairs allegedly performed on the Defendant's vehicle, it is denied that this amount
of money, or any amount of money, is due and payable to the Plaintiff by the Defen.
dant because no repairs were performed by the Plaintiff which conform to standards
. 4 -
of good quality workmanship in the industry as was admitted by Plaintiffs repre-
sentatives in their dealings with the Defendant.
11. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, it is admitted that after
additional activities were undertaken on the Defendant's vehicle by the Plaintiff,
the Plaintiff claimed its work was complete, however, the work was not, and has
never been, completed by the Plaintiff on the Defendant's vehicle and, in order for
the work to repair the damages which the Plaintiff was engaged to perform to be
completed, the Defendant will be compelled to expend a sum estimated to be ap-
proximately $1,600.00.
12. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation your answering De-
fendant is without information sufficient to formulate a determination as to the
truth or falsity of the averments by Plaintiff in this paragraph 12 of the Plaintiffs
Complaint and, as such, they are denied. Strict proof of all allegations in this para-
graph 12 of Plaintiffs Complaint, if relevant, is hereby demanded.
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted.
15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is
without information sufficient to formulate a determination regarding the truth or
falsity of the averments in this paragraph 15 of the Plaintiffs Complaint and, as `
I
such, they are therefore denied. Strict proof of allegations in this paragraph 15 of
Plaintiffs Complaint, if relevant, is hereby demanded.
16. Admitted.
I
5.
IT Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that in September
of 1998, the Defendant sent a letter to K & H Ford and enclosed a USF&G check,
endorsed by him in the amount of $743.30 made payable to the Defendant and the
Plaintiff. It is denied that the Defendant stated in his letter that he was sending
the check for only the satisfactory work performed on his vehicle.
18. Denied as stated. It is admitted that by letter dated December 14,
1998 Tom Dabler, Manger of ACE, notified the Defendant of a claim of an out-
standing balance owed of $1,142.89. It is denied that this claim, or any claim for
any amount of money by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, is appropriately made
for any work allegedly performed on any vehicle owned by the Defendant. It is ad-
mitted that a copy of the said letter is attached to the Plaintiffs Complaint as Ex-
hibit E and made a part thereof.
19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is
without information sufficient to formulate a determination regarding the truth or
falsity of the averments in this paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Complaint and, as such,
they are denied. Strict proof of all allegations in this paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs
Complaint, if relevant, is hereby demanded.
20. Denied.
21. The averments in paragraph 21 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree any answer is deemed to
be required to the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, they are
hereby denied.
- 6 -
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
22. The answers to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 21 of the
Plaintiffs Complaint, inclusive, are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully
set forth.
23. Denied as stated. At no time were any repairs authorized by the
March 11, 1998 and/or the April 30, 1998 estimates prepared by the Defendant's in-
surer, USF&G and at no time was any work performed by K & H Ford on the. De-
fendant's vehicle at the Defendant's request. By way of further answer, it is denied
that any work allegedly performed on the Defendant's vehicle by ACE was work
performed in conformity with any request to perform work made by the Defendant.
24. Denied as stated. While requests and indeed demands for payment
have been made on the Defendant, no such demand has ever been made of the De-
fendant by K & H Ford and no balance is due and/or owing to K & H Ford from the
Defendant for any work performed and in no event has ACE ever performed any
work authorized by the Defendant in conformity with quality and workmanlike
standards.
25. The allegations in paragraph 25 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is deemed to
be required to this paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations therein are
hereby denied.
- 7 -
26. The allegations in paragraph 26 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is deemed to
be required to this paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations therein are
hereby denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Allan Grossman demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT II - BREACII OF IMPLIED CONTRACT
27. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 26 of Plaintiffs Complaint, in-
clusive, herein are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth.
28. The allegations in this paragraph 28 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are
legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
29. The allegations in this paragraph 29 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are
legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is
deemed to be required to this paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations
therein are hereby denied.
30. The allegations in this paragraph 30 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are
legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is
deemed to be required to this paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations
therein are hereby denied.
-8-
WHEREFORE, Defendant Allan Grossman demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff Kuhns-Harnish Ford, Inc. and such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III - Q UANTUM MER UIT
31. The answers to the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 30 of Plaintiffs
Complain, inclusive, herein are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth
herein.
