HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-04199l aYR".g .-?M
4
i
Yi
3
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CECIL E. LANE, AND : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JOANNE LANE,
Plaintiffs
No.: q 9_ /-// 9F
lo?? vs. HOG, INC.,
Defendant
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 defense 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 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
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
CECIL E. LANE, AND : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JOANNE LANE,
Plaintiffs
No.: 9 4-1//99 ?1 "T?
vs.
ROAD HOG, INC.,
Defendant
COMPLAINT
Parties/Jurisdiction
1. Plaintiffs are adult individuals, and husband and wife, residing at 104 Grant 167089,
Sheridan, AR 72150.
2. Defendant is Tennessee corporation not registered to do business in Pennsylvania, that
conducts business at 1007 Church Lane, Surgoinsville, TN 37873. Defendant leased its
employees to Glen Moore Transport. Glen Moore Transport is a Pennsylvania
corporation that conducts business at 1511 Commerce Avenue, Carlisle, Cumberland
County, PA 17013.
3. At all times material hereto, Defendant acted through its agents, servants, and employees
who in turn were acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment for
the Defendant.
Venue
4. Plaintiffs performed services for Glen Moore Transport as truck drivers employed by
Defendant whose runs commenced and ended at Glen Moore Transport in Cumberland
County. Venue is therefore appropriate in this forum.
COUNTI
Violation of the PennsVlVania Wage Payment and Collection Law. 42 P.S. & 260.1 et sea.
5. Paragraphs 1-4 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
6. On or about January 26, 1999, the Defendant employed Plaintiffs as over the road truck
drivers.
7. Plaintiffs were directed by the Defendant to report to other transport companies to haul
freight. The Plaintiffs used Defendant's truck cabs to perform this work. The Plaintiffs did
not exercise discretion in how the work was performed. The Plaintiffs were paid by the
Defendant as a team at the rate of $ .32 per mile driven in the furtherance of the
Defendant's business.
8. From on or about February 15, 1999, Defendant contracted with Glen Moore Transport in
Carlisle, PA to haul its freight.
9. On or about February 15, 1999, Defendant directed the Plaintiffs to haul freight for Glen
Moore Transport in Carlisle, PA.
10. On or about February 15, 1999 to on or about May 24, 1999 Plaintiffs hauled freight for
Glen Moore Transport, at the direction of Road Hog, Inc.
11. Plaintiffs driving assignments would commence from Glen Moore Transport's Carlisle, PA
facility. Plaintiffs would deliver freight to locations in the California and other western
states and return to Carlisle, PA to commence a new driving assignment.
12. Until May of 1999, Plaintiffs were paid wages weekly by Defendant based upon the number
of miles driven.
13. Under this arrangement Plaintiffs drove approximately 2,750 miles for the week ending
May 15, 1999.
14. Plaintiffs drove approximately 2,699 miles for the week ending May 22, 1999.
15. Plaintiffs drove approximately 2,803 miles for the week ending May 29, 1999.
16. Plaintiffs submitted their mileage records to Defendant for each of the weeks in question in
accordance with the normal practice between the parties.
17. Defendant willfully failed to pay the wages owed to the Plaintiffs for the work weeks ending
May 15, May 22, and May 29, 1999.
18. Plaintiffs resigned from the employment of Defendant on or about May 24, 1999.
19. Defendant's action violate 42 P.S. Sec. 260.5 that provides that " . . . [w]henever an
employee quits or resigns his employment, the wages or compensation earned shall become
due and payable not later than the next regular payday of his employer on which such wages
would otherwise be due and payable."
20. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs have suffered economic loss in the form of
unpaid wages in the amounts of
a) $880.00 for the week ending May 15, 1999
b) $863.68 for the week ending May 22, 1999
c) $896.00 for the week ending May 29, 1999.
21. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in the amount of unpaid
wages; liquidated damages in the greater of the amount of 25% of unpaid wages or
$500.00; reasonable attorney fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT 11
Breach of Contract
22. Paragraphs 1-22 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
23. On or about January 26, 1999 Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiffs $32 for each mile
driven using Road Hog Inc. truck cabs in exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to haul freight
as a team for outside companies at the direction of the Defendant.
24. During the early part of 1999, the parties performed pursuant to this agreement and the
Defendant would, on a weekly basis, deposit the sums due to Plaintiffs for their mileage and
any necessary and reasonable expenses directly into Plaintiffs' checking account in
Tennessee.
25. Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs for the miles driven for the weeks ending May 15, May
22, and May 29, 1999.
26. Defendant's action has caused great economic harm to Plaintiffs due to their wage losses.
27. In addition, Defendant's failure to direct deposit funds for the weeks ending May 15, May
22, and May 29, 1999 caused Plaintiffs to become overdrawn in that account, resulting in
bank fees being assessed against Plaintiffs.
28. Plaintiffs relied upon the agreement with Defendant and the past practice of direct
depositing funds into Plaintiffs' checking account when Plaintiffs wrote checks out of the
account without knowing that so doing would cause them to become overdrawn.
29. Due to the itinerate nature of Plaintiffs' employment, Plaintiffs were not aware of this
banking situation until several daily bank charges were assessed against them, resulting in
approximately $200 owing to Planters' Bank, before the Plaintiffs were able to close the
account.
30. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand compensatory damages against the Defendant in the
amount of $2,640.64, plus reliance damages related to the bank charges incurred as a result
of Defendant's failure to direct deposit funds into Plaintiffs' bank account, along with any
other relief the Court deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
McGRAW, HAIT & DEITCHMAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date:,7tLy 9, ( ByI2n*r/ ijlu
Thomas S. Sedwick
Pa. ID # 81912
Jennifer C. Deitchman
Pa. ID # 72779
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
(717) 249-2411 (fax)
AFFIDAVIT
I verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief I acknowledge that any false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Date: - 7 - 7
Date: [ - 9- 2!7--
C e it E. Lane
Joanne Lane
c
v
h
c.
l.?
?L z
?A-
r.TN
i?
.? Q
P
i
i
CECIL E. LANE, AND
JOANNE LANE
Plaintiffs
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
NOTICE TO DEFEND
To: Cecil E. Lane and Joanne Lane,
Plaintiffs
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE to
the enclosed Answer in the above-captioned matter within
twenty (20) days after from service hereof or a judgment
may be entered against you.
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant,
Road Hog, Inc.
Attorney ID No. 37445
44 South Hanover S treet
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
July 27, 1999
CECIL E. LANE, AND
JOANNE LANE
Plaintiffs
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the defendant, Road Hog Inc. by its
attorney, Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esq., and files this
Answer to Plaintiffs' complaint and respectfully
represents as follows:
Parties/Jurisdiction
1. It is admitted that Plaintiffs are adult
individuals and are husband and wife. Defendant
is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny
whether Plaintiffs continue to reside at 104 Grant
167089, Sheridan, AR 72150.
2. It is denied that Defendant is a Tennessee
corporation. To the contrary, Defendant is an
Alabama corporation conducting business at 1007
Church Lane, Surgoinsville, TN 37873. It is denied
that Defendant leased its "employees" to Glen
Moore Transport. To the contrary, Defendant
leased its "trucks" to Glen Moore Transport
pursuant to a written Equipment Lease Agreement.
Moreover, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs were "employees" of the Defendant.
Defendants were independent contractors of the
Defendant pursuant to a written contractor
agreement dated January 20, 1999.
3. Paragraph 3 of Petitioner's complaint is denied.
To the contrary, at all times material hereto,
Defendant acted through its independent
contractors who in turn were acting within the
course and scope of the provisions of the
contractor agreement with Defendant.
Venue
9. It is denied that Plaintiffs performed services for
Glen Moore Transport as truck drivers employed by
Defendant whose runs commenced and ended at Glen
Moore Transport in Cumberland County. To the
contrary, Plaintiffs performed services for Glen
Moore Transport as truck drivers not as employees
but as independent contractors of the Defendant
pursuant to an agreement entered into in
Tennessee. It is also denied that Plaintiffs'
"runs" commenced and ended at Glen Moore Transport
in Cumberland County. To the contrary, Glen Moore
2
Transport operates in 48 states a %run" could
commence and terminate anywhere in the continental
United States. Finally, the characterization of
the venue being appropriate in this forum is a
conclusion of law for which no answer is required.
COUNT I
Violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law
5. The answers to Paragraphs 1-4 are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
6. It is denied that on or about January 26, 1999,
the Defendant employed Plaintiffs as over the road
truck drivers. To the contrary, on January 20,
1999, the Defendant and the Plaintiffs entered
into a contractor agreement to drive Defendant's
trucks as independent contractors.
7. It is denied that Plaintiffs were directed by the
Defendant to report to other transport companies
to haul freight. To the contrary, Glen Moore
Transport specifically directed the Plaintiffs to
report to other transport companies to haul
freight. The remainder of Paragraph 7 is
admitted.
8. It is denied that on or about February 15, 1999,
Defendant contracted with Glen Moore Transport in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania to haul its freight. To
3
the contrary, on or about January 20, 1999,
Defendant and Glen Moore Transport entered into an
Equipment Lease pursuant to which Plaintiffs,
acting as independent contractors, hauled freight
for Glen Moore Transport using Defendant's
vehicle.
9. Admitted.
10. It is denied that on or about February 15, 1999 to
on or about May 24, 1999, Plaintiffs hauled
freight for Glen Moore Transport, at the direction
of Road Hog, Inc. To the contrary, Plaintiffs
received direction during that period only from
Glen Moore Transport and its dispatchers as to
where and when freight should be hauled pursuant
to Defendant's Equipment Lease.
11. Admitted.
12. It is denied that until May of 1999, Plaintiffs
were paid wages weekly by Defendant based upon the
number of miles driven. To the contrary, the
Plaintiffs did not receive wages but payments made
to them as independent contractors based upon the
number of dispatched miles driven pursuant to
their contractor agreement.
13. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
4
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 13
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
14. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 14
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
15. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 15
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
16. It is denied that Plaintiffs submitted their
mileage record to Defendant for each of the weeks
in question in accordance with the normal practice
between the parties. To the contrary, Plaintiffs
submitted their mileage records to Glen Moore
Transport and Glen Moore used those records were
used to make payment to Defendant.
17. It is denied that Defendant willfully failed to
pay the wages owed to the Plaintiffs for the work
for weeks ending May 15, May 22, and May 29, 1999.
To the contrary, any payments made to Plaintiffs
were not wages, but payments made to them as
independent contractors based upon the number of
miles driven as reported by Glen Moore Transport
to Defendant. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs
5
forfeited any rights to payment that they had by
breaching their contractor agreement in not giving
Defendant proper notice of termination of their
contract and by abandoning the Defendant's vehicle
in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
18. It is denied that the Plaintiffs resigned from
employment of Defendant on or about May 24, 1999.
To the contrary, Plaintiffs were not employees but
independent contractors. By way of further
answer, Plaintiffs informed Simon Donald Grant,
Vice President of Defendant, on Friday, May 21,
1999 at 7:00 p.m. in a telephone conversation that
they were abandoning their contractual obligations
effective Monday, May 24, 1999.
19. It is denied that 42 P.S. Sec 260.5 provides that
[w]henever an employee quits or resigns his
employment, the wages or compensation earned shall
become due and payable not later than the next
regular payday of his employer on which such wages
would otherwise be due and payable." To the
contrary, the language cited is found in 43 P.S.
sec 260.5. It is also denied that Defendant's
action violated this provision since the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law does
not apply to independent contractors. Turk v.
6
Communications Design Inc., 10 D. & C. 4ih 42
(1991). In the alternative, the erroneous
characterization of Defendant's action as
violating any provision of the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law is a conclusion of law
that requires no answer.
20. It is denied that Plaintiffs have suffered any
economic loss in the form of unpaid wages in any
amount. To the contrary, Defendant's payments to
Plaintiffs were made pursuant to a contractor
agreement and they forfeited any moneys owed to
them by the Defendant by failing to abide by the
terms of such agreement.
21. WHEREFORE, Defendant demand judgment against the
Plaintiffs, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
Count II
Breach of Contract
22. The answers to Paragraphs 1-22 are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
23. It is denied that on or about January 26, 1999
Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiffs $ 0.32 for
each mile driven using Road Hog Inc. truck cabs in
exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to haul freight
as a team for outside companies at the direction
7
of the Defendant. To the contrary, the contractor
agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant on January 20, 1999 in
Tennessee. Furthermore, pursuant to the
agreement, the Plaintiffs may have been directed
to take the truck initially to Glen Moore
Transport by Defendant but thereafter were
directed in hauling freight by Glen Moore
Transport, Defendant's lessee.
24. It is admitted that payments were made to
Defendants on a weekly basis, but it is denied
that the payments were based on miles driven for
the week. To the contrary, payments to Plaintiffs
were made by Defendant based solely on the timing
of the Plaintiffs' submission of their drivers'
bills of lading/proof of delivery to Glen Moore
Transport and Glen Moore Transport's submission of
payment to Defendant on a per dispatched mile
basis less any advances made by Defendant to
Plaintiffs. The remainder of Paragraph 24 is
admitted.
25. It is denied that Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs for the miles driven for the weeks
ending May 15, May 22, and May 29. To the
contrary, Defendant has no knowledge of how many
8
miles may have been driven by Plaintiffs on a
weekly basis. Furthermore, because of the payment
procedure established as described in Paragraph
29, Plaintiffs may have already been paid for some
of the mileage that they claim to have driven for
these weeks.
26. It is denied that Defendant's action has caused
great economic harm to Plaintiffs due to their
wage losses. To the contrary, the payments made
to Plaintiffs by the Defendant were not wages and
any economic harm to the Plaintiffs was caused by
their own actions, not by Defendant. In the
alternative, the characterization of Defendant's
action as causing any economic harm to the
Plaintiffs is a conclusion of law that requires no
answer.
27. It is denied that Defendant's failure to direct
deposit funds for the weeks ending May 15, May 22
and May 29, 1999 caused Plaintiffs to become
overdrawn in that account, resulting in bank fees
being assessed against Plaintiffs. To the
contrary, Defendant had no duty to directly
deposit any funds to Plaintiffs account after May
29, 1999, the date that Plaintiffs breached their
contractor agreement. In the alternative, after
9
reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without
sufficient information to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegation of Paragraph 27 and, if
material, strict proof is demanded.
28. It is denied that there was any agreement with
Defendant to deposit funds into the Plaintiffs'
checking account on a weekly basis upon which the
Plaintiffs could claim any reliance, especially
given the Plaintiffs' breach of the contractor
agreement. It is admitted that, based on past
practices, any payments due Plaintiffs were
directly deposited by Defendant into Plaintiffs'
checking account. In the alternative, after
reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without
sufficient information to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegation and, if material, strict
proof is demanded
29. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 29
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
30. WHEREFORE, Defendant demand judgment against the
Plaintiffs, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
10
NEW MATTER
31. On January 20, 1999, Plaintiffs and Defendant
entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiffs, as
independent contractors, agreed to drive
Defendant's vehicle for "the sum of $0.32 per
dispatched mile." A copy of this agreement is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
A.
