Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-05371y , , 0 C? a a M 'i'4 Bier, nning osenberg ATTORNEYS AT LAW Leslie B. Handler, Retried W Scott Henning David H Rosenberg (PA. FLI Carolyn M. Anner IPA, NY, RN) Matthew S. Crosby IPA, NJ) Gregory M. Feather IPA, NJ) Stephen G. Held Jason C. Imler January 23, 2002 The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., Judge CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 HARRISBURG OFFICE 1300 Unglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 717.238.2000 1-800.422.2224 7I 7-23 3-3 029 11`0 LANCASTER OFFICE 140A E King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 717.431.4000 DIRECT 1vbUL TO: P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17106 www.HHRLaw.com Crosby@HHRLaw.com Re: Frank DiGiacomo v. Charles Revlek Cumberland County No. 99-5371 Civil Civil Action - Law; Jury Trial Demanded Dear Judge Oler: In connection with the above-referenced matter, enclosed please find, for your review, a courtesy copy of a Plaintiffs Motion In Limine Seeking to Exclude Evidence Concerning Damage to the Vehicles that we are filing with the Court. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSC/vff/enclosure cc: Mr. Frank DiGiocomo Very truly yours, HANDLER, HENNING& ROSENBERG By: M?rdhew S. Crosby ?q,4, ? ?00? Wd a u, o0 vim J LL?? U o ?. C C e p `?° m pNn 0 ° Qo 6 o rn q < C C d a m m t y , VJ K N w y Q QQ n 0 C O , wocn Z o ?? I _°= g o e FRANK DICIACOMO, IN ' III COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIV11. ACTION - LAW NO. 99.5371 CIVIL CHARLES REYLEK, Ucfcnd:uN JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN 1.11NN!? SFFKINC TO EAQAIDE l3VII)ENC1: C'ON('FRNIN(' DAMAGE TO TIIF VF111C'1 FS AND NOW, comes the Pl;tintil7•. Ihanl: I)i(linconu). by and through his attorneys, IIANDLER,111?NNING a ROSEN'BERG. by N"'Ithe" S ('rushy, Esquire. and makes the within lotion in Unlink! I-Cquesting Iltis I IuuocdtlC Ccurt exrludr ;ugument and evidCnce equating the severity of damages sustained by the vehicles invul acd in the collision to the severity of personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff. Sucll evidence includes, but is not limited lo, all testimony, exhibits, photographs. videos, statements. opinions of nun-experts and diagrams ofdanutges sustained by the vehicles in the collision. Such cvidcncc is not relev:mt nor probative ofam' issue in this case. but .) rather. is highly prc.judicidl to Ihr Plaintiff I urthCI. ahscul expert lestimuny. any inlcrence that minimal damage to the vehicles u:mslatc, inw fill nin w I personal injuries would amount to unguided speculation. 'I herelive. Delimdd it should he precluded Iron trying Io cqumC. directly or by infirencC. the anuumt OfdanmgC n: the \ ehiCICS a: the anwunl of injury to the person. 1. STATEN IF:NT ()F FA( "I'S lhI or about AULUISl o. I'MS tt ;q,hiu\im: lcl\ +.fo h.in.. Plaintil'1. Frank Di(iiaconio, was aueny)tim; w pull out unto I Iindle Pd It om tho posted Stull sign al the end oflhC Rt. 531 exit ramp. 1V appruxintatrl) the stone lime. Urfendant %Nus dirCClly behind Mr. Uiliiaconw's vehicle. The Defendant failed to observe the existing traffic conditions and struck Plaintiff's vehicle in the rear. As a result of the collision Plaintiff. Frank DiGiacomo, sustained injuries to his right shoulder and neck. The damage to the vehicle was minimal. Defendant admitted his negligence. It is anticipated that Defendant will use photographs of the vehicles to suggest to thejury that Plaintiff's injuries arc not a result of the collision because there is little damage to the vehicles. With this in mind, it is appropriate that evidence concerning damage to the vehicles be excluded. The defense will offer no expert testimony that there is any connection whatsoever between vehicle damage and physical injury. Thus any tcstinumy. argument or exhibits related to property damage would have no proper Imindation and would not be relevant 11. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED A. WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE VEHICLES IN THE COLLISION WHEN DEFENDANT HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE DAMAGE OF TI4E VEHICLES TO THE EXTENT OF PHYSICAL INJURY. Suggested Answer: Yes. 13. WHETHER TESTIMONY, EXHIBITS, PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEOS, STATEMENTS AND/OR DIAGRAMS OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE VEHICLES IN THE COLLISION ARE RELEVANT TO THE CAUSATION OF PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES. Suggested Answer: No. C. IF DANIAGES TO THE VEHICLES ARE FOUND TO BE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF CAUSATION, WHETHER SAID EVIDENCE MUST BE EXCLUDED PURSUANT TO RULE 303 Suggested Answcr: Vcs. Ill. ARGUMENT A. THE DEFENSE HAS NOT OFFE.111?D ANN' EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING THE DAMAGE OF 7'HE Vf:111CLES TO THE EXTENT OF PHYSICAL INJURY AND, 'HIEREFORE, SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING TESTIMONY, EXHIBITS, PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEOS, STATEMENTS, NON-EXPE..11T OPI NIONS AND/OR DIAGRAMS OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED 111. 1111E VEHICLES IN THE COLLISION. Rule 702 of the Pennsykania Rules ul' evidence states: II•scientilic. technical or other speciali/ed knowledge beyond that possessed by a layperson will assist the trier ol, lact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knots ledge. skill. experience, training or education may testify thereto in the liirm ol'an opiuiun or othemisc. Pa.IZ.E. Rule 70_1. 1'he test lot adnusstMbq of ;111 eyn• l ophuon is set forth in I:rve v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1) U. ('it- 1923) tthich ttu,, adopted It.\ the I'cnnsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth c.'I'imii.309A.2d1277(1'a.1977) Simphstntcd,tilelevetest holds that admissibility ofscientific evidence requires "the general accelaance of its uiidity by those scientists active in the field to which the cvidence belongs " I ov Rule 701 of the I'rnn •t hanrl Rules of I!tidence states: II•the ss It lie" is nut test it'yilig ns nn egwrl. the tviutess'testimony in the form ofopinions or inferences is limiled uI those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of the is 1111CSS. helpf II l to a clew- understanding of the witness testimony or the dclerntinauou of a Iacl m issue. and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge ttitlun Ihr scope of Rule 702. lf. Rulc 701 [rngth.ui addaU P&I 1 he nerd for :oI rytel It It r\hlain (I It: relationship bemeen the damages sustained by the tehicles and the Injnrles sulfered h} the Plaintiff is obvious. '['here have been many studies conductedhyscicntists;mdph\siciansconccrning[his issue. fliomechanicalengineersandaccident reconstructionists frequently testify as to the news, or lack thercot, between vehicular damage and physical injury. The