32. The allegation in paragraph 32 is a legal conclusion to which no an-
swer is required. To the degree an answer is deemed to be required to this para-
graph 32 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations therein are hereby denied
33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the answering Defendant is
without information sufficient to formulate a determination regarding the truth or
falsity of the averments in this paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs Complaint and, as such,
they are therefore denied. Strict proof of all allegations in this paragraph 33 of
Plaintiffs Complaint, if relevant, is hereby demanded.
34. Denied.
35. The allegations in paragraph 35 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree an answer is deemed to
be required to this paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs Complaint, the allegations therein are
hereby denied.
- 9 -
36. Denied. By way of further answer, the Defendant has never accepted,
used and/or benefited from K & H Ford's performance of any activities on the De-
fendant's vehicle. By way of additional further answer, whatever activities were
performed by K & H Ford on the Defendant's vehicle, if any, were never authorized
and do not, and have never, conformed with timely and workmanlike standards of
quality acceptable in the industry.
37. The allegations in paragraph 37 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal
conclusions to which no answer is required. To the degree any answer is deemed to
be required, the allegations in this paragraph 37 are hereby denied.
38. By way of further answer, the allegations in this paragraph 38 of the
Plaintiffs Complaint constitute legal conclusions for which no answer is required.
To the degree any answer is deemed to be required, the allegations in this para-
graph 38 are hereby denied.
39. The allegations in paragraph 39 are legal conclusions to which no an-
swer is required. To the degree any answer is deemed to be required, the allega-
tions in this paragraph 39 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are hereby denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff
and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV - FRAUD
40. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 39, inclusive, of the Plaintiffs
Complaint are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
10 -
41. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, at no time did the Defen-
dant claim that work performed on his vehicle by K & H Ford, if any, was satisfac-
tory.
42. Denied. By way of further answer, the allegations in this paragraph
42 of the Plaintiffs Complaint are legal conclusions to which no answer is required.
To the degree any answer is deemed to be required to the allegations in this para-
graph 42 of the Plaintiffs Complaint, they are hereby denied.
43. Denied.
44. Denied. By way of additional answer, the allegations in this para-
graph 44 of Plaintiffs Complaint are legal conclusions to which no answer is re-
quired. If any answer to the allegations in this paragraph 44 of the Plaintiffs Com-
plaint are deemed to be required, the said allegations are hereby denied.
45. Denied as stated. By way of further answer the Defendant at no time
stopped payment or had the capacity to stop payment on a check issued by any en-
tity outside of his dominion and control. By way of further answer, Defendant is a
Doctor of Podiatric Medicine and has no specific knowledge of what K & H Ford's
banking institution or banking practices are.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Allan Grossman demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
i
11 -
NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
ALLAN GROSSMAN V. KUHNS-HARNISH FORD. INi
DIB?A AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS
46. Defendant's answers to paragraphs 1 through 45, inclusive, of Plain-
tiffs Complaint are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
47. In March of 1998 the Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, Allan
Grossman, entrusted his vehicle to the Plaintiff, K & H Ford, Incorporated d/b/a
ACE, for the purpose of securing repairs to his vehicle which were occasioned as a
result of damages sustained to the hood and front bumper areas of the vehicle.
48. Defendant entrusted the vehicle to the Plaintiff for the said repairs,
despite the Plaintiffs original estimate for the cost of repairs which exceeded that
which was estimated by the Plaintiffs motor vehicle insurance carrier.
49. The Defendant so entrusted his said vehicle to the Plaintiff because of
the Plaintiffs agent's representations to him that the vehicle could be perfectly re-
paired and that the Plaintiff had the capability of performing the repairs in a fash-
ion which would render the repaired damage to be totally unnoticeable and unde-
tectable on the part of the Defendant.
50. On four or more separate occasions, Plaintiff, Defendant on the Coun-
terclaim, contacted Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, and represented that
the vehicle had been-completely and satisfactorily repaired and on each such occa-
sion the Dcler)danl,-Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, upon attempting to retake pos-
session of his vehicle, discovered that the repairs putatively performed by the Plain-
tiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, were substandard and inadequate and on each
12
such occasion the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, agreed with, or acqui-
esced in, that judgment.