32. Article 6 of the agreement provides that in order
to terminate the agreement, Plaintiffs were
required to give Defendant fourteen (14) days
notice by certified mail or forfeit any moneys due
and owing.
33. Article 6 of the contractor agreement also
provides that if the Plaintiffs failed to return
the truck to Defendant's location in Tennessee,
Plaintiffs would forfeit all moneys due to them.
34. Directly under the signature of Plaintiff Cecil
Lane in the agreement is handwritten the following
statement:
AS CONTRACTORS DRIVERS WE ARE
PAYING OUR (OWN?] TAXS FEDERAL
AND STATE.
RHI IS NOT RESPONSBLE
HOWR WORKMANS COMP.
11
1424 5/06/99 $1773.94 5,817
1446 5/14/99 $1814.32 5,186
1462 5/21/99 $1947.47 5,867
38. On Friday, May 21, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Simon
Donald Grant, Vice President of Defendant,
telephoned the Plaintiffs to inquire about a rumor
that they were planning to terminate their
agreement with Defendant.
39. Mr. Grant was told by the Defendants that they
were leaving on Monday, May 24, 1999.
40. Mr. Grant reminded them about the notice
requirement that was written into their agreement
and their contractual obligation to return the
vehicle to Tennessee at that time.
41. Plaintiffs informed Mr. Grant that they did not
have time to return the vehicle and that it could
be picked up at Glen Moore Transport's location in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
42. Plaintiffs never gave proper notice of their
intention to terminate the agreement to Defendant
as was required by the agreement.
43. As a direct consequence of Plaintiffs' failure to
give Defendant such notice, Defendant suffered a
revenue loss of approximately $4388.00 because no
13
35. Plaintiffs' driving assignments were given to them
directly by Defendant's lessee Glen Moore
Transport.
36. Special satellite equipment was installed by Glen
Moore Transport in Defendant's vehicle so that
Plaintiffs could communicate directly with Glen
Moore Transport personnel to receive driving and
delivery instructions.
37. Since Defendant entered into the contractor
agreement with Plaintiffs, Defendant has issued to
them the following checks per dispatched miles
less reimbursements and advances:
Check No. Date Amount Miles
1229 1/25/99 $ 309.92 2,156
1241 2/05/99 $ 426.48 4,839
1253 2/13/99 $2575.04 7,874
1264 2/20/99 $1386.88 4,334
1272 2/24/99 $2724.44 8,467
1289 3/06/99 $1720.56 5,283
1347 3/27/99 $1876.16 5,863
1358 4/02/99 $ 881.70 2,685
1376 4/08/99 $2209.91 5,200
1392 4/16/99 $2147.28 6,522
1402 4/23/99 $1814.60 6,530
1414 4/26/99 $2078.40 6,495
12
replacement driver/ independent contractor could
be engaged to operate the vehicle.
44. Plaintiffs refused to return Defendant's vehicle
to Tennessee as was required by the agreement.
95. Plaintiffs abandoned the vehicle at Glen Moore
Transport's Carlisle, Pennsylvania location.
46. Because of the Plaintiffs' actions, Defendant was
required to expend $1986.00 to repair and clean
the vehicle and to return the vehicle to its
Tennessee location.
47. Plaintiffs failed to pay their worker's
compensation payment in the amount of $178 for the
month of May 1999 and such amount was deducted by
Glen Moore Transport from Defendant's payment.
48. Because payment of worker's compensation was the
responsibility of the Plaintiffs under the
contractor agreement, Plaintiffs are obligated to
reimburse the Defendant for this amount.
49. Plaintiffs terminated their contractor agreement
with Defendant so that they could work for Glen
Moore Transport as drivers.
50. Plaintiffs have made untrue and defamatory
statements about Defendant and Defendant's vice
President Simon Donald Grant to personnel at Glen
Moore Transport and other truck drivers since they
14
J
terminated their contractor agreement with
Defendant.
51. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' defamation,
Defendant pulled all eight (8) of the vehicles
that it leased to Glen Moore Transport out of
Pennsylvania on June 3, 1999. Only five (5)OF THE
eight (8) have been leased to other companies at
this time.
52. Because of Plaintiffs' defamation, Defendant has
suffered loss in reputation and should be
compensated in the amount of $5000 damages.
53. WHEREFORE, Defendant demand judgment against the
Plaintiffs in the amount of $11,052, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs, and any other relief the
Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney for Road Hog, Inc.,
De fendant
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
I.D. No. 37445
Dated: Julya71 1999
15
RasAIU CONTRACTOR AIGREEMMS
THE AGRZEbUM meals der -zft a dey of 5 A.d ,.,,.., .1919 by and bet eat
-_1k..`n-o._N_.-,, I A ? p, he oinaRer called the Contractor and
cal .r I
led the Owner. HN d WNl P P4 D? C_Q. t'S L? Q. V D A/?? I?I• fit, IyrOltt
t?o 3 C*L 12 7
Wlmeaeeth, that the Contractor and the Owner for the considerations named
agree of follows:
Ar" 1. goof the Work
The Contractor stall furnish all of the materials and perform all of the work shown on the Drawings and/or
described In the Speclflcadons entitled Exhibit A. as annexed hereto as it pertains to work to be perfored on
property at
Article Z Thne of Cmnptedou
The work to be performed under this Contract shall be commenced on or before Zo S'^ ..r 191 nd
shall be subsundsily completed on or before 13.6,,, 19 -Mme is of the essence. The following eonadlaut d
substantial commencement of work pursuant to this proposal and contract:
(SpedN) t .?+ 4 4 &'X 0 ? ` ? e.U n.r ? ?• ? Yy As s F.r ht..Q. a:a
Ar*k 3, The Contract Price
71ha pwW dull pay the Contractorfor the rmtRaosl and labor to be performed under the Contract the sum of
32 ek• par 0, %(& 6C . %'0& n 3:z Dollars (S ), subject to add1idom and
deductions purouam to authorized change orders. 9
o; s h?'c61e A -,% 6_^ S-. 4 0 , y k bah.. r
Ard& 1. Pagrw payments
i
Pay-Monts of dw Contract price shall be Id in the manner following:
B?17Y. 10141 s?- O rr•6ti. g., as
1 rsM
d..> /q?`oI (Z?e?1nSPR(,a D on ps " JSoL,
Ar" g. Gm M ProvWons
Any allocation or deviation from the above specifications, including but not limited to any such alteration a
deviation Involving additional material and/or labor costs, will be executed only upon a written order for same, signed
by Owner and Contractor, and if them is any charge for such alteration or deviation, the additional charge will be
added to the contract price of this contract.
If payment Is not made when due, Contractor may suspend work on the job until such time as all payments
due have boon made. A failure to make payment for a period in excess of p days from the
due date of the payment shall be deemed a material breach of this contract.
In addition, the following general provisions apply:
1. All work dull be completed in a workman-like manner and in compliance with all building codes and ocher
applicable laws.
2 The contractor shall furnish a plan and scale drawing showing the shape, sits dimensions, and
EXHIBIT construction and equipment specifications for home improvements, a description of the work to be done
and description of the materials to be used and the equipment to be used or installed, and the agreed
consideration for the work,
3. 7b the extent requited by law all work shall he performed by individuals duly licensed and authorized by law
A to perform said work.
4. Contractor may at Its discretion engage subcontractors to perform work hereunder, provided Contractor shall
fully pay said subcontractor and in all instances remain responsible for the proper completion of this Contract
3. Contractor shall furnish Owner appropriate releases or waivers of lien for all work performed or materials
provided at the time the next periodic payment "it he due,
6. All change orders shall be. in writing and signed both by Owner and Contractor, and shall be incorporated
in, aid become a psi of the contract . _ .. _
7. Contractor warrants It is adequately insured for injury to its employees and others incurring loss or injury as -..,
a result of the acts of Contractor or its employees or suhcomrsewlw
W'AUSS.es 60Me
work without broach pending payment or resolution of any dispute.
tl. All disputes hereunder stall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with rules of the American
Arbitradon Association.
12. Contractor shall not be liable for any delay due w circumstances beyond its control including strikes, casualty
or general unavailability of materials.
13. Contractor warrants ail work for a poriad of months following completion.
e?73Y W1i^II OFE " LMO W yo!rower, Urm you uu Ninform,rrdll. All In andrtlw wMam dwapm
1.¦¦?eee mW u mftulw Fnn, Conwa a U." mix It " yoU ,bLU taw f("'s m FW) M
and ut. to Rp" fa ur &21iMl trom>• mW rand tlw tlw msi rN. mob m no wpfMrrlM m m ?rrawy, r Inplina*li@L a
, with
rApn ere nwrtlrr?bllny of dds form fa m,mrwYd ua or pupar. (Weed 12"
AZHIK
Arft 6. AddMan IM M
To terminate this contract driver/contractors agree to give 14 days
nctice by certifeid mail. Failer to do so they forfeit all moneys
owed. Abandoment or failer to return truck to R.H. inc. shop,
Surgoinsville TN, they forfeit all moneys owed by signing this
agreement in TN. They a ree t
Name and Rglatrnion No. oT any alas ,,j A? }olAWjp6 MWtfilr contact:
Siptad ddr day Of .19
91p W in da prance of.
Nome wnar Nam ?f ?a?iaia
By. tae By: 31S ttae
l z &'?C a 7
ShiftAddmts :5&cFRDftl /aQ 7J?5"8
Uty/mAj p
'w / 0 7z/'g 'Tonle
7ETir rma7? -?T-
nneoto a tats canes No.
19S (,?NT?c?2s ??i??=?25 CSC iOrPc-=
u?4 007 Xs ?c=?c?r?L
0
fiND
R q I I5 NoT J2cs/_
Y8LU CATION
I
r are true and verify that the statements made in the within
atatementa here!" areoMade tsubje tdtoathe penalties of i0
Pa. C.S. Sec. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Simon Do.ald Ora
Vice President
Road Hog, Inc,
Vated: July211999
Z /6?. KLL/• it[YSYYffL/EBf9 i?1:?-ua.J "L0, e0 66-9L-zor SIT A645 'A u641HJwx1A
9 1u45
CECIL E. LANE, AND
JOANNE LANE
Plaintiffs
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of
the foregoing Complaint upon the person 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, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, first class, postage prepaid, as follows:
Thomas S. Sedwick, Esq.
McGraw, Hait and Deitchman
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
Z+I.G?-?C.aJ
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney I.D. # 37445
South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
Date: July 27, 1999
; :
-_- _
?
?'- =
?
, `
;- ??: ?'
.. ?;
?, ,.;
?. -:?
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CECIL E. LANE, AND CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOANNE LANE,
Plaintiffs
VS.
No.: 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
ROAD HOG, INC.
Defendant
PLAINTIFFS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER
AND NEW MATTER
COUNTI
DEFENDANT'S PLEADINGS FAIL TO CONFORM TO RULES OF COURT
1. In Paragraph 41 of Defendant's New Matter, it alleges: " Plaintiffs informed Mr.
Grant that they did not have time to return the vehicle and that it could be picked up
at Glen Moore Transport's location in Carlisle, Pennsylvania." A true and correct
copy of the New Matter is attached as Exhibit A.
2. In Paragraph 42 of Defendant's New Matter, it alleges: "Plaintiffs never gave proper
notice of their intention to terminate the agreement to Defendant as was required by
the agreement."
3. In Paragraph 43 of Defendant's New Matter it alleges: " As a direct consequence of
Plaintiffs' failure to give Defendant such notice, Defendant suffered a revenue loss of
approximately $ 4388.00 because no replacement driver/ independent contractor
could be engaged to operate the vehicle."
4. It appears that the Defendant is attempting to raise a counterclaim against the
Plaintiffs in Paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 of New Matter in the amount of $ 4388.00
5. If the Defendant has a counterclaim, it must be set forth in the answer under the
heading "Counterclaim" pursuant to Pa R.C.P. 1031(x).
6. If the Defendant is raising counterclaims they must be plead in separate causes of
action in separate counts pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1020(a).
7. Defendant's failure to set forth the claims in New Matter Paragraphs 41, 42, and 43,
under the heading "Counterclaim", and as separate causes of action in separate
counts, constitutes a failure to conform with rules of court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 41, 42, and 43 from its New Matter.
8. Paragraphs 1-8 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
9. In Paragraph 45 of the Defendant's New Matter it alleges: " Plaintiffs abandoned the
vehicle at Glen Moore Transport's Carlisle, Pennsylvania location."
10. In Paragraph 46 of the Defendant's New Matter it alleges: " Because of the Plaintiffs
actions, Defendant was required to expend $ 1486.00 to repair and clean the vehicle
and to return the vehicle to its Tennessee location."
11. It appears that the Defendant is attempting to raise a counterclaim against the
Plaintiffs in Paragraphs 45 and 46 of New Matter in the amount of $ 1486.00.
12. If the Defendant has a counterclaim, it must be set forth in the answer under the
heading "Counterclaim" pursuant to Pa R.C.P. 1031(a).
13. If the Defendant is raising counterclaims they must be plead in separate causes of
action in separate counts pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1020(a).
14. Defendant's failure to set forth the claims in New Matter Paragraphs 45 and 46 under
the heading "Counterclaim", and as separate causes of action in separate counts,
constitutes a failure to conform with rules of court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 45 and 46 from its New Matter.
15. Paragraphs 1-14 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
16. In Paragraph 47 of Defendant's New Matter, it alleges: "Plaintiffs failed to pay their
worker's compensation in the amount of $ 178 for the month of May 1999 and such
amount was deducted by Glen Moore Trucking from Defendant's payment."
17. In Paragraph 48 of Defendant's New Matter, it alleges: " Because of payment of
worker's compensation was the responsibility of Plaintiffs under the contractor
agreement, Plaintiffs are obligated to reimburse the Defendant for this amount."
18. It appears that the Defendant in Paragraphs 47 and 48 of New Matter is attempting to
raise a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs for $ 178.00
19. If the Defendant has a counterclaim, it must be set forth in the answer under the
heading "Counterclaim" pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031(a).
20. If the Defendant is raising counterclaims they must be plead in separate causes of
action in separate counts pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1020(a).
21. Defendant's failure to set forth the claims in New Matter Paragraphs 47 and 48 under
the heading "Counterclaim", and as separate causes of action in separate counts,
constitutes a failure to conform with rules of court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 47 and 48 from its New Matter.
22. Paragraphs 1-21 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
23. In Paragraph 50 of Defendant's New Matter, it alleges: " Plaintiffs have made untrue
and defamatory statements about Defendant and Defendant's Vice President Simon
Donald Grant to personnel at Glen Moore Transport and other truck drivers since they
terminated their agreement with Defendant."
24. In Paragraph 51 of Defendant's New Matter, it alleges: " As a consequence of
Plaintiffs' defamation Defendant pulled all eight (8) of the vehicles that it leased to
Glen Moore Transport out of Pennsylvania on June 3, 1999. Only five (5) OF THE
eight (8) have been leased to other companies at this time."
25. In Paragraph 52 of Defendant's New Matter, it alleges: " Because of Plaintiffs'
defamation, Defendant has suffered loss in reputation and should be compensated in
the amount of $ 5000 damages."