51. Over a period of several months, the Defendant, Plaintiff on the Coun-
terclaim, gave the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, ample opportunity to
correct its flawed, inadequate and non-conforming efforts at repairing the vehicle to
the standards represented by Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, to have
been within its capacity at the time it accepted the vehicle for repair work.
52. At no time has the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, ever
completed any work on the Defendant's, Plaintiff on the Countereclaim, vehicle in a
quality and workmanlike fashion in conformity with its representations to the De-
fendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim.
53. At all times relevant herein, the Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counter-
claim, has been ready, willing, able and desirous of securing complete, adequate,
quality workmanlike repairs to his vehicle as was represented to him by Plaintiff,
Defendant on the Counterclaim, to have been within its capability and had always
been willing to pay for such repairs in conformity with estimates prepared by his
motor vehicle insurer.
54. At no time has Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, despite mul-
tiple opportunities to do so, ever repaired the vehicle in a quality, workmanlike
fashion which conforms to the representations made to the Defendant;. Plaintiff.on
the Counterclaim, by the Plaintiffs agent at the time the Plaintiff, Defendant on
the Counterclaim, initially prepared its over-expensive estimate for repairs to De-
fendant's vehicle.
13 -
55. Because of Plaintiffs, Defendant on the Counterclaim, conduct and
representations with respect to the completeness and adequacy of its repair work on
the vehicle, the Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, has been compelled to
lose four separate full days of work at a cost to him of approximately $1,000 per day
for a total of approximately $4,000.
56. Upon receipt of his vehicle, after multiple attempts to secure conform-
ing performance of repairs from the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, the
Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, took his vehicle to Leahy's Auto Collision
Repair Service for an independent assessment of the quality of activities performed
by the Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim.
57. Leahy's Auto Collision Repair Service has advised Defendant, Plaintiff'
on the Counterclaim, that it will cost $1,489.27 to repair the damage to his vehicle
which damage is claimed to have been repaired by the Plaintiff, Defendant on the
Counterclaim, herein. (A true and correct copy of the estimate of Leahy's Auto Col-
lision Repair Service is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as if fully
set forth herein as Exhibit F.)
58. As a result of Plaintiffs, Defendant on the Counterclaim, conduct and
failure to adequately perform its work, Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim,
has suffered damages in the nature of lost income and unrepaired damages to his
vehicle in a total amount of $5,489.27.
59. In the alternative, Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, is entitled
to a setoff in the amount of $5,489.27 against any judgment awarded to the Plain-
tiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim.
- 14 -
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Plaintiff on the Counterclaim, demands judgment
against Plaintiff, Defendant on the Counterclaim, in the amount of $5,489.27, or, in
the alternative, a setoff in the said amount against the Plaintiff, Defendant on the
Counterclaim, plus counsel fees and costs, along with such other and further relief
as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSTON, ARONSON & DIAMOND, P.C.
Suite 100, 150 Corporate Center Drive
P.O. Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0098
(717) 975-5500
By
IRWIN W. AR6N9ON
PA. REG. No. 36921
Dated: June 28, 1999
. 15 -
EXHIBIT
f'
I.
I
i
I '
i.
i'
I
1 -
MI
1
4 .
FRWSt : KARISBLRG FOOT S R4<L_ CENTER PHONE W. 717 651 6801
LWr3 AUTO COLJJS II EI:AIR
? DYEdT-RRE, WC. IM COZZNX Avno LWwyne, PA 1J6M2
(ril)T us"
Fa= Q1T1075"
Dalet>p A&MMd #Y: 210Mw terry L""
Damage Appraiser License #3006835
DiducUbW lM XW M
PoIkTNo: PPA1RST10SM
Lrued: ALLAN GROBSUM
A&W= ate RENT ORIVS MECH. PA 1TMie
Toptmw:. gw*Ppone( 1T32AUfro
DOWPOW IMFaatl E%WWKXL
Body 9W. MD tR 11r WE
VNk 1RAZUMEA4ZA90748
Llne ErNy Luger
Rerm Nuebr TV"
./ 090100 BDY
2 min my
e AUTO REF
0 sopn BOY
I soup w-
e !99099 soy-
? SPUN WY
a 900306 soy
0 00908 BOY
10 CEO" tw.
11 0MO0oD REF
T2 1100" REF
.
13 •t0300 REF •
1e MIS 1MY
10 p110 BOY
1e min BOY
iT "am REP
18 110000 RCP
is "am R&
N AUM RD
21 03:00 Re
22 AUTO RIF
23 AUTO
24 ALM
a AUTO
°medam
REMOVEIROTALL •
REMOVZGNSTALL
REFIN SH
REMOVENOTALL
REMGMEANSTALL
REPAIR
REMOVEJREPLAC9
REMOVZNtEPLACE
REFvd$"MPAtR
Ran="
REFDOGHMPAIR
RUNWE REPLACE
REMOVFJ"TALL
RYI?AASt
ranN 9YREPAIR
ADM OPR
ADD'L OM
ADVLOPR
AM%OPR
ADT. COST
ADWLCOAT
A)01 COST
MAtMee Ser0m: SMn
Mar. 18 1999 12:54pM p3
DO: ellbN411:10 AM
EN*Nb tk 1111
P1ee11Mmy .
Profile D. MI9Ad
Orlw Trot: 4AL p S CYI AND
Line ftn hA Typaf
0"cr lon , h" Number
FRTOUMPERASSY , .
FRY BUMPER FACE MR. EdrlWp
FRY FACENAR Z. .
-
FRT BUMPER LICI:FKq,kRACKlrf ,
.
OWdIg
GRILLE <
: .. ..
GRLLSEMIBLEML.
?
ErdafYie
GRLLEASSY ..
GRILLE Eadarkg
R FOG LAMP ASSEMBLY FM ICK 0 R0
COVER CAR FOR OVkRSPRAY Sublet
PIARL COAT REFRM
HOOD OUTSDE Ego" '
BIEMD FRONT FENDERS GNBig
R UPR 8, ftD•E TAPE BODY E= Of= VIM DEALER
LMRSTRIPETAPE BODY SM ORDER FROM DEALER
L FENDER APRON ASIY EskAAe
LEFT FENDER LPAM Ealleee
RADIATOR SUFPORT AREA(OVERSPRAY) EXIA"
TM TONE
CLEAR COAT
TRY COLOR
COLOR SAND i BUFF
SHOP MATERIALS
HAZARV*03 WASTE DISPOSAL:
ESTIMATE RECALL NUMSEID 9MMe 11:01:10 1211
UNmN4A* N a TrodrnerM of M90" keanAdMM
MIRhd Dace Vereba: AUO_ft_A CoW"* 1C11MAe • "IT Mld" krpnu"WW
AN me" Revved
Dotter
AmaueA LtNe
ea
&r
C'is
c 1s
•Mr
'eA s
1.0 6
67.10 034
MA9• 1r
33•
C LE
to
MT.?R
11,31
Os•B
1A•
LD
Ur
1s
9A,
ae
220.0
an:
7A0•
Feee 1 of 3
FROM H FISRJRO FOOT &Fb'IKL, :ENTER PHONE NO. 717 651 080:
• Judgement hem
b - labor Nob Applies
C - Included in Clear Cwt Cale
.
- d",
Mar. 18 1999 12:54PM P2
• Dale: OS19Bl6 11:90 AM
Exgtrate D: 1211
proft W. MRtMN
Addl
I. Labor SubtoWs UnAs Rok Labor Sublet
Arm" AMMV
Totak
/.
PIsd Roptaamad SUlymary'
Anoint
Body 6.6 76110 1.00 0" 2MAO T Ta1e610 parts 1623T
ReOnleb 202 UJO OAO ON MSO T 6daTax ® Saws 0.19
Tazabte Libor 811.90 Total Rap SWVwt PWU Anrowt 162.16
Labe Tax a aim% /O.OT
Labor 6arinary 2" SfOaT
IIL Addelmal Costs Anwurt N. AdjuWxwots Amount
Tenble Costs SSOJSO Custom" Rnpondbay a."