26. It appears that the Defendant is attempting to raise a counterclaim against the
Plaintiffs in Paragraphs 50, 51 and 52 of New Matter in the amount of $ 5000.00
27. If the Defendant has a counterclaim, it must be set forth in the answer under the
heading "Counterclaim" pursuant to Pa R.C.P. 1031(a).
28. If the Defendant is raising counterclaims they must be plead in separate causes of
action in separate counts pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1020(a).
29. Defendant failure to set forth the claims in New Matter Paragraphs 50, 51, and 52
under the heading "Counterclaim", and as separate causes of action in separate
counts, constitutes a failure to conform with rules of court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 50, 51, and 52 from its New Matter.
COUNT V
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
30. Paragraphs 1-29 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
31. The allegations in New Matter Paragraphs 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52 lack
sufficient specificity to enable Plaintiffs to form a response.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52 from its New Matter, or in the
alternative, that Defendant be ordered to file a more specific pleading.
COUNT VI
32. Paragraphs 1-31 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
33. The allegations in New Matter Paragraphs 41, 42, and 43 fail to state a cause of
action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 41, 42, and 43 from its New Matter.
COUNT VII
DEMURRER
34. Paragraphs 1- 33 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
35. The allegations in New Matter Paragraphs 45 and 46 fail to state a cause of action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
Paragraphs 45 and 46 from its New Matter.
COUNT VIII
DEMURRER
36. Paragraphs 1- 35 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
37. The allegations in New Matter Paragraphs 47 and 48 fail to state a cause of action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 47 and 48 from its New Matter.
COUNT IX
DEMURRER
38. Paragraphs 1- 37 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
39. The allegations in New Matter paragraphs 50, 51, and 52 fail to state a cause of
action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 50, 51, and 52 from its New Matter.
Respectfully submitted,
McGRA W, HAIT & DEITCHMAN
Attorney's for Plaintiff
Date: Qu 3 /q? E
r,
Thomas S. Sedwick
PA ID 81912
4 Liberty Avenue
(717) 249-4500
(717) 249-2411 (fax)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Preliminary Objections was served by U.S. First Class Mail on this date, to the parties
listed below at the following address:
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esquire
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Hate:,, 3. A g
`y2??1L i
NEW MATTER
31. On January 20, 1999, Plaintiffs and Defendant
entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiffs, as
independent contractors, agreed to drive
Defendant's vehicle for "the sum of $0.32 per
dispatched mile." A copy of this agreement is .
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit.
A.
32. Article 6 of the agreement provides that in order
to terminate the agreement, Plaintiffs were
required to give Defendant fourteen (14) days
notice by certified mail or forfeit any moneys due
and owing.
33. Article 6 of the contractor agreement also
provides that if the Plaintiffs failed to return
the truck to Defendant's location in Tennessee,
Plaintiffs would forfeit all moneys due to them.
34. Directly under the signature of Plaintiff Cecil
Lane in the agreement is handwritten the following
statement:
AS CONTRACTORS DRIVERS WE ARE
PAYING OUR [OWN?] TAXS FEDERAL
AND STATE.
RHI IS NOT RESPONSBLE EXHIBIT
HOWR WORKMANS COMP. I A
11
35. Plaintiffs' driving assignments were given to them
directly by Defendant's lessee Glen Moore
Transport.
36. Special satellite equipment was installed by Glen
Moore Transport in Defendant's vehicle so that
Plaintiffs could communicate directly with Glen
Moore Transport personnel to receive driving and
delivery instructions.
37. Since Defendant entered into the contractor
agreement with Plaintiff s, Defendant has issued to
them the following check s per dispatched miles
less reimbursements and advances:
Check No. Date Amount Miles
1229 1/25/99 $ 309.92 2,156
1241 2/05/99 $ 426.48 4,839
1253 2/13/99 $2575.04 7,674
1264 2/20/99 $1386.FB 4,334
1272 2/24/99 $2724.44 8,467
1289 3/06/99 $1720.56 5,283
1347 3/27/99 $1876.16 5,863
1356 4/02/99 $ 881.70 2,685
1376 4/08/99 $2209.91 5,200
1392 4/16/99 $2147.28 6,522
1402 4/23/99 $1814.60 6,530
1414 4/26/99 $2078.40 6,495
12
1424 5/06/99 $1773.94 5,817
1446 5/14/99
$1819.32 5,186
1462 5/21/99 $1947.97
5,867
38. On Friday', May 21, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Simon
Donald Grant, Vice President of Defendant,
telephoned the Plaintiffs to inquire about a rumor
that they were planning to terminate their
agreement with Defendant.
39. Mr. Grant was told by the Defendants that they
were leaving on Monday, May 24, 1998
40. Mr. Grant reminded them about the notice
requirement that was written into their agreement
and their contractual obligation to return the
vehicle to Tennessee at that time.
41. Plaintiffs informed Mr. Grant that they did not
have time to return the vehicle and that it could
be picked up at Glen Moore Transport's location in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
42. Plaintiffs never gave proper notice of their
intention to terminate the agreement to Defendant
as was required by the agreement.
43. As a direct consequence of Plaintiffs' failure to
give Defendant such notice, Defendant suffered a
revenue loss of approximately $4388.00 because no
13
replacement driver/ independent contractor could
be engaged to operate the vehicle.
44. Plaintiffs refused to return Defendant's vehicle
to Tennessee as was required by the agreement.
45. Plaintiffs abandoned the vehicle at Glen Moore
Transport's Carlisle, Pennsylvania location.
46. Because of the Plaintiffs' actions, Defendant was
required to expend $1486.00 to repair and clean
the vehicle and to return the vehicle to its
Tennessee location.
47. Plaintiffs failed to pay their worker's
compensation payment in the amount of $178 for the
month of May 1999 and such amount was deducted by
Glen Moore Transport from Defendant's payment.
48. Because payment of worker's compensation was the
responsibility of the Plaintiffs under the
contractor agreement, Plaintiffs are obligated to
reimburse the Defendant for this amount.
49. Plaintiffs terminated their contractor agreement
with Defendant so that they could work for Glen
Moore Transport as drivers.
50. Plaintiffs have made untrue and defamatory
statements about Defendant and Defendant's Vice
President Simon Donald Grant to personnel at Glen
Moore Transport and other truck drivers since they
14
terminated their contractor agreement with
Defendant.
51. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' defamation,
Defendant pulled all eight (8) of the vehicles
that it leased to Glen Moore Transport out of
Pennsylvania on June 3, 1999. Only five (5)OF THE
eight (8) have been leased to other companies at
this time.
52. Because of Plaintiffs' defamation, Defendant has
suffered loss in reputation and should be
compensated in the amount of $5000 damages.
53. WHEREFORE, Defendant demand judgment against the
Plaintiffs in the amount of $111052, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs, and any other relief the
Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Z+tltiGt.B?
Ka hleen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney for Road Hog, Inc.,
Defendant
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
I.D. No. 37445
Dated: Julya7, 1999
1s
1armAIN CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
THIS AORR MBIYP made the .L-" day of t2 sa..r ,,?
19 by and between
k- nos k 1.a 1 p, bwelaaner called the Contractor and 4 tween
cam do Owner. Awl Groff t a? o/ a e' ? t f, a. S o faNj 'I'Okfit,
90 3 1W 12 7
s rare,O., A.&,,r A t(ti. 7 21 to
Witnessedt. that the Convector and the wner for the considerations tented agree as follows:
Ardde L Scope of dw Work
7Ae Contractor shall furnish all of the materials and perform all of the work shown on the Drawings asdfor
described In the Specincadons entitled Exhibit A. as annexed hereto as it pertains to work to be performed on
property at
Ardek 2 'Ilse of Caap odor
7bo work to be performed under this Contract shall be commenced on or before Za S A ,j 19 t and
etel be vA*Andaily oompkW on or before 9.1,0. 19 - Tuna is of the emennce, 'flue following condttuto
substantial commenatnmt of work ptasuant to this propose and contract:
(specify) tMN? ; l 'f err. t e t? o t eJA.r J P. ?.? A S s ?,A t%ck t .J
p r M, L .(ai. A r-aw? .w 4J.
Ar" 3v The Could PdW
'fie Qwner aW pad the Contrncor for the tt wal and labor to be performed under the Contract the sum of
32 ck &..r Ol s& 1 a q.ss& n:,r z Dollars ($ 1 sweet to additions and
dedwtlom pu mot to m dtodrad change order. o; s I6+e+eNe.A 9-is lay," c-
O ,sr y dr?..e .r.
Ardds 4. Propwa Payments ,
Ptlytnettta Of the Contract Peke shill be d In the manner following:
G.«krnl,Eei A..4p jol.(,t 0 QAs •4xsb ?So r.' 5ZA.+.{,7,Z::./
Ardelle & (let stal PteYWAN
Any dteradon or devisdon from the above specifications, including but not limited to any such dteratioo or
deviation Involving additional material and/or labor costs, will be executed only upon a written order for same, signed
by Owner and Contractor, and If there is any charge for such alteration or deviation, the additional charge wW be
added to the contract price of this contract.
If payment Is not made when due. Contractor may suspend work on the job until such time as all payments
due have bum made. A felure to make payment for a period in excess of -..? O days from the
due data of On payment shall be deemed a material breech of this contract.
In addition, the following general provisions apply:
1. All work shall be completed In a workman like manner and in compliance with all building codes and other
applicable laws.
2 7% contractor shall furnish a plan and scale drawing showing the shape, size dimensions, and
EXHIBIT construction and equipment specifications for home improvements, a description of the work to be done
and descripdon of the materials to be used and the equipment to be used or installed, and the agreed
coasidetfdo t for the work.
3. 7b rite extort requfad by law ail work shall be performed by individuals duly licensed and authorized by law
A to perform said oak.
4. Contractor may at Its discretion engage subcontractors to perform work herournder, provided Contractor shall
filly pay said subcontractor and in all Instances remain responsible for the proper completion of this Contract.
!. Contractor shall fumish Owner appropriate roleases or waivers of lien for all work performed or materials
provided at the done the next periodic payment shall be due,
6. All change orders shall be In writing and signed bah by Owner and Contractor, and shall be incorporated
t_ .4 L------- _.. ..,
weAr ,kS Gar e
work withalt broach pending payment or resolution of may dispute.
It. All dispolift hersunder shall be resolved by binding arbitration In eccgddnoe with rules of the American
12. Contactorshall notbeliable foranydelay duetocircurnatinces beyond Its control including strikes, casualty
or 28MM un ift"Uty of materlalr.
13. Contractor warrants all work for a period of momhi following complgion.
?FiLYI?aw,luAW yiu uu eN fa y Md n. alt Nfn Niieti W wM rnwva dw" w
1NIeilrr?wplii. QrwuM i Nwyalfywdeubl nr fannYllMrri fa?rr
?y4 tiid 14? W IM eaYlw ?m4r ie erpwelWa a.r.wY. rgrw a Iwrw/reM?i1,
0 r nrpe dr my or?rOfm tarNNenerewarypy, lnirlrre lLD,q
ADM
At" R AddMisaal taw
To terminate this contract driver/contractors agree to give 14 days
notice by certifeid mail. Fairer to do so they forfeit all moneys
owed. Abandoment or failer to return truck to R.H. inc. shop,
Surgoineville TN, they forfeit all moneys owed by signing this
agreement in TN. Thee NNW
Natna and Rv&twIon No. tlf anA VQ IolNMMraWMthlt contract:
31psd qtly . clay of
elpad in do pnsmoe of
Sr .19
Man
eras ? trstxo
By:
Skft
a a
ut. Vww- o:.
/9s (?ONTq 25 ?4????=,?s Cvc ARCF
dQdgylN6 00?2 Of7 7?d':V-Xs Fz--.U5=R4C.
!d Al 0
(? I / 5 V o T i2 c sp>rr s l?G
#-0 top, o(e AIS
airac"I
I verify that the statements made in the within
Answer are true and correct. I underetand that false
etatemw:ts herein are made subject to the penalties of 19
Pa. C.B. Sec. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Simon Dv aid Ora
Vice PresidQnt
Road Hog, Inc.
Dated: aulyg1999
0
CECIL E. LANE, AND
JOANNE LANE
Plaintiffs
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of
the foregoing Complaint upon the person 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, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, first class, postage prepaid, as follows:
Thomas S. Sedwick, Esq.
McGraw, Hait and Deitchman
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
t.d.l.?c.a....J
K thleen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney I.D. # 37445
South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
Date: July 27, 1999
I
CECIL E. LANE, AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
JOANNE LANE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROAD HOG, INC. NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
NOTICE TO DEFEND
To: Cecil E. Lane and Joanne Lane,
Plaintiffs
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE to
the enclosed Amended Answer and Counterclaims in the above-
captioned matter within twenty (20) days after from service
hereof or a judgmenL may be entered against you.
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant,
Road Hog, Inc.
Attorney ID No. 37445
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
August 13, 1999
CECIL E. LANE, AND
JOANNE LANE
Plaintiffs
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
AND DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIMS
AND NOW, comes the defendant, Road Hog Inc. by its
attorney, Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esq., and files this
Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint and
Counterclaims and respectfully represents as follows:
Parties/Jurisdiction
1. It is admitted that Plaintiffs are adult
individuals and are husband and wife. Defendant
is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny
whether Plaintiffs continue to reside at 109 Grant
167089, Sheridan, AR 72150.
2. It is denied that Defendant is a Tennessee
corporation. To the contrary, Defendant is an
Alabama corporation conducting business at 1007
Church Lane, Surgoinsville, TN 37673. It is denied
that Defendant leased its "employees" to Glen
Moore Transport. To the contrary, Defendant
leased its `trucks" to Glen Moore Transport
pursuant to a written Equipment Lease Agreement.
Moreover, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs were "employees" of the Defendant.
Defendants were independent contractors of the
Defendant pursuant to a written contractor
agreement dated January 20, 1999.
3. Paragraph 3 of Petitioner's complaint is denied.
To the contrary, at all times material hereto,
Defendant acted through its independent
contractors who in turn were acting within the
course and scope of the provisions of the
contractor agreement with Defendant.
Venue
4. It is denied that Plaintiffs performed services for
Glen Moore Transport as truck drivers employed by
Defendant whose runs commenced and ended at Glen
Moore Transport in Cumberland County. To the
contrary, Plaintiffs performed services for Glen
Moore Transport as truck drivers not as employees
but as independent contractors of the Defendant
pursuant to an agreement entered into in
Tennessee. It is also denied that Plaintiffs'
"runs" commenced and ended at Glen Moore Transport
2
in Cumberland County. To the contrary, Glen Moore
Transport operates in 98 states a "run" could
commence and terminate anywhere in the continental
United States. Finally, the characterization of
the venue being appropriate in this forum is a
conclusion of law for which no answer is required.
COUNT I
Violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law
5. The answers to Paragraphs 1-9 are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
6. It is denied that on or about January 26, 1999,
the Defendant employed Plaintiffs as over the road
truck drivers. To the contrary, on January 20,
1999, the Defendant and the Plaintiffs entered
into a contractor agreement to drive Defendant's
trucks as independent contractors.
7. It is denied that Plaintiffs were directed by the
Defendant to report to other transport companies
to haul freight. To the contrary, Glen Moore
Transport specifically directed the Plaintiffs to
report to other transport companies to haul
freight. The remainder of Paragraph 7 is
admitted.
8. It is denied that on or about February 15, 1999,
Defendant contracted with Glen Moore Transport in
3
Carlisle, Pennsylvania to haul its freight. To
the contrary, on or about January 20, 1999,
Defendant and Glen Moore Transport entered into an
Equipment Lease pursuant to which Plaintiffs,
acting as independent contractors, hauled freight
for Glen Moore Transport using Defendant's
vehicle.
9. Admitted.
10. It is denied that on or about February 15, 1999 to
on or about May 24, 1999, Plaintiffs hauled
freight for Glen Moore Transport, at the direction
of Road Hog, Inc. To the contrary, Plaintiffs
received direction during that period only from
Glen Moore Transport and its dispatchers as to
where and when freight should be hauled pursuant
to Defendant's Equipment Lease.
11. Admitted.
12. It is denied that until May of 1999, Plaintiffs
were paid wages weekly by Defendant based upon the
number of miles driven. To the contrary, the
Plaintiffs did not receive wages but payments made
to them as independent contractors based upon the
number of dispatched miles driven pursuant to
their contractor agreement.
4
13. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 13
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
19. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 19
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
15. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 15
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
16. It is denied that Plaintiffs su bmitted their
mileage record to Defendant for each of the weeks
in question in accordance with the normal practice
between the parties. To the contrary, Plaintiffs
submitted their mileage records to Glen Moore
Transport and Glen Moore used those records were
used to make payment to Defendant.
17. It is denied that Defendant willfully failed to
pay the wages owed to the Plaintiffs for the work
for weeks ending May 15, May 22, and May 29, 1999.
To the contrary, any payments made to Plaintiffs
were not wages, but payments made to them as
independent contractors based upon the number of
5
miles driven as reported by Glen Moore Transport
to Defendant. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs
forfeited any rights to payment that they had by
breaching their contractor agreement in not giving
Defendant proper notice of termination of their
contract and by abandoning the Defendant's vehicle
in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
18. It is denied that the Plaintiffs resigned from
employment of Defendant on or about May 24, 1999.
To the contrary, Plaintiffs were not employees but
independent contractors. By way of further
answer, Plaintiffs informed Simon Donald Grant,
Vice President of Defendant, on Friday, May 21,
1999 at 7:00 p.m. in a telephone conversation that
they were abandoning their contractual obligations
effective Monday, May 24, 1999.
19. It is denied that 42 P.S. Sec 260.5 provides that
[w]henever an employee quits or resigns his
employment, the wages or compensation earned shall
become due and payable not later than the next
regular payday of his employer on which such wages
would otherwise be due and payable." To the
contrary, the language cited is found in 43 P.S.
sec 260.5. It is also denied that Defendant's
action violated this provision since the
6
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law does
not apply to independent contractors. Turk v.
Communications Design Inc.,
10 D. & C. 9`h 42
(1991). In the alternative, the erroneous
characterization of Defendant's action as
violating any provision of the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law is a conclusion of law
that requires no answer.
20. It is denied that Plaintiffs have suffered any
economic loss in the form of unpaid wages in any
amount. To the contrary, Defendant's payments to
Plaintiffs were made pursuant to a contractor
agreement and they forfeited any moneys owed to
them by the Defendant by failing to abide by the
terms of such agreement.
21. WHEREFORE, Defendant demand judgment against the
Plaintiffs, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
Count II
Breach of Contract
22. The answers to Paragraphs 1-22 are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
23. It is denied that on or about January 26, 1999
Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiffs $ 0.32 for
each mile driven using Road Hog Inc. truck cabs in
7
exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to haul freight
as a team for outside companies at the direction
of the Defendant. To the contrary, the contractor
agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant on January 20, 1999 in
Tennessee. Furthermore, pursuant to the
agreement, the Plaintiffs may have been directed
to take the truck initially to Glen Moore
Transport by Defendant but thereafter were
directed in hauling freight by Glen Moore
Transport, Defendant's lessee.
24. It is admitted that payments were made to
Defendants on a weekly basis, but it is denied
that the payments were based on miles driven for
the week. To the contrary, payments to Plaintiffs
were made by Defendant based solely on the timing
of the Plaintiffs' submission of their drivers'
bills of lading/proof of delivery to Glen Moore
Transport and Glen Moore Transport's submission of
payment to Defendant on a per dispatched mile
basis less any advances made by Defendant to
Plaintiffs. The remainder of Paragraph 24 is
admitted.
25. It is denied that Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs for the miles driven for the weeks
8
ending May 15, May 22, and May 29. To the
contrary, Defendant has no knowledge of how many
miles may have been driven by Plaintiffs on a
weekly basis. Furthermore, because of the payment
procedure established as described in Paragraph
24, Plaintiffs may have already been paid for some
of the mileage that they claim to have driven for
these weeks.
26. It is denied that Defendant's action has caused
great economic harm to Plaintiffs due to their
wage losses. To the contrary, the payments made
to Plaintiffs by the Defendant were not wages and
any economic harm to the Plaintiffs was caused by
their own actions, not by Defendant. In the
alternative, the characterization of Defendant's
action as causing any economic harm to the
Plaintiffs is a conclusion of law that requires no
answer.
27. It is denied that Defendant's failure to direct
deposit funds for the weeks ending May 15, May 22
and May 29, 1999 caused Plaintiffs to become
overdrawn in that account, resulting in bank fees
being assessed against Plaintiffs. To the
contrary, Defendant had no duty to directly
deposit any funds to Plaintiffs account after May
9
1999, the date that Plaintiffs breached their
24, after
contractor agreement- In the alternative,
endant is without
the Def
t.i
reasonable investigacm, th belief as to the
information to farm a
sufficient 27 and, if
f
truth of the allegation , Paragraph
material., strict proof is demanded.
agreement with
20 It is denied that there was any
Defendant to deposit funds into the plaintiffs'
basis upon which the
checking account on a weekly
reliance, especially
tiffs could claim any
plain
the contractor the plaintiffs' breach of f,
j
agr ted that, based on past
agreement. It is admit
plaintiffs were
yment
practices, any pas due
Defendant into plaintiffs' ?;.
directly deposited by
In the alternative, after
checking account, without t
reasonable investigation, the Defendant is,
to the
sufficient information to form a belief as +*?
truth of the allegation and, if material, strict
proof is demanded the Defendant is
29, After reasonable investigation, belief as
to form a
without suEfici.ent information
truth of the allegation of paragraph 29
to the and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
ertfully requests this
30. WHEREFORE, Defendant: resp
Honorable Court to enter judgment for the
10
Defendant, dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint
and awarding the Defendant costs, expenses and
attorneys fees for the defense of this frivolous
action and such other relief the Court deems just,
proper and equitable.
NEW MATTER
31. Paragraphs 1 - 30 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
32. On January 20, 1999, Plaintiffs and Defendant
entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiffs, as
independent contractors, agreed to drive
Defendant's vehicle for "the sum of $0.32 per
dispatched mile." A copy of this agreement is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
A.
33. Article 6 of the agreement provides that in order
to terminate the agreement, Plaintiffs were
required to give Defendant fourteen (14) days
notice by certified mail or forfeit any moneys due
and owing.
34. Article 6 of the contractor agreement also
provides that if the Plaintiffs failed to return
the truck to Defendant's location in Tennessee,
Plaintiffs would forfeit all moneys due to them.
35. Directly under the signature of Plaintiff Cecil
Lane in the agreement is handwritten the following
statement:
AS CONTRACTORS DRIVERS WE ARE
PAYING OUR [OWN?] TARS FEDERAL
AND STATE.
RHI IS NOT RESPONSBLE
HOWR WORKMANS COMP.
36. Plaintiffs' driving assignments were given to them
directly by Defendant's lessee Glen Moore
Transport.
37. Special satellite equipment was installed by Glen
Moore Transport in Defendant's vehicle so that
Plaintiffs could communicate directly with Glen
Moore Transport personnel to receive driving and
delivery instructions.
38. Glen Moore decals were installed along the sides
of the tractor cabs.
39. Since Defendant entered into the contractor
agreement with Plaintiffs, Defendant has issued to
them the following checks per dispatched miles
less reimbursements and advances:
Check No. Date Amount Miles
1229 1/25/99 $ 309.92 2,156
1241 2/05/99 $ 426.48 4,839
12
1253 2/13/99 $2575.04 7,874
1264 2/20/99 $1386.88 4,334
1272 2/24/99 $2724.44 8,467
1289 3/06/99 $1720.56 5,283
1347 3/27/99 $1876.16 5,863
1358 4102199 $ 881.70 2,685
1376 4/08/99 $2209.91 5,200
1392 4/16/99 $2147.28 6,522
1402 4/23/99 $1814.60 6,530
1414 4/26/99 $2078.40 6,495
1424 5/06/99 $1773.94 5,817
1446 5/14/99 $1814.32 5,186
1462 5/21/99 $1947.47 5,867
40. On Friday, May 21, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Simon
Donald Grant, Vice President of Defendant,
telephoned the Plaintiffs to inquire about a rumor
that they were planning to terminate their
agreement with Defendant.
41. The Defendants told Mr. Grant that they were
leaving on Monday, May 24, 1999.
42. Mr. Grant reminded them about the notice
requirement that was written into their agreement
and their contractual obligation to return the
vehicle to Tennessee at that time.
13
43. Plaintiffs informed Mr. Grant that they did not
have time to return the vehicle and that it could
be picked up at Glen Moore Transport's location in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
COUNT I
COUNTERCLAIM
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Failure to Give Notice of Termination
44. Paragraphs 1 - 43 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
45. Article 6 of the agreement provides that in order
to terminate the agreement, Plaintiffs were
required to give Defendant fourteen (14) days
notice by certified mail or forfeit any moneys due
and owing.
46. Plaintiffs never gave proper notice of their
intention to terminate the agreement to Defendant
as was required by the agreement.
47. As a direct consequence of Plaintiffs' failure to
give Defendant such notice, Defendant suffered a
revenue loss of approximately $4388.00 because no
replacement driver/ independent contractor could
be engaged to operate the vehicle.
48. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
14
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
of $9388.00, reasonable attorney's fees, costs,
and any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
COUNT II
COUNTERCLAIM
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Failure to Return Vehicle
99. Paragraphs 1 - 98 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
50. The vehicle, a 1999 International Eagle Pro
Sleeper. VIN ff 2H8FHAER5XCO86769, driven by
Plaintiffs pursuant to their contract with the
Defendant was brand new when the Plaintiffs took
delivery of it on Defendant's behalf from the
truck dealer's lot.
51. Plaintiffs refused to return Defendant's vehicle
to Tennessee as was required by the agreement.
52. Plaintiffs abandoned the vehicle at Glen Moore
Transport's Carlisle, Pennsylvania location.
53. Because of the Plaintiffs' actions, Defendant was
required to travel to Carlisle to retrieve the
vehicle on May 26, 1999.
59. Because of the Plaintiffs' actions, Defendant was
required to expend the following amounts to return
the vehicle to its Tennessee location: $228.00 in
15
mileage costs for an automobile for Defendant's
personnel to travel 912 miles (round trip between
Tennessee to Carlisle); $364.80 in mileage costs
for the return of the vehicle (456 miles); and
$300 in personnel costs.
55. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
of $892.80, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
COUNT III
COUNTERCLAIM
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Failure to Pay Workman's Compensation
56. Paragraphs 1 - 55 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
57. Plaintiffs failed to pay their worker's
compensation payment in the amount of $178.00 for
the month of May 1999 and such amount was deducted
by Glen Moore Transport from Defendant's payment.
58. Because payment of worker's compensation was the
responsibility of the Plaintiffs under the
contractor agreement, Plaintiffs are obligated to
reimburse the Defendant for this amount.
16
59. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
$178.00, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
COUNT IV
COUNTERCLAIM
Plaintiffs' Damage to and
Abuse of Defendant's vehicle
60. Paragraphs 1 - 59 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
61. While in their exclusive possession and operation
of Defendant's vehicle, Plaintiffs abused and
negligently damaged Defendant's new vehicle.
62. Those damages include, inter alia, damaging the
cab air line ride system; destroying the left rear
mudflap and its bracket; denting the chrome along
both the left and right sides of the vehicle;
installing plywood on the flat surfaces of the
vehicle; and heavily soiling the inside carpeting
and other inside surfaces of the vehicle.
63. Because of the Plaintiffs' actions, Defendant was
required to expend the following amounts to repair
and clean the vehicle: $125.00 for removing the
plywood and cleaning the vehicle; $113.00 for in
17
j repair costs paid to Landmark International
Trucks, Inc. in Knoxville, Tennessee; $155.00 in
JJ mileage costs for the 194 mile round trip between
I
Surgoinsville and Knoxville; and $200.00 in
personnel costs.
64. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
of $593.00, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
COUNT IV
COUNTERCLAIM
Defamation
42 Pa. C.S. 5 8341 et aea.
65. Paragraphs 1 - 64 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein,
66. Plaintiffs terminated their contractor agreement
with Defendant so that they could work for Glen
Moore Transport, Defendant's Lessee, as drivers.
67. Plaintiffs negligently and maliciously made untrue
and defamatory statements about Defendant and
Defendant's Vice President Simon Donald Grant to
personnel at Glen Moore Transport and other truck
drivers since they terminated their contractor
agreement with Defendant.
18
68. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' defamation,
Defendant pulled all eight (8) of the vehicles
that it leased to Glen Moore Transport out of
Pennsylvania on June 3, 1999. Only five (5) of
the eight (8) have been leased to other companies
at this time.
69. Because of Plaintiffs' defamation, Defendant has
suffered loss in reputation and should be
compensated in the amount of $5000 damages.
70. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
$5,000.00, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Kat leen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney for Road Hog, Inc.,
Defendant
99 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 293-6655
I.D. No. 37995
Dated: August 13, 1999
19
aow Ir aow ? ! a `' 21i,?•,hr a Me on comb ow am
"`""3 • !i ?9 dY..e wow,
Aw T?,? CL&AL a ?ToANJ ?.AN YIMOt
pwomaw, der 16e Commmobr rated Nr lb?tbe * ? Zi to
Aollole fb gwpaaf tAo rNtrlt tenured apw w Wdbwm
or
dMtafbdd u ?gdadM '"0116d ?
manta hood it "?` "O° d1e iW ams;hr
> 4? rat A. w pmddne lo wft 0 be p am
ArMMe1 71Yw??Mt?mm
AM wat 10 bs pArlbmmd umdr deb
ebmN baabmlmyldb, oemvlmrd as er br6Am ? nawk sail b, oamnemdad a a beQro 2. fT?.,? , isa f aad .
/tatowa1111 amtuworttem of waft b dtY propwd wd aatwaot; b oOUr aeoeeoe, ? ?pN'LV
pif,A1?1. G. gA.4.A4'sC1A~ Q?.??Lt As 1???{cR ?:?