Saks Tax a SAM MAO
Trial AddStonal Ceeba 70126
L Told labor: 96W
IL TOW Rwaconrd Parw 109.95
01, TOW AWMasid Cods: 561.20
Grass TOM 1,a002T
A. Telal AdjuzbTwrta: OAO
Mn Tow: 1AW"
***** Special Note: We do not warrant any rust repairs *****
ESTIMATE RECALL NUMOM SIZWU 90:!1:90 Q11
Utr&Ma% k a TradarrMra d at@tlrsa OtemRlard
mftw Oyu Yerwon: AUG W A CopynyM P-11!04.1SOT Ml I Inban dbrrel
AM iti/Pts aseervW
hen I of S
PX3E 02
:995 15:34 717975551:
WJJ3A
Y RTF?I?
l ALLAN GROSSMAN, hereby verify that the statements contained in the
foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief, and are made subject to the penalties of 18
pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
Dated: June 28, 1999
I W*
62-k- 6
ALLAN GRo
i i
'I
i14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, IRWIN W. ARONSON, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have this date caused a
copy of the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to be served upon the
Plaintiff in this matter by placing the same in the United States First Class Mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
James A. Strong, Esquire
3401 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Dated: June 28, 1999
i
ii
i
1
}
CERTIFICATE OF UP`RVICE
I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the
person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of
same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, certified, return receipt
requested, prepaid, as follows:
Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire
Johnston, Aronson & Diamond, P.C.
150 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 100
PO Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0098
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
\ r?
DAVID A. FITZSIMONS, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #41722
JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE.
Supreme Court I.D. #81093
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATED:..-111 t. c\c ?c,
? ?? ti
f
c `, f,
? ? ? I
1.
J
?- )
?. 7
L: - `..
- _
? :I
c.:?
L_.1 ??l U
0
k m
C o
? b
0
® j ? 0
I° F Z m
Q j N
d
J x
?>?I?
P w Z N
•? ¢ W 0
,?+? k a d
1 ?
m
N_
h tt
P Q
• ? r
? ?
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC. d/b/a
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
Plaintiff
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1999-2978
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT
OF ARBITRATORS
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
David A. Fitzsimons, counsel for the plaintiff in the above action respectfully
represents that:
1. The above-captioned action is at issue.
2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $2,721.19, plus interest, costs,
and attorney's fees.
The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise
disqualified to sit as arbitrators: David A. Fitzsimons, James M. Strong, and Irwin
W. Aronson.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three
(3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted.
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By: w_f !? _
DAVID A. FITZSIMF},iQ$, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #41'1-22
JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #81093
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
DATED: 2/29/2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff
215743
t
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 29 day of February, 2000, I, JAMES M. STRONG,
ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I am serving a copy of the foregoing document upon
the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the
requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of
same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage,
prepaid, as follows:
Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire
Johnston, Aronson & Diamond, P.C.
150 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 100
P.O. Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17011.0098
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By: ?-?'Wl Y ?/ l?
DAVID A. FITZSIMON , SQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #41722
JAMES M. STRONG, ESQUIRE
Supreme Court I.D. #81093
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(71.7) 232-5000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: 2/29/2000
21.5743
KUHNS-HARNISH FORD, INC. d/b/a : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
Defendant
NO. 1999-2978
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, ?- Glc ?O 2000, in consideration of the foregoing petition,
?e-l?. c?/1?x/X ear%? Esq >l?w?rni Esq. and dmrcS? s-i
Esq. are appointed arbitrators in the above-captioned action as prayed for.
215743
00th! 13 12:5t;
rcP!i\?aYLNIv?!!;1
•
cJ N
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Cumberland County
9tll JUDICIAL DISTRICT
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013-3387
NOTICE OF APPEAL
FROM
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT
COMMON PLEAS No. 1999- r?ej7b Civil Term
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice
on the date and in the case mentioned below. j
IN TNR
rd, inc./Auto Collision
PA 17055
Allan B. Grossman
CLIMM NO. •16NI1T 6 00, VV6ll(l11 T OP I TOXXCT ON...L T
CV 19 0000109-99
LT 19 in W. Ariiag on Esquire, attorney for Appellant
This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P.
R.C.P.J,P. No. 1008B.
This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as in action before District Jus[ice, he
a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. A COMPLAINT within twenty (20)
his NOTICE of APPEAL.
Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy
PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 10010 inaction before District Justice.
IF NOT USED, detach front copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee).
PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary
Enter rule upon K & H Ford Inc /Auto Collision Exp. , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal
Name of appellee(sl
(Common Pleas No. 1999- oZ9 Civil TerTnwithin twenty (20) days after se ice of rule r suf cr entry of judgment of non pros.