31.k 0 d j w .? MW SW Mw to be pwh wdu dr d» Dent of
tram W"
IL DOOM
dt?pl°"°AMlt kyww?? airs o
il?i?+eMA..A sta.. sr. I b w
9, owcotemgtUMbedemrbm In d„
S
go ?M
-J ,r.w1v.
a "DOW nl1?Lv o pw u, ?KN
Amt*A fiAOlonl
Amy d datum or devlst liom des above
6'wad bvdv* mldmmw WMW WA* Imbar spW&* ' laol O but nsA Ibof lU to any emob ab % mop of
Owow amd ty Omenr, Arad If 111" b an MU will b fy npoa a wrWro arch Ibr vent e4mee
by tidfil b t10 ommY110t pflw d tbi oaewmr Y 40p Ibr mwh aiwtarailW ad adUoa or &vladom, Ur adNoael dup wig be
!lp?ytdmm b mat nAmde wbm der, Costraota
dw,tare beam s0de A Albets b mob awy rjgWW wak OR IM A UAW Ach Unn a all pgnwm
dw doh of ob pq m W dM be deotad o mtoosrbl 6raer W ah of Ut *b to oazaep of
Q days flsm die
astraat.
L adillow AN Wok Meg ftwiq l pow a? voy:
ddpuw* (wrr "0f l`""" lU' O Wm nW In +ano. wun all adlmat aoV,e.ma aft
A "0 "WOW A6a,t ft dab a pyd ad mb drawl
eoOftoll m add equfpmwt awl ltm for baao ? AvwN me &M ride womo s ad &wwnofft EX H I B I T ad &=?t* of ft
* W be comes ad tb agnf ipo" 10 yo Wd or l mW 00 o"M
"WWWW" for 61 vat
lowillmooldwat
A io domm bylaw an wait wu be prrib,d,W by fadiNatw dob gosneod and mdb„iwd by lM wAmrAmwmm A* PIW MW NbOOW +• C
me,o IW mU I odp ad In a wpm work bwmm*, PWMW CmmoW tier WPFCPAM !. vwnm 1
pal #A ? 6" w MW6 M met ddommin ll be U&r do pmW COSOMM '° lbr All walk priar,rdado?r Coofta
mawi*
adr. aheu be in wrdad Arad dpwd 6otl, by ownrr rad Conudo0r. and rirg b I.,,,w,,,r,A
t 1. All ANA Mmudw dbil b noolwd by Aludla' ?NiMlon In ?uooid.no? wllh nJa of do A!wled
IL Clo?baNdwHrootbIWAftrmWddgydwrodmumwwnboyo IWCO uoll n W omft
17. C M*Ai r iU wpt fbra MW of mmab w "ft "ft o vwm
srst.N?..?wrrrwww.M?wwwa MWo?r1?YMwrwNpPrw
w+a?."rwr ftw%N& 4w
? mwwUwrrYY/?wmlrnlwny/?r?wra«iMMrO,a?MMwrMM¦MILMM
A" a11aU 1?
To terminate this contract driver/contracto;s agree to give 14 days
notice by certifeid mail. Faller to do so they forfeit all moneys
owed. Abandoment or faller to return truck to R.B. inc shay,
Burgoinsvills TN,Ththey forfeit all moneys owed by signing this
agreement is Nasd?Ww wwwp bll lAw ldiN aoaroot
oww aM
ON of
19
a1MsdMle?siseaB
WNW
45 (3ax)1-#pc*Q'S ?/LI d???S l?G? /d RL-
OUK 04? 74Xs ICt=n?R?L
0. ST vlE
G,gpls'J? S ?L?
? R
4 lUo T
15
CA)
Sent by.K4Lh L44n K. Sh44114 AW9-06-99 091184n (,on 717243661044233454116 .42334 .494 2
VERIFICATION
I verify that tha Statements made in the withill
Rnnwer and Now Matter are trice and correct. 7 understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Sec. §4904 relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
Simon nald Grant
Vice President
Road Hog, Inc.
Dated: Mqueti37.999
CECIL E. LANE, AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
JOANNE LANE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
VS. CIVIL ACTION -- LAW
ROAD HOG, INC. NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of
the foregoing Amended Answer and Counterclaims upon the
person 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, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first class, postage
prepaid, as follows:
Thomas S. Sedwick, Esq.
McGraw, Hait and Deitchman
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
Kathleen K. Sha'lis, Esq.
Attorney I.D. # 37445
South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
Date: August 13, 1999
,.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CECIL E. LANE, AND CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JOANNE LANE,
Plaintiffs
VS.
No.: 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
ROAD HOG, INC.
Defendant
PLAINTIFFS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S
COUNTERCLAIMS
COUNTI
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
1. The allegations in Defendant's Counterclaim Paragraphs 61, 62, 63 and 64 lack
sufficient specificity to enable Plaintiffs to form a response.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 61, 62, 63, and 64 from its Counterclaim, or in the alternative, that Defendant
be ordered to file a more specific pleading.
COUNT II
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
2. Paragraph 1 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
3. The allegations in Defendant's Counterclaim Paragraphs 66, 67, 68, and 69 lack
sufficient specificity to enable Plaintiffs to form a response.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be required to strike
paragraphs 66, 67, 68, and 69 from its Counterclaim, or in the alternative, that Defendant
be ordered to file a more specific pleading.
COUNT III
DEMURRER
4. Paragraphs 1-3 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
5. The allegations in Defendant's Counterclaim Paragraphs 57, 58 and 59 fail to state a
cause of action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the claims set
forth in paragraphs 57, 58, and 59 from its Counterclaim.
COUNT IV
DEMURRER
6. Paragraphs 1-5 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
7. The allegations in Defendant's Counterclaim Paragraphs 61, 62, 63 and 64 fail to
state a cause of action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the claims set
forth in paragraphs 61, 62, 63, and 64 from its Counterclaim.
COUNT V
DEMURRER
8. Paragraphs 1-7 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
9. The allegations in Defendant's Counterclaim Paragraphs 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70 fail to
state a cause of action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the claims set
forth in paragraphs 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70 from its Counterclaim.
Date: Guy ly'/ Q 9
Respectfully submitted,
McGRA W, HAIT & DUTCHMAN
Attorney's for Plaintiff
izj
Thomas S. Sedwick
PA ID 81912
4 Liberty Avenue
(717) 249-4500
(717) 249-2411 (fax)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Preliminary Objections was served by U.S. First Class Mail on this date, to the parties
listed below at the following address:
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esquire
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: SIP, Il 9/ J?2w22?a
} nl
c
`` m
1
L7
CJ C.+
( J
CECIL E. LANE, AND JOANNE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LANE, Plaintiffs : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROAD HOG, INC. NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
NOTICE TO DEFEND
To: Cecil E. Lane and Joanne Lane, Plaintiffs
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE to
the Answer to Complaint and Defendant's Second Amended
Counterclaims in the above-captioned matter within twenty
(20) days after service hereof or a judgment may be entered
against you.
i
Kat?hlecn K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney ID No. 37445
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
Date: August 31, 1999
CECIL E. LANE, AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
JOANNE LANE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROAD HOG, INC. NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
AND DEFENDANT'S SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
AND NOW, comes the defendant, Road Hog Inc. by its
attorney, Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esq., and files this
Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Second Amended
Counterclaims and respectfully represents as follows:
Parties/Jurisdiction
1. It is admitted that Plaintiffs are adult
individuals and are husband and wife. Defendant
is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny
whether Plaintiffs continue to reside at 104 Grant
167089, Sheridan, AR 72150.
2. It is denied that Defendant is a Tennessee
corporation. To the contrary, Defendant is an
Alabama corporation conducting business at 1007
Church Lane, Surgoinsville, TN 37873. It is denied
that Defendant leased its "employees" to Glen
Moore Transport. To the contrary, Defendant
leased its "trucks" to Glen Moore Transport
pursuant to a written Equipment Lease Agreement.
Moreover, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs were "employees" of the Defendant.
Defendants were independent contractors of the
Defendant pursuant to a written contractor
agreement dated January 20, 1999.
3. Paragraph 3 of Petitioner's complaint is denied.
To the contrary, at all times material hereto,
Defendant acted through its independent
contractors who in turn were acting within the
course and scope of the provisions of the
contractor agreement with Defendant.
4. It is denied that Plaintiffs performed services for
Glen Moore Transport as truck drivers employed by
Defendant whose runs commenced and ended at Glen
Moore Transport in Cumberland County. To the
contrary, Plaintiffs performed services for Glen
Moore Transport as truck drivers not as employees
but as independent contractors of the Defendant
pursuant to an agreement entered into in
Tennessee. It is also denied that Plaintiffs'
"runs" commenced and ended at Glen Moore Transport
in Cumberland County. To the contrary, Glen Moore
Transport operates in 48 states a "run" could
commence and terminate anywhere in the continental
United States. Finally, the characterization of
the venue being appropriate in this forum is a
conclusion of law for which no answer is required.
COUNT I
Violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law
5. The answers to Paragraphs 1-9 are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
6. It is denied that on or about January 26, 1999,
the Defendant employed Plaintiffs as over the road
truck drivers. To the contrary, on January 20,
1999, the Defendant and the Plaintiffs entered
into a contractor agreement to drive Defendant's
trucks as independent contractors.
7. It is denied that Plaintiffs were directed by the
Defendant to report to other transport companies
to haul freight. To the contrary, Glen Moore
Transport specifically directed the Plaintiffs to
report to other transport companies to haul
freight. The remainder of Paragraph 7 is
admitted.
8. It is denied that on or about February 15, 1999,
Defendant contracted with Glen Moore Transport in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania to haul its freight. To
the contrary, on or about January 20, 1999,
Defendant and Glen Moore Transport entered into an
Equipment Lease pursuant to which Plaintiffs,
acting as independent contractors, hauled freight
for Glen Moore Transport using Defendant's
vehicle.
9. Admitted.
10. It is denied that on or about February 15, 1999 to
on or about May 24, 1999, Plaintiffs hauled
freight for Glen Moore Transport, at the direction
of Road Hog, Inc. To the contrary, Plaintiffs
received direction during that period only from
Glen Moore Transport and its dispatchers as to
where and when freight should be hauled pursuant
to Defendant's Equipment Lease.
11. Admitted.
12. It is denied that until May of 1999, Plaintiffs
were paid wages weekly by Defendant based upon the
number of miles driven. To the contrary, the
Plaintiffs did not receive wages but payments made
to them as independent contractors based upon the
number of dispatched miles driven pursuant to
their contractor agreement.
13. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 13
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
14. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 14
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
15. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 15
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
16. It is denied that Plaintiffs submitted their
mileage record to Defendant for each of the weeks
in question in accordance with the normal practice
between the parties. To the contrary, Plaintiffs
submitted their mileage records to Glen Moore
Transport and Glen Moore used those records were
used to make payment to Defendant.
17. It is denied that Defendant willfully failed to
pay the wages owed to the Plaintiffs for the work
for weeks ending May 15, May 22, and May 29, 1999.
To the contrary, any payments made to Plaintiffs
were not wages, but payments made to them as
independent contractors based upon the number of
miles driven as reported by Glen Moore Transport
to Defendant. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs
forfeited any rights to payment that they had by
breaching their contractor agreement in not giving
Defendant proper notice of termination of their
contract and by abandoning the Defendant's vehicle
in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
18. It is denied that the Plaintiffs resigned from
employment of Defendant on or about May 24, 1999.
To the contrary, Plaintiffs were not employees but
independent contractors. By way of further
answer, Plaintiffs informed Simon Donald Grant,
vice President of Defendant, on Friday, May 21,
1999 at 7:00 p.m. in a telephone conversation that
they were abandoning their contractual obligations
effective Monday, May 24, 1999.
19. It is denied that 42 P.S. Sec 260.5 provides that
[w]henever an employee quits or resigns his
employment, the wages or compensation earned shall
become due and payable not later than the next
regular payday of his employer on which such wages
would otherwise be due and payable." To the
contrary, the language cited is found in 43 P.S.
sec 260.5. It is also denied that Defendant's
action violated this provision since the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law does
not apply to independent contractors. Turk v.
CQMM>nir tij D inn Ins , 10 D. & C. 4th 42
(1991). In the alternative, the erroneous
characterization of Defendant's action as
violating any provision of the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law is a conclusion of law
that requires no answer.
20. It is denied that Plaintiffs have suffered any
economic loss in the form of unpaid wages in any
amount. To the contrary, Defendant's payments to
Plaintiffs were made pursuant to a contractor
agreement and they forfeited any moneys owed to
them by the Defendant by failing to abide by the
terms of such agreement.
21. WHEREFORE, Defendant demand judgment against the
Plaintiffs, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
22. The answers to Paragraphs 1-22 are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
23. It is denied that on or about January 26, 1999
Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiffs $ 0.32 for
each mile driven using Road Hog Inc. truck cabs in
exchange for Plaintiffs' agreement to haul freight
as a team for outside companies at the direction
of the Defendant. To the contrary, the contractor
agreement was entered into between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant on January 20, 1999 in
Tennessee. Furthermore, pursuant to the
agreement, the Plaintiffs may have been directed
to take the truck initially to Glen Moore
Transport by Defendant but thereafter were
directed in hauling freight by Glen Moore
Transport, Defendant's lessee.
24. It is admitted that payments were made to
Defendants on a weekly basis, but it is denied
that the payments were based on miles driven for
the week. To the contrary, payments to Plaintiffs
were made by Defendant based solely on the timing
of the Plaintiffs' submission of their drivers'
bills of lading/proof of delivery to Glen Moore
Transport and Glen Moore Transport's submission of
payment to Defendant on a per dispatched mile
basis less any advances made by Defendant to
Plaintiffs. The remainder of Paragraph 24 is
admitted.
25. It is denied that Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs for the miles driven for the weeks
ending May 15, May 22, and May 29. To the
contrary, Defendant has no knowledge of how many
miles may have been driven by Plaintiffs on a
weekly basis. Furthermore, because of the payment
procedure established as described in Paragraph
24, Plaintiffs may have already been paid for some
of the mileage that they claim to have driven for
these weeks.
26. It is denied that Defendant's action has caused
great economic harm to Plaintiffs due to their
wage losses. To the contrary, the payments made
to Plaintiffs by the Defendant were not wages and
any economic harm to the Plaintiffs was caused by
their own actions, not by Defendant. In the
alternative, the characterization of Defendant's
action as causing any economic harm to the
Plaintiffs is a conclusion of law that requires no
answer.
27. It is denied that Defendant's failure to direct
deposit funds for the weeks ending May 15, May 22
and May 29, 1999 caused Plaintiffs to become
overdrawn in that account, resulting in bank fees
being assessed against Plaintiffs. To the
contrary, Defendant had no duty to directly
deposit any funds to Plaintiffs account after May
24, 1999, the date that Plaintiffs breached their
contractor agreement. In the alternative, after
reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without
sufficient information to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegation of Paragraph 27 and, if
material, strict proof is demanded.
28. It is denied that there was any agreement with
Defendant to deposit funds into the Plaintiffs'
checking account on a weekly basis upon which the
Plaintiffs could claim any reliance, especially
given the Plaintiffs' breach of the contractor
agreement. It is admitted that, based on past
practices, any payments due Plaintiffs were
i
:'h
directly deposited by Defendant into Plaintiffs'
checking account. In the alternative, after
reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without
sufficient information to form a belief as to the
truth of the allegation and, if material, strict
proof is demanded
29. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is
without sufficient information to form a belief as
to the truth of the allegation of Paragraph 29
and, if material, strict proof is demanded.
30. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to enter judgment for the
Defendant, dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint
and awarding the Defendant costs, expenses and
attorneys fees for the defense of this frivolous
action and such other relief the Court deems just,
proper and equitable.
NEW MATTER
31. Paragraphs 1 - 30 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
32. On January 20, 1999, Plaintiffs and Defendant
entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiffs, as
independent contractors, agreed to drive
Defendant's vehicle for "the sum of $0.32 per
dispatched mile." A copy of this agreement is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
A.
33. Article 6 of the agreement provides that in order
to terminate the agreement, Plaintiffs were
required to give Defendant fourteen (14) days
notice by certified mail or forfeit any moneys due
and owing.
34. Article 6 of the contractor agreement also
provides that if the Plaintiffs failed to return
the truck to Defendant's location in Tennessee,
Plaintiffs would forfeit all moneys due to them.
35. Directly under the signature of Plaintiff Cecil
Lane in the agreement is handwritten the following
statement:
AS CONTRACTORS DRIVERS WE ARE
PAYING OUR (OWN?] TAXS FEDERAL
AND STATE.
RHI IS NOT RESPONSBLE
HOWR WORKMANS COMP.
36. Plaintiffs' driving assignments were given to them
directly by Defendant's lessee Glen Moore
Transport.
37. Special satellite equipment was installed by Glen
Moore Transport in Defendant's vehicle so that
Plaintiffs could communicate directly with Glen
Moore Transport personnel to receive driving and
delivery instructions.
38. Glen Moore decals were installed along the sides
of the tractor cabs.
39. Since Defendant entered into the contractor
agreement with Plaintiffs, Defendant has issued to
them the following checks per dispa tched miles
less reimbursements and advances:
Chec k No. Date Amount Miles
1229 1/25/99 $ 309.92 2,156
1241 2/05/99 $ 426.48 4,839
1253 2/13/99 $2575.04 7,874
1264 2/20/99 $1386.88 4,334
1272 2/24/99 $2724.44 8,467
1289 3/06/99 $1720.56 5,283
1347 3/27/99 $1876.16 5,863
1358 4/02/99 $ 881.70 2,685
1376 4/08/99 $2209.91 5,200
1392 4/16/99 $2147.28 6,522
1402 4/23/99 $1814.60 6,530
1414 4/26/99 $2078.40 6,495
1424 5/06/99 $1773.94 5,817
1446 5/14/99 $1814.32 5,186
1462 5/21/99 $1947.47 5,867
40. on Friday, May 21, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., Simon
Donald Grant, Vice President of Defendant,
telephoned the Plaintiffs to inquire about a rumor
that they were planning to terminate their
agreement with Defendant.
41. The Defendants told Mr. Grant that they were
leaving on Monday, May 24, 1999.
42. Mr. Grant reminded them about the notice
requirement that was written into their agreement
and their contractual obligation to return the
vehicle to Tennessee at that time.
43. Plaintiffs informed Mr. Grant that they did not
have time to return the vehicle and that it could
be picked up at Glen Moore Transport's location in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
44. Paragraphs 1 - 43 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
45. Article 6 of the agreement provides that in order
to terminate the agreement, Plaintiffs were
required to give Defendant fourteen (14) days
notice by certified mail or forfeit any moneys due
and owing.
46. Plaintiffs never gave proper notice of their
intention to terminate the agreement to Defendant
as was required by the agreement.
47. As a direct consequence of Plaintiffs' failure to
give Defendant such notice, Defendant suffered a
revenue loss of approximately $9388.00 because no
replacement driver/ independent contractor could
be engaged to operate the vehicle.
98. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
of $9388.00, reasonable attorney's fees, costs,
and any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
99. Paragraphs 1 - 98 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
50. The vehicle, a 1999 International Eagle Pro
Sleeper, VIN # 2H8FHAER5YCO86769, driven by
Plaintiffs pursuant to their contract with the
Defendant was brand new when the Plaintiffs took
delivery of it on Defendant's behalf from the
truck dealer's lot.
51. Plaintiffs refused to return Defendant's vehicle
to Tennessee as was required by the agreement.
52. Plaintiffs abandoned the vehicle at Glen Moore
Transport's Carlisle, Pennsylvania location.
I
53. Because of the Plaintiffs' actions, Defendant was
required to travel to Carlisle to retrieve the
vehicle on May 26, 1999.
54. Because of the Plaintiffs' actions, Defendant was
required to expend the following amounts to return
the vehicle to its Tennessee location: $228.00 in
mileage costs for an automobile for Defendant's
personnel to travel 912 miles (round trip between
Tennessee to Carlisle) ; $364.80 in mileage costs
for the return of the vehicle (456 miles); and
$300 in personnel costs.
55. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
of $892.80, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
COUNT TTT
COUHT.RCL&
BREACH OF roNTgMT
Failure to??n„? j Workm 8
.Rensat on
56. Paragraphs 1 - 55 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
57. On January 20, 1999, Plaintiffs and Defendant
entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiffs, as
independent contractors, agreed to drive
Defendant's vehicle for "the sum of $0.32 per
dispatched mile."
58. Directly under the signature of Plaintiff Cecil
Lane in the agreement is handwritten the following
statement:
AS CONTRACTORS DRIVERS WE ARE
PAYING OUR [OWN?] TAXS FEDERAL
AND STATE.
RHI IS NOT RESPONSBLE
HOWR WOREMANS COMP.
59. Plaintiffs failed to pay their worker's
compensation payment in the amount of $178.00 for
the month of May 1999 and such amount was deducted
by Glen Moore Transport from Defendant's payment.
60. Because payment of worker's compensation was the
responsibility of the Plaintiffs under the
contractor agreement with Defendant, Plaintiffs
are obligated to reimburse the Defendant for this
amount.
61. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
$178.00, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
Plaintiffs' Damagg to and
Abuse of Defendant's Vehicle
62. Paragraphs 1 - 61 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
63. The vehicle, a 1999 International Eagle Pro
Sleeper, VIN # 2H8FHAER5XC086769, driven by
Plaintiffs pursuant to their contract with the
Defendant was brand new when the Plaintiffs took
delivery of it on Defendant's behalf from Dietrich
International Truck, San Bernadino, California on
March 12, 1999.
64. While in their exclusive possession and operation
of Defendant's vehicle, Plaintiffs abused and
negligently damaged Defendant's new vehicle.
65. Those damages include, inter alia, damaging the
cab air line ride system; destroying the left rear
mudflap and its bracket; denting the chrome along
both the left and right sides of the vehicle;
installing plywood on the flat surfaces of the
vehicle; and heavily soiling the inside carpeting
and other inside surfaces of the vehicle.
66. James and Sandra Lassiter, two of Defendant's
independant contractors, and Gary Wilburn, a
former independant contractor of Defendant,
witnessed the Plaintiffs destruction of the
vehicle's left rear mudflap and its bracket.
67. Otis Lawson, an independant truck driver who is not
employed by Defendant and who helped Defendant's
Vice President Mr. Grant return the vehicle
operated by the Plaintiffs to Tennessee, also
observed the damage caused to the vehicle by the
Plaintiffs' abuse and neglect.
68. On June 1, 1999, Glen Moore Transport, Inc.'s Vice
President of Maintenance Lenny Viehdorfer sent to
Defendant's Vice President pieces of air line
tubing that had to be replaced in the cab air ride
system of the vehicle before the vehicle could be
driven back to Tennessee.
69. Because of the Plaintiffs' actions, Defendant was
required to expend the following amounts to repair
and clean the vehicle: $125.00 for removing the
plywood and cleaning the vehicle; $113.00 for
repair costs paid to Landmark International
Trucks, Inc. in Knoxville, Tennessee; $155.00 in
mileage costs for the 194 mile round trip between
Surgoinsville and Knoxville; and $200.00 in
personnel costs.
70. On two occasions Defendant's counsel has offered
Plaintiff's counsel the opportunity to view
photographs of the damages caused by Plaintiffs to
Defendant's vehicle but such offer has not been
accepted.
71. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
of $593.00, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
72. Paragraphs 1 - 71 are incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.
73. Plaintiffs terminated their contractor agreement
with Defendant so that they could work for Glen
Moore Transport, Inc., Defendant's Lessee, as
drivers.
74. Plaintiffs negligently and maliciously made untrue
and defamatory statements about Defendant and
Defendant's Vice President Simon Donald Grant to
personnel at Glen Moore Transport and other truck
drivers since they terminated their contractor
agreement with Defendant.
75. Plaintiffs -- in particular Joanne Lane -- told
Defendant's independant contractors Chris LaFleur,
Robert and Lisa Hughes and Curtis Yates that
d'yA
s
Defendant's Vice President Mr. Grant had cheated :,-
W, ,
the Plaintiffs and that he would cheat them and
not pay them either.
76. Defendant actually has paid the Plaintiffs all of
the moneys owed to them under the contractor
agreement that they themselves agreed to and
signed.
77. Any moneys that Plaintiffs may believe that they
are still owed under the contractor agreement with
Defendant were forfeited by them because of their
own actions and not because of any action of the
Defendant or Defendant's Vice President Mr. Grant.
78. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' defamatory and
untrue statements, Defendant's reputation in the
trucking industry has suffered.
79.Plaintiffs' defamatory and untrue statements have
caused Defendant difficulty in securing the
services of drivers to operate its vehicles.
80. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' untrue statements,
Defendant pulled all eight (8) of the vehicles
that it leased to Glen Moore Transport out of
Pennsylvania on June 3, 1999.
81. Only five (5) of the eight (8) have been leased to
other companies at this time.
82. Because of Plaintiffs' defamation, Defendant has
suffered loss in reputation and should be
compensated in the amount of $5000 damages.
83. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter judgment for the
Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in the amount
$5,000.00, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and
any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Kat Teen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney for Road Hog, Inc.,
Defendant
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
I.D. No. 37445
Dated: August 31, 1999
lYnaAIN CON RACIOR l?sR?i?'r 'Nr
TIM AOLUMVT ads dr J.,,' dw of (Sm,d ,.,,.., , ip ly by amml l .
4A^0 h 1 a ba wowkir w w tM can vww and , haNaMrr
tnBaldrowmg? AS Car?ttA&Dr Ca,a,i1. o, 5o Mr'.l
WNwualb, that tlts Contractor and the Owner The Y apw a Ibliswa:
s u A rlanZ1 gad
Ar" L Saga w Ibis Nods
TM Can<nolor doll flmdsb all of die mwdals aed pufcmh all of do work shown on d» Dow np WNW
dasodbad in tM Spollladar'aeOdod &Mbil A an metaled horsw as it poWns to work to be 'p4rlbrmad an
powly at
Ar"I TbnaatCmF#kga
TM work ioba par0, - oadw dds Cmt mu rMU bo oam mwAW on or odors 2a ISa.,.r , lot and
IMP bo mils aodo oomple ad a orbebn 6 &6w '10
.71nr of the ersaoa Ttr folbw4as a
nbmrdal aaoulaaoamam of work purmw to thls pnpcad sad control:
qmwu?) hMN??I 'f?r...:Iw. 0,;4 4itAs,r. apek-% AS f?"e?1e.St ?.J
AV" & Tks CPO" me
TM ouster *AD pry Ibis Calwamor for the amlY and labor to be patbmlw under *A Caalraa tits some of
112. ek Bar O, spvm w4.*& P441. Dollars 0 b olldaot to wddM= nd
dsdlodooa purma to wJw&W chanp sties. u,) Fp'.tNt. 0 9 ta.sa s + c. O 'sP h "14^,
Ardsh d' PWpm Ilayrnslla
ppro,& dYrCbtanrtlrbsaMUMtits fdlowirhg
9 lot aw s? Ga , 4 Saiw+?jj
C.,,,trw„?ce/ ti?r?.anRiw. o QI'.? O??as ?5?? werG'+/t Gor
Ar"#. CaammlhaY(IIaNi
Any ahsaadm or drAsd a Aran the above specifications, including bm not limited to any such ahwww or
dsvladoe l"vlnS additional mmarld and/or labor oats, will be executed only Was, a witwr order for same, signed
by Owner and Comm or, Sod If tiers Is any chup for mob alteration or deviation, dr additional dharp will be
added to dw oealraot pia of dda 00DOWL
1f psyrap?t is not made when dw, Contractor may suspend work on the job until such time as all paymm
daa hmw basis malls. A Who to make payment fora period is excess of ^--- J o days Eam the
do dw of do pstmaat shill be daunw a mmerlal bmeb of ibis ooelract.
U addlMoo, tlo Asllow hig poem provisions apply:
1. AN week dell be eompletad in a workman-like runner and In compliance with All bulldiog ood" sort edrr
.1 TV& coBirma r shall Awhh it plea and scats dmwint ,bowing die aMpa, Uu dkwmi % and
Dommilao WA
f orom r1lsto?df bow Srl?tobe?° nNW1 ?fta?
EXHIBIT
OaalWlfallan far"work.
3. Tb &a exalt nqulmd by law all work aMU be pwbmW by Individuals duly lkearead and wthcsitad by law
A a pubm OW work,
4. ConYSmor My at is Condo enpp 54150"W "m to perform work barwnder, plovWsd Conraotor *A
fift pay laid subcontractor and in all htiWroes rwnak rotparibis for do pope mr#b oo of dda Cum
D. Coninota atoll firm Owner eppopria as rskren or waivers of Uan for aq work pedormad or mew"
plow fdad as die dm do text periodic payment shall be da,
6. All drop or shall be in wrking end signed bah by Owner mad Contractor, and shall be Woormrd
work wkkd bnroh p hi p m or M WWia IN aq dMpUW
l 1. #.I " be rnulved by bledinS a Mmdon In swot enoe with rules of do A wkwn
12 17dMreotorelWl not be Ilebb for my delay due to oirounw nom beyond Ile oomrol Inchkbnd nrflow oWx*
orpootl tanwdhbpity dmelarl"
19. CKArmw wwrnw NI work lbr • PWW of MWKW IWWA4ns oolnpkwlon.
•944plNrwiWMrrwwM6r?We.en6;1/1MYM Yrk%WWiepp-deyuw
rw?ryr rWr•w.w•e.prM?wMH
mgY tmlre?rsApr
wwwrq 4o
Ww.L WY w?WMwWYrwrl?rgirrrUe??rrWM?vY
McMdr Mdl?ewelerwWMreMarppa pdill"a
A"
MO & Ad Modtim
To terminate this contract driver/contractors agree to give 14 days
notice by cartifaid mail. Faller to do so they forfeit all moneys
owed. Abandoment or faller to return truck to R.B, inc. shop,
Surgoinsviiie TN, they forfeit all moneys owed by signing this
agreeMOMMI in?TN he my v1&?t?11t1w 11hitoomnac
=7
Ow of
,19
/Md M Mpasw a!:
or NWAM
a.