Si nature ofap ellant or his attorney or agent
RULE: To R & H Ford Inc•/Auto Collision Exp•,appellee(s)
Name of appellee(s)
(1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty 120) days after the date of
service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or iegistered mail.
(2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
(3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the dam of mailing.
Date: May 17r 19 99 ?/?a rurr onctary or Deputy
AOPC 31790 ..,.t ri ,1: ',' c__[•. -t > it t, Y...f I?,.
Ci
ts
3
. ? •D w
C, 1 .? S r?• C h .?
r ? -Q ? l tn`7 O # U
-? ?-'N •-61 ' _ ---uo S3Jldx0 uOlss(wwoo ANN
opcu, Wm uneryryJe uroym 7jci lrl jvgljjo 10 ainlcu ft
/n ain,cu ft
-6l'-' -'--dOA,VO--SIHi
3W 3a0d38 a9mosens ONV (O31NblJJV) NHOMS f
•ola,al pelaepe 1d11oaJ s,Aapu3s 'pew
.. (palalslfiaJ) (pallpiao) Ag Ll aalnJas Ieunslad Ay '---gl •--- ---uo passalppe SUM 11118 N11 LVOuM
of (s)oalladde all uodn leaddV to aolloN onO(Ip all 6uiAuedu,oloe JuleµluioD e alld 01 11111] eAI I)OA 1S I Jell Jalt Jnl pup
-olalal paloetle ldlaooJ s,lapuas'li0w (parrlslGal (polllllaa) Aq (-1 ;imAltu leuosJad Aq [=i 6l ---------
uo 1a, adde 1, J uOllll lue 'olalat 1 nJ:w1le ldta3a) 1 .
s,lapuas'Iieul (paJalslrial) (pa!lploo) Aq n ao(nJ1S leuMIZI(i Aq ? "---61 '--------------/ao?nJaslo a1c/J/
uo uialall paleuGlsop aopsnr J1lJ1slO Ill uodn' ON scold uowwoJ'leaddV 10111IoN all {o Adoo P. paAJas 1 1041 u,Jp{e Jo mans Agaouj I :.LIAVOIddV
ss. -i0 A1Nnoo
VINVAIASNN3d JO l11lV3MN0WW03
•? .
i
(saxoq e/geopdde goag0 7eadde /o ooilou e4l 15u1111 &9-LJV SAVO (00 N31 N11411M Q341d 381SnPV 001AKI.S /o load s141
iNIVIMOD 311d Ol 31nH ONV 1V3ddV d0 30110N d0 3DIA83S d0 d008d
i
05/17/1999 14:J0 7179755511
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF_COPMERLAND
09-3-04
W Neme: Mon.
THOMAS A. PLACEY
AMNeei 1"S- SPORTING HILL RD.
NECHANICSBURG, PA
Te"ho :(717) 761-8330
ATTORM DEP PRIVATE
IRWIN ARONSON, ESQ.
P.O. BOR 98
CWW HILL, PA 17003
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:
Judgment:
HGJ&A
PAGE 02
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT
PLAINTIFF: CIVIL CASE
rX 6 H PORD NAMEaMADDRES9
INC./AUTO COLLISION B}53
6320 CARLISLE PIMM
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
L
J
DEFENDANT: VS.
NAME and A0DnE66
17055 IGR0s8)KAN, ALLAtQ
815 SENT DRIVE
NECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
1
L J
Docket No.: CV-0000109-99
Date Filed: 3/1s/99
_FOR PLATmm'rgg
®' Judgment was entered far: (Name) ,r c_w rrnR? rum /an,e,? r.,,r r Tare
® Judgment was entered against: (Name) .
in the amount of $ , 9 2 Eg on:
Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
Damages will be assessed on:
This case dismissed without prejudice.
Amount of Judgment Subject to
AttachmenVAct 5 of lggs $
El Levy is stayed for days or ? generally stayed.
Objection to levy has been filed and hearing will be held:
Date:
Time:
ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT
OF APPEAL WITH THE p?MA
MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF 1
Date
Place:
yrLlL2 ao GAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE
CLERK OF THE C F COMMON PLEAS, CI, p(4 ;DJY;W0N. YOU
OF JUD- GMENVTRAN IPT FORM WITH`)f Y PPEAL
I certify that this is a true and rrect copy of the r
`li WY9 Date
My commission expires first Monday of January,
(Date of Judgment) s ?? 1ao
(Date & Time)
Amount of Judgment
Judgment Costs
Interest on Judgment
Attorney Fees
Total
Post Judgment Credits
Post Judgment Costs
Certified Judgment Total
proceedings
2004
:Ing the' j? en
u . District JuSti
SEAL
CUMMUNWEAL.TH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Cumberland County
9th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013-3387
NOTICE OF APPEAL
FROM
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT
COMMON PLEAS No. 1.999- jrj 7gy civil Tent
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common PIP.as an appeal front the judgment rendered by the District Justice
on the date and in the case mentioned below.
M..O. 01\T. NO. OII NI.MI OI O.J.
NI1Mt OI 111.[LL1.NT
'homas A. Placey, 09-3-04
Allan Grossman ,.. [aot
r.OONt.. O. L.a LL/,NT CIT•
815 Kent Drive Mechanicsburg PA 17055
OAT[ O. 1... M i NT IN ... 011.6 ON II4.r.rir.rrl
5/11/99 K&H Ford Inc./Auto Collision Lxp. Allan•ri Grossman
O w0[NT'
CV 19 0000109-99 'J. ,:;
LT 19 I `` in G7_A
'This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa.
R.C.P.J.P. No. 10088.
This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as
a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case.
Signature of Pmthonorary or Deputy
If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P.
No. 1001(6) in action before District Justice, he
MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20)
days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL.
PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J,P. No. )00](71, inaction before District Justice..
IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee).
PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary
Enter rule upon K & 11 Ford Inc /Auto Collision Exp. , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal
Name of appelleelsl
(Common Pleas No. 1949- 01q Civil TerT within twenty (20) days after sq.Nice o to nr s er entry of judgment of non pros.
Sgnature or apPegant or his attorney or agent
RULE: To KITH F9xd1--1P-r- uto Collision IxP•.?ppellee(s) '
r}' Name of appeneelsl
(1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this ap e I within twenty (20) da s after the dale of
service of. this rule upon you: by, personal service of by certified or registered mail. o1Eu9r+d N,30AFf3114JYiM
(2) if you,do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE TEA1S?q 1108 MgM&?yAl
(3) The date of service of this rule, if service was by mail is the date of mailing
q
May 1.7.
Dale: . 19-• Signature or monotari, or Depury
AOPC 31290 _ . r .
PROOF OF SERVICE OF (VQTICF OF APPEAL i\ND RULE TO FILE CCIVPLJ\l !L
(This proo(ol se?+u:ii h^U5T f?C' r ILFD YJI7FIIM itN /1!q GAYS AI 7 i+ I .,'_r UIO notice nl appral. Chr,ch np??Rcable Coxes) '
CONIMONWLALTN OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF..-- Cumberland
/AFFIDAVIT: Ihvii,h,/svewof u',nna„t1 ,•ofd
1999-2978
[X pY ol;dii NoeiP em non Pi os N I' )'. U i Li `.! u.1 1 i ?? c I ?yuallid Ih o,II
S
h .c n/s?^ u 1 May 18 -_ i l?? nr u?.a w? - ?;.-r I X, i,y 1 i .?I c•II i1CXXxx'tGl rt i t: uldor's
,
if" 1111,11 .h.?d her :w!iu,.?..- '.K & H Ford> .Inc./Auto. Collision Exp, _.. ... OTI
? -rt lvni tt'.chrd hvlmo.
is
May n xx#xxxx.
O n
in f a'oinp..i; nni rhn nhJpr NUf•C` PI to
N d, N N 1^ 99.., .Ly ?u and: se1+11 X.: L, It ., iii'cdl xWxxxx
N P, P+ m
N ?.
L U co
t 7 ,?' N 07 _ c S .nilur • of nr iiant
!" t ' a
t l r t o _
?{ lT N¢„ 1. N U i r
r,
KUHNS-HARNIsIi FORD, INC. D/B/A
AUTO COLLISION EXPERTS,
PLAINTIFF
V.