ILIO CA) A bo vt2 k
4.S 6aM-FqPC"*P-5 04 Rc-
??.?//rtJG OUA or? -7;i4Xs
fiNo. sT vE
I verify that the statements made in the within
Answer, New Matter and Defendant's Second Amended
Counterclaims are true and correct. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4909 relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Simon Donald Gra
Vice President
Road Hog, Inc.
Dated: August 31, 1999
CECIL E. LANE, AND JOANNE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LANE,Plaintiffs : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROAD HOG, INC. NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of
the Answer and Second Amended Counterclaims upon the person
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, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first class, postage
prepaid as follows:
Thomas S. Sedwick, Esq.
McGraw, Hait and Deitchman
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
Ka hleen K. Sh ulis, Esq.
At orney ID No. 37445
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
Date: August 31, 1999
f P1
Li I rj
1 ,
i
f
'
L.
1
w 1
I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CECIL E. LANE, AND
JOANNE LANE,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
No.: 99-4199
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.,
Defendant
NOTICE TO PLEAD
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Plaintiffs New Matter
with twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you.
McGRAW, HAIT & DETPCHMAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: w 41M
133N A?Q/Y
Thomas S. Sedwick
Pa. ID # 81912
Jennifer C. Deitchman
Pa. ID # 72779
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
(717) 249-2411 (fax)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CECIL E. LANE, AND : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JOANNE LANE,
Plaintiffs
No.: 99-4199
vs.
ROAD HOG, INC.,
Defendant
PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
AND PLAINTIFFS NEW MATTER
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER
32. The allegation in Paragraph 32 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. Plaintiff did not enter
into the agreement attached as Defendant's Exhibit A in its Answer to Complaint and
Defendant's Second Amended Counterclaims. Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed an agreement that
consisted of the last page of Defendant's Exhibit A. The one page agreement that Plaintiff
Cecil Lane signed did not contain the language found in Section 6 of the agreement submitted
by Defendant. It is denied that Plaintiff Joanne Lane entered into any written agreement with
the Defendant on January 20, 1999 whereby she agreed to drive Defendant's vehicles as an
independent contractor.
33. The allegation in Paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. The agreement that
Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed on January 20, 1999 with Defendant did not contain any of the
language found in Section 6 of Defendant's proffered agreement. Any and all other
allegations of Paragraph 33 are conclusions of law which require no response.
34. The allegation in Paragraph 34 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. The agreement that
Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed on January 20, 1999 with Defendant did not contain any of the
language found in Section 6 of Defendant's proffered agreement. The remaining allegations
of Paragraph 34 are conclusions of law, which require no response.
35. The allegation in Paragraph 35 of Defendant's New Matter is admitted.
36. Denied as stated. On information and belief, Road Hog Inc. retained exclusive control of its
drivers while they drove Defendant's vehicles for Glen Moore Transport. To the extent that
Glen Moore Transport may have given assignments to Plaintiffs, it was acting as Defendant's
agent.
37. The allegation contained in Paragraph 37 of Defendant's New Matter is admitted.
38. The allegation in Paragraph 38 of Defendant's New Matter is admitted. Glen Moore
Transport, as a lessee of Defendant's vehicles was required by law to display Glen Moore
Transport decals along the sides of the leased tractor cabs.
39. The allegation in Paragraph 39 of Defendant's New Matter is denied as to Plaintiffs status as
independent contractors and as to the check amounts Defendant issued to Plaintiffs per
dispatched mile.
40. The allegation in Paragraph 40 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. Simon Donald Grant,
Vice President of Defendant telephoned the Plaintiffs on Thursday, May 20, 1999. Plaintiffs
informed Mr. Grant that they were resigning effective Monday May 24, 1999,
41. The allegation in Paragraph 41 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. Plaintiffs informed
Simon Donald Grant, Vice President of Defendant on Thursday, May 20, 1999 that they were
resigning effective Monday May 24, 1999.
42. The allegation in Paragraph 42 of Defendant's New Matter is admitted to the extent that
Defendant communicated to Plaintiff Cecil Lane that the Plaintiffs were required to give two
weeks notice when resigning. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 42 are denied.
Plaintiffs did not enter into an agreement with the Defendant to provide notice of resignation,
nor to return the vehicle to Tennesee upon resignation.
43. The allegation in Paragraph 43 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. On Friday May 21,
1999, Defendant asked Plaintiffs if they would be able to return the vehicle to Tennesee. The
Plaintiffs indicated that, if possible, they would return the vehicle to Tennessee. Defendant
then instructed Plaintiffs to leave the vehicle at Glen Moore Transport Carlisle, PA location.
DEPLY TO COUNT I
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
BREACH OF CONTRACT ('.
FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE OF TERMINATION
44. Paragraphs 32-43 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
45. The allegation in Paragraph 45 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. The agreement that
a'
Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed on January 20, 1999 with Defendant did not contain any of the
language found in Section 6 of agreement The remaining allegations of Paragraph 45 are
conclusions of law, which require no response.
46. The allegation in Paragraph 46 is denied. Plaintiffs were not required to give notice under the
agreement entered into between Plaintiff Cecil Lane and Defendant.
f ,
47. The allegation in Paragraph 47 is denied. Plaintiffs were not required to give notice under the
agreement entered into between Plaintiff Cecil Lane and Defendant. In the alternative, if
material, strict proof is demanded. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 47 are conclusions
of law, which requires no response. ;`
48. No response required.
REPLY TO COUNT 11
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
BREACH OF CONTRACT
FAILURE TO RETURN VEHICLE
49. Paragraphs 32- 48 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
50. The allegation in Paragraph 50 of Defendant's Counterclaim is admitted.
51. The allegation in Paragraph 51 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. The agreement that
Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed on January 20, 1999 with Defendant did not contain any of the
language found in Section 6 of the agreement. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 51 are
conclusions of law, which require no response.
52. The allegation in Paragraph 52 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. To the contrary,
Plaintiffs were directed by Defendant's Vice President Simon Donald Grant to leave the
vehicle at Glen Moore Transport's Carlisle, PA location.
53. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph 53 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if material,
strict proof is demanded.
54. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph 54 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if material,
strict proof is demanded.
55. No response required.
REPLY TO COUNT III
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
BREACH OF CONTRACT
FAILURE TO PAY WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION
56. Paragraphs 32-55 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
57. The allegation in Paragraph 57 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. Plaintiff did not enter
into the agreement attached as Defendant's Exhibit A in its Answer to Complaint and
Defendant's Second Amended Counterclaims. Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed an agreement that
consisted of the last page of Defendant's Exhibit A. The one page agreement that Plaintiff
Cecil Lane signed did not contain the language found in Section 6 of the agreement submitted
by Defendant. It is denied that Plaintiff Joanne Lane entered into any written agreement with
the Defendant. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 57 are conclusions of law, which
require no response.
58. The allegation in Paragraph 58 of Defendant's Counterclaim is admitted.
59. The allegation in Paragraph 59 is admitted to the extent that the Plaintiffs did not pay their
workman's compensation insurance premium for the month of May, 1999. After reasonable
investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth
of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 59 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if material,
strict proof is demanded.
60. The allegation in Paragraph 60 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. The agreement
entered into by Plaintiff Cecil Lane and Defendant is void because, in Pennsylvania, an
employer may not require an employee to pay workman's compensation insurance premiums.
61. No response required.
REPLY TO COUNT IV
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
PLAINTIFFS' DAMAGE TO AND ABUSE OF DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE
62. Paragraphs 32-61 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
63. The allegation in Paragraph 63 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied insofar as Plaintiffs
operated Defendant's vehicle as employees, not independent contractors. The remaining
allegations in Paragraph 63 of Defendant's Counterclaim are admitted.
64. After a reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information to enable them to
respond to the allegations in Paragraph 64 of Defendant's Counterclaim. Strict proof, if
material, is demanded.
65. Plaintiff admits the allegation in Paragraph 65 of Defendant's Counterclaim of damaging the
cab air line ride system by clamping the air line hoses in an open position. Plaintiffs clamped
the air line hoses in an open position because Defendant's agents Gary Wilber and James
had removed the cab blocks used to stabalize the cab during driving. Clamping the air line
hoses in an open position stabalized the cab during driving. Plaintiffs admit the allegation in
Paragraph 65 that they damaged the left rear mudflap to the extent of causing a minimal
crease in the middle of the flap. Plaintiffs admit the allegation in Paragraph 65 that, with the
express permission of Defendant's Vice President Simon Donald Grant, they installed
plywood on the flat surfaces of the vehicle. Plaintiffs admit the allegation in Paragraph 65 that
that the rubber mat and inside carpeting of the vehicle was soiled, but not damaged, when the
vehicle was left at Glen Moore Transport at the direction of the Defendent. Plaintiffs deny
the allegation in Paragraph 65 that they dented the chrome along both the left and right sides
of the vehicle. To the contrary, Plaintiffs purchased, at their own expense, a stainless steel
swing plate used to display Department of Transportation licence stickers required by law.
Plaintiffs admit that the swing plate was dented when the vehicle was left at Glen Moore
Transport at the direction of the Defendent.
74. The allegations in Paragraph 74 of Defendant's Counterclaim are conclusions of law, which
require no response.
75. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information to enable them to
respond to the allegations in Paragraph 75 of Defendant's Counterclaim. If material, strict
proof is demanded.
76. The allegations in Paragraph 76 of Defendant's Counterclaim are conclusions of law, which
require no response. Insofar as a response is required, Plaintiffs deny that Defendant paid
Plaintiffs all of the moneys owed to them. Strict proof is demanded.
77. The allegations in Paragraph 77 of Defendant's Counterclaim are conclusions of law, which
require no response.
78. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information to enable them to
respond to the allegations in Paragraph 78 of Defendant's Counterclaim. If material, strict
proof is demanded.
79. The allegations in Paragraph 79 of Defendant's Counterclaim are conclusions of law, which
require no response. To the extent that a response is required, on information and belief in
addition to the Plaintiffs resigning from Defendant, during the period between the Plaintiffs
resignation and present, two other driving teams have resigned from Defendant. On
information and belief, the other drivers resignation was not caused by any statements made
by the Plaintiffs.
80. The allegation in Paragraph 80 of Defendant's Counterclaim that Defendant pulled all eight of
the vehicles that it leased to Glen Moore Transport out of Pennsylvaniaa because of
statements made by the Plaintiffs is denied. To the contrary, on information and belief, the
Defendant pulled its vehicles out of Glen Moore Transport because it was not receiving
enough dispatched miles. It is admitted that Defendant pulled its trucks out of Glen Moore
Transport on June 3, 1999.
81. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph 82 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if material,
strict proof is demanded.
82. The allegations in Paragraph 81 are conclusions of law, which require no response.
83. No response required.
NEW M- A
84. Paragraphs 32-83 are incorporated by references as if fully set forth herein.
85. The agreement attached as Defendant's Exhibit A in its Answer to Complaint and Defendant's
Second Amended Counterclaims is not the agreement entered into by Plaintiff Cecil Lane on
January 20, 1999. As such, Plaintiffs raise the affirmative defense of fraud. Plaintiff Cecil
Lane entered into an agreement with Defendant that consisted of only the last page of
Defendant's Exhibit A in its Answer to Complaint and Second Amended Counterclaims. That
page did not contain any of the language found in Section 6. Defendant did not provide
Plaintiff Cecil Lane a copy of the agreement entered into on January 20, 1999.
86. As employees, Plaintiffs may not be required, as a matter of law in Pennsylvania, to pay for
their own Workman's' Compensation Premiums. Therefore, the provision to pay Workman's
Compensation in the January 20, 1999 agreement between Plaintiff Cecil Lane and Defendant
is void due to illegality. The agreement had no savings clause, therefore because one
provision of the January 20, 1999 agreement is void, the entire agreement is void.
87. Plaintiffs deny making any defamatory remarks about Defendant. In the alternative, however,
if Plaintiffs made the comments alleged by the Defendant, they raise the truth of statements as
an affirmative defense.
88. The Defendant's Counterclaims at Counts 1,11,111, 1V, fail to state a cause of action.
Respectfully submitted,
McGRAW, HALT & DEITCHMAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: 4?& * By?A/JYtw Y/ U&J
Thomas S. Sedwick
Pa. ID # 81912
Jennifer C. Deitchman
Pa. ID # 72779
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
(717) 249-2411 (fax)
AFFIDAVIT
I verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief I acknowledge that any false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Date: 9- / ? g 9
Date: 9 - / 8 e7 ?7
Cecil E. Lane
Joanne Lane
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Preliminary Objections was served by U.S. First Class Mail on this date, to the parties
listed below at the following address:
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esquire
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: uy?a0,199T q
W ?.
a_
ti- Jo
U VJ
C e; hl_
=J
Vl U
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CECIL E. LANE, AND
JOANNE LANE,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
No.: 99-4199
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.,
Defendant
NOTICE TO PLEAD
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Plaintiffs New Matter
with twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you.
McGRAW, HAIT & DEITCHMAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: , y,19 if'
Byc
Thomas S. Sedwick
Pa. ID # 81912
Jennifer C. Deitchman
Pa. ID # 72779
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
(717) 249-2411 (fax)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CECIL E. LANE, AND : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
JOANNE LANE,
Plaintiffs
No.: 99.4199
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.,
Defendant
AMENDED PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS NEW MATTER AND
COUNTERCLAIMS AND PLAINTIFFS NEW MATTER
REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER
32. The allegation in Paragraph 32 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. Plaintiff did not enter
into the agreement attached as Defendant's Exhibit A in its Answer to Complaint and
Defendant's Second Amended Counterclaims. Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed an agreement that
consisted of the last page of Defendant's Exhibit A. The one page agreement that Plaintiff
Cecil Lane signed did not contain the language found in Section 6 of the agreement submitted
by Defendant. It is denied that Plaintiff Joanne Lane entered into any written agreement with
the Defendant on January 20, 1999 whereby she agreed to drive Defendant's vehicles as an
independent contractor.
33. The allegation in Paragraph 33 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. The agreement that
Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed on January 20, 1999 with Defendant did not contain any of the
language found in Section 6 of Defendant's proffered agreement. Any and all other
allegations of Paragraph 33 are conclusions of law which require no response.
34. The allegation in Paragraph 34 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. The agreement that
Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed on January 20, 1999 with Defendant did not contain any of the
language found in Section 6 of Defendant's proffered agreement. The remaining allegations
of Paragraph 34 are conclusions of law, which require no response.
35. The allegation in Paragraph 35 of Defendant's New Matter is admitted.
36. Denied as stated. On information and belief, Road Hog Inc. retained exclusive control of its
drivers while they drove Defendant's vehicles for Glen Moore Transport. To the extent that
Glen Moore Transport may have given assignments to Plaintiffs, it was acting as Defendant's
agent.