ALLAN GROSSMAN,
DEFENDANT
IN rD-IE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVILACTION - LAW
No. 1999-2978
DEFENDANT ALLAN GROssmm's RESPONSES To
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AnimssioNs
AND Now COMES Defendant, Allan Grossman, by and through his attor-
neys Johnston, Aronson & Diamond, P.C. and Irwin W. Aronson, Esquire, and
offers the following responses to Plaintiffs request for admissions:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, it is admitted that
Defendant, Allan Grossman, endorsed the said check and physically delivered
it to the Plaintiff. By way of additional further answer, the Defendant has
never acknowledged that the work was satisfactorily performed on his vehicle
by the Plaintiff. By way of additional further answer, the Defendant was satis-
fied with work performed by Plaintiff on Defendant's vehicle regarding repairs
to the windshield of the said vehicle and, to the degree some portion of the
$743 was, or could have been, attributable to that particular portion of work
performed by Plaintiff on Defendant's vehicle, Defendant does acknowledge
only that such work was satisfactorily performed.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted in part; Denied in part. After reasonable investigation,
your Answering Defendant is without information sufficient to admit or deny
whether payment was stopped on the two checks dated August 4, 1998 and is-
sued as being payable jointly to the Defendant and K & H Ford Body Shop. It
is admitted that USF&G Insurance issued a check In the amount of $1,443.30
made payable to the Defendant Allan Grossman, which check was physically
delivered to Irwin Aronson, Esquire.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted.
11. Admitted in part; Denied in part. It is admitted that a representa-
tive from USF&G Insurance inspected the Defendant's vehicle after it was
worked on by Plaintiff. After reasonable investigation, your Answering Defen-
dant is without information sufficient to determine whether or not USF&G In-
surance representatives detennined that repairs were in accord with industry
i
standards.
.?.' Admitted.
13. Denied.
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted.
16. Denied. By way of additional answer, Leahy's Auto Collision Re-
pair specifically inspected Defendant's vehicle prior to preparing an estimate,
which estimate was submitted to District Justice Placey. The same estimate
represents Leahy's Auto Collision Repair's best estimate of the cost of addi-
tional repairs necessitated by Plaintiffs failure to perform the repairs on the
Defendant's vehicle in accordance with industry standards.
17. Denied.
18. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, the estimate prepared
by Leahy's Auto Collision Repair was to repair work performed on the Defen-
dant's vehicle by the Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSTON, ARONSON & DIAMOND, PC
Suite 100
150 Corporate Center Drive
P.O. Box 98
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0098
(717) 975-5500
By
A. REC. No. 36921
Dated: May 23, 2000
05/23/2000 15:12
717-975-5511
JAO
VFRJFICA770N
PAGE 13
I, ALLAN GRossMAN. hereby verify that I can the Defendant in the above
matter. I hereby further verify that the statements contained in the foregoing Re-
sponses to Plaintiffs Request for Admissions are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief, and are made subject to the penalties of
18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsiflcations to authorities.
"
ALLAN GR0
Dated: May 23, 2000
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, IRWIN W. ARONSON, EsgUIRE, hereby certify that I have this date served a
copy of the foregoing Defendant's Responses to Plaintiffs Request for Admis-
sions to be served upon the Plaintiff in this matter by placing the same in the
United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire
James M. Strong, Esquire
Mette, Evans & Woodside
3401 North Front Street
P.Q. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
Dated: May 23, 2000
N.
J
7 U_
?4v
l?i.uw/c 11iMNI-W ??/? TAT-)
)
i9//•yN G?or? v??r a/ ?
OATH
In The Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 9 y9 - Z 978 19
.
we do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend
of the United States and the Constitution of this Common-
the and that we we will discharge the duties o ur office with fidelity.
wealth Cons
?. nnan
zn?W
We the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn
(or affirmed), make the following award:
(Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be
separately stated.)
Arbitrator,
applicable.)
Date of Hearing: x,000
Date of Award:
NOTICE OF MM
pg ?c at Id,'13 , P .:i. ,
Now, [he I.s" day of ?* - given b mail
award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof gi Y
parties or their attornevs.
Arbitrators' compensation to be
paid upon appeal:
S '9orU
the above
to the
4 1/)
eLt ? -
f
n th notary
By * --0
74°'1 Deputy
dissents. (Insert name i-
n p" prod yn
? r prop" t#'?9
?/ Nvstl?.
rn.
C-3
uar? cV lC
(:!L J
Viii. I 5
-' •
tL
01
`? o U