37. The allegation contained in Paragraph 37 of Defendant's New Matter is admitted.
38. The allegation in Paragraph 38 of Defendant's New Matter is admitted. Glen Moore
Transport, as a lessee of Defendant's vehicles was required by law to display Glen Moore
Transport decals along the sides of the leased tractor cabs.
39. The allegation in Paragraph 39 of Defendant's New Matter is denied as to Plaintiffs status as
independent contractors and as to the check amounts Defendant issued to Plaintiffs per
dispatched mile.
40. The allegation in Paragraph 40 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. Simon Donald Grant,
Vice President of Defendant telephoned the Plaintiffs on Thursday, May 20, 1999. Plaintiffs
informed Mr. Grant that they were resigning effective Monday May 24, 1999,
41. The allegation in Paragraph 41 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. Plaintiffs informed
Simon Donald Grant, Vice President of Defendant on Thursday, May 20, 1999 that they were
resigning effective Monday May 24, 1999.
42, The allegation in Paragraph 42 of Defendant's New Matter is admitted to the extent that
Defendant communicated to Plaintiff Cecil Lane that the Plaintiffs were required to give two
weeks notice when resigning. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 42 are denied.
Plaintiffs did not enter into an agreement with the Defendant to provide notice of
resignation, nor to return the vehicle to Tennesee upon resignation.
43. The allegation in Paragraph 43 of Defendant's New Matter is denied. On Friday May 21,
1999, Defendant asked Plaintiffs if they would be able to return the vehicle to Tennesee. The
Plaintiffs indicated that, if possible, they would return the vehicle to Tennessee. Defendant
then instructed Plaintiffs to leave the vehicle at Glen Moore Transport Carlisle, PA location.
REPLY TO COUNT I
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
BREACH OF CONTRACT
FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE OF TERMINATION
44. Paragraphs 32-43 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
45. The allegation in Paragraph 45 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. The agreement that
Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed on January 20, 1999 with Defendant did not contain any of the
language found in Section 6 of agreement The remaining allegations of Paragraph 45 are
conclusions of law, which require no response.
46. The allegation in Paragraph 46 is denied. Plaintiffs were not required to give notice under the
agreement entered into between Plaintiff Cecil Lane and Defendant.
47. The allegation in Paragraph 47 is denied. Plaintiffs were not required to give notice under the
agreement entered into between Plaintiff Cecil Lane and Defendant. In the alternative, if
material, strict proof is demanded. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 47 are
conclusions of law, which requires no response.
48. No response required.
REPLY TO COUNT II
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
BREACH OF CONTRACT
FAILURE TO RETURN VEHICLE
49. Paragraphs 32- 48 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
50. The allegation in Paragraph 50 of Defendant's Counterclaim is admitted.
51. The allegation in Paragraph 51 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. The agreement that
Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed on January 20, 1999 with Defendant did not contain any of the
language found in Section 6 of the agreement. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 51 are
conclusions of law, which require no response.
52. The allegation in Paragraph 52 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. To the contrary,
Plaintiffs were directed by Defendant's Vice President Simon Donald Grant to leave the
vehicle at Glen Moore Transport's Carlisle, PA location.
53. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph 53 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if
material, strict proof is demanded.
54. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph 54 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if
material, strict proof is demanded.
55. No response required.
REPLY TO COUNT III
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
BREACH OF CONTRACT
FAILURE TO PAY WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION
56. Paragraphs 32-55 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
57. The allegation in Paragraph 57 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. Plaintiff did not enter
into the agreement attached as Defendant's Exhibit A in its Answer to Complaint and
Defendant's Second Amended Counterclaims. Plaintiff Cecil Lane signed an agreement that
consisted of the last page of Defendant's Exhibit A. The one page agreement that Plaintiff
Cecil Lane signed did not contain the language found in Section 6 of the agreement submitted
by Defendant. It is denied that Plaintiff Joanne Lane entered into any written agreement with
the Defendant. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 57 are conclusions of law, which
require no response.
58. The allegation in Paragraph 58 of Defendant's Counterclaim is admitted.
59. The allegation in Paragraph 59 is admitted to the extent that the Plaintiffs did not pay their
workman's compensation insurance premium for the morth of May, 1999. After reasonable
investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth
of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 59 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if material,
strict proof is demanded.
60. The allegation in Paragraph 60 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. The agreement
entered into by Plaintiff Cecil Lane and Defendant is void because, in Pennsylvania, an
employer may not require an employee to pay workman's compensation insurance premiums.
61. No response required.
REPLY TO COUNT IV
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
PLAINTIFFS' DAMAGE TO AND ABUSE OF DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE
62. Paragraphs 32-61 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
63. The allegation in Paragraph 63 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied insofar as Plaintiffs
operated Defendant's vehicle as employees, not independent contractors. The remaining
allegations in Paragraph 63 of Defendant's Counterclaim are admitted.
64. After a reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information to enable them to
respond to the allegations in Paragraph 64 of Defendant's Counterclaim. Strict proof, if
material, is demanded.
65. Plaintiff admits the allegation in Paragraph 65 of Defendant's Counterclaim of damaging the
cab air line ride system by clamping the air line hoses in an open position. Plaintiffs clamped
the air line hoses in an open position because Defendant's agents Gary Wilber and James
had removed the cab blocks used to stabalize the cab during driving. Clamping the air line
hoses in an open position stabalized the cab during driving. Plaintiffs admit the allegation in
Paragraph 65 that they damaged the left rear mudflap to the extent of causing a minimal
crease in the middle of the flap. Plaintiffs admit the allegation in Paragraph 65 that, with the
express permission of Defendant's Vice President Simon Donald Grant, they installed
plywood on the flat surfaces of the vehicle. Plaintiffs admit the allegation in Paragraph 65
that that the rubber mat and inside carpeting of the vehicle was soiled, but not damaged,
when the vehicle was left at Glen Moore Transport at the direction of the Defendent.
Plaintiffs deny the allegation in Paragraph 65 that they dented the chrome along both the left
and right sides of the vehicle. To the contrary, Plaintiffs purchased, at their own expense, a
stainless steel swing plate used to display Department of Transportation licence stickers
required by law. Plaintiffs admit that the swing plate was dented when the vehicle was left at
Glen Moore Transport at the direction of the Defendent.
r
66. The allegation in Paragraph 66 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied. James and Sandra
Lassiter and Gary Wilburn were not present when the left rear mud flap was damaged by the
Plantiffs.
67. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph 67 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if
material, strict proof is demanded.
68. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph 68 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if
material, strict proof is demanded.
69. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph 68 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if
material, strict proof is demanded.
70. Denied pusuant to Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1029(d).
71. No response required.
REPLY TO COUNT IV
DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
DEFAMATION
42 PA.C.S. SECTION 8341 ET.SEO.
72. Paragraphs 32-71 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
73. The allegation in Paragraph 73 of Defendant's Counterclaim is denied to the extent that
Plaintiffs' did not violate their contractor agreement with the Defendant. Plaintiffs admit that
after resigning employment from Defendant that they went to work for Glen Moore
Transport. Plaintiffs admit that Defendant was a Lessor and Glen Moore Transport a Lessee
of Defendant's vehicles.
74. The allegations in Paragraph 74 of Defendant's Counterclaim are conclusions of law, which
require no response.
75. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information to enable them to
respond to the allegations in Paragraph 75 of Defendant's Counterclaim. If material, strict
proof is demanded.
76. The allegations in Paragraph 76 of Defendant's Counterclaim are conclusions of law, which
require no response. Insofar as a response is required, Plaintiffs deny that Defendant paid
Plaintiffs all of the moneys owed to them. Strict proof is demanded.
77. The allegations in Paragraph 77 of Defendant's Counterclaim are conclusions of law, which
require no response.
78. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information to enable them to
respond to the allegations in Paragraph 78 of Defendant's Counterclaim. If material, strict
proof is demanded.
79. The allegations in Paragraph 79 of Defendant's Counterclaim are conclusions of law, which
require no response. To the extent that a response is required, on information and belief in
addition to the Plaintiffs resigning from Defendant, during the period between the Plaintiffs
resignation and present, two other driving teams have resigned from Defendant. On
information and belief, the other drivers resignation was not caused by any statements made
by the Plaintiffs.
80. The allegation in Paragraph 80 of Defendant's Counterclaim that Defendant pulled all eight
of the vehicles that it leased to Glen Moore Transport out of Pennsylvaniaa because of
statements made by the Plaintiffs is denied. To the contrary, on information and belief, the
Defendant pulled its vehicles out of Glen Moore Transport because it was not receiving
enough dispatched miles. It is admitted that Defendant pulled its trucks out of Glen Moore
Transport on June 3, 1999.
81. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegation in Paragraph 82 of Defendant's Counterclaim, and if
material, strict proof is demanded.
82. The allegations in Paragraph 81 are conclusions of law, which require no response.
83. No response required.
NEW MATTER
84. Paragraphs 32-83 are incorporated by references as if fully set forth herein.
85. The agreement attached as Defendant's Exhibit A in its Answer to Complaint and
Defendant's Second Amended Counterclaims is not the agreement entered into by Plaintiff
Cecil Lane on January 20, 1999. As such, Plaintiffs raise the affirmative defense of fraud.
Plaintiff Cecil Lane entered into an agreement with Defendant that consisted of only the last
page of Defendant's Exhibit A in its Answer to Complaint and Second Amended
Counterclaims. That page did not contain any of the language found in Section 6. Defendant
did not provide Plaintiff Cecil Lane a copy of the agreement entered into on January 20,
1999.
86. As employees, Plaintiffs may not be required, as a matter of law in Pennsylvania, to pay for
their own Workman's' Compensation Premiums. Therefore, the provision to pay
Workman's Compensation in the January 20, 1999 agreement between Plaintiff Cecil Lane
and Defendant is void due to illegality. The agreement had no savings clause, therefore
because one provision of the January 20, 1999 agreement is void, the entire agreement is
void.
87. Plaintiffs deny making any defamatory remarks about Defendant. In the alternative, however,
if Plaintiffs made the comments alleged by the Defendant, they raise the truth of statements
as an affirmative defense.
88. The Defendant's Counterclaims at Counts I, II, III, Iv, fail to state a cause of action.
Respectfully submitted,
McGRAW, HAIT & DEITCHMAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Date: -73,Iq 99 4
By: ,o -
Thomas S. Sedwick
Pa. ID # 81912
Jennifer C. Deitchman
Pa. ID # 72779
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
(717) 249-2411 (fax)
AFFIDAVIT
1 verify that I am counsel of record for the Plaintiffs in this matter. 1 further verify that the
foregoing Amended Reply is identical to the original reply that was personally reviewed and
verified by the Plaintiffs. The Reply as originally filed, however, inadvertently omitted page 8,
containing paragraphs 66 through 73. The page missing from the original reply is included in the
foregoing amended document. I acknowledge that any false statements herein are made subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
r
Date:_ r a 9
Thomas S. Sedwick
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
amended reply to new matter and reply to counterclaims and new matter was served by
U.S. First Class Mail on this date, to the parties listed below at the following address:
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esquire
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: W " oZ 3 l?(7 K
l=
c?
C?j :•i
11
V; lu
CECIL E. LANE, AND
JOANNE LANE
Plaintiffs
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER
85. The allegation in Paragraph 85 of Plaintiff's New
Matter is denied. The agreement attached as
Exhibit A in the Answer to the Complaint and
Defendant's Second Amended Counterclaims is a
true and correct copy of the agreement signed by
Defendant Cecil Lane and all of the provisions
pleaded by the Defendant were part of the
agreement between Plaintiff Cecil Lane and the
Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant specifically
denies any allegation or affirmative defense of
fraud made by Plaintiffs and affirmatively
asserts that the provisions of the agreement
speak for themselves. It is admitted that
Defendant did not give a copy of the contract to
Plaintiff Cecil Lane.
iii,
86. It is denied that Plaintiffs were employees of
the Defendant so that their agreement to pay
workman's compensation premiums is illegal. To
the contrary, Plaintiffs were independent
contractors of the Defendant who agreed as
evidenced by Plaintiff Cecil Lane's own
handwriting to pay their own workman's
compensation premiums and made payments pursuant
to this agreement to Glen Moore Transport prior
to the May 1999 payment but did not make their
May 1999 payment. It is admitted that the
January 20, 1999 agreement did not have a savings
clause. Finally, the statements proclaiming this
handwritten provision "illegal" and the contract
void are conclusions of law for which no response
is required.
87. Defendant acknowledges Plaintiffs' responsibility
to Plead the affirmative defense of truth to
Defendant's Count IV as New Matter pursuant to
Pa.R.C.P. 1030(a) but specifically denies that
Plaintiffs' statements to others were true and
not defamatory in nature.
2
88. It is denied that Defendant's Counterclaims at
Count I, II, III, IV fail to state causes of
action. To the contrary, Defendant has filed two
amended answers and counterclaims because of
Plaintiffs' preliminary objections that its
counterclaims did not state causes of action.
Defendant's pleadings clearly have established
the basis for these counterclaims. In the
alternative, Plaintiffs' allegation in Paragraph
88 is a conclusion of law for which no response
is required.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney for Road Hog, Inc.,
Defendant
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
I.D. No. 37445
Dated: October 8, 1999
3
Sent bylK4thl... K. sh4ulfa 54.-30-99 07124en
r 'Ch 7:77436618}4735154116 .42334 .e4• .??.
V&U CAT,TW
I verify that the statements made in the within
Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' A*aw Matter are T:xjje and
correct. I understand that fa.las statements herein are
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Sec. $4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
S111 nn Do 1d Gran L
Vice President
Rnarl Hog, Inc.
Date: October v , 1999
CECIL E. LANE, AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
JOANNE LANE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROAD HOG, INC. NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of
the foregoing DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER
upon the person 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, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first
class, postage prepaid, as follows:
Thomas S. Sedwick, Esq.
McGraw, Hait and Deitchman
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
Ka ;leen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney I.D. # 37445
South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
Date: October 8, 1999
''
ci
CECIL E. LANE, AND
JOANNE LANE
Plaintiffs
VS.
ROAD HOG, INC.
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
Praecipe to Discontinue Count (IV)
of Defendant's Counterclaim
To the Prothonotary
Kindly discontinue Count IV of Defendant's
Counterclaim, Defamation, 42 Pa. C. S. §6341 et seq., as
contained in Defendant's Amended Answer to the Complaint
and Defendant's Counterclaims dated August 13, 1999
pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. Pro. 229.
Kathleen K. Shaulis, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
44 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
I.D. No. 37445
Dated: March 1, 2000
CECIL E. LANE, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
JOANNE LANE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
Vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROAD HOG, INC. NO. 99-4199 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of
the foregoing Praecipe to Discontinue Count IV, Defamation,
upon the person 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, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first
class, postage prepaid, as follows:
Thomas S. Sedwick, Esq.
McGraw, Hait and Deitchman
4 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-4500
Kathleen K. Shadlis, Esq.
Attorney I.D. # 37445
South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6655
Date: March 1, 2000
Q (?l
Lr }}
ry
i) N J
L?
CJ C
j 77
u
? ' c
; i.iw
I .ate
ll. O
O a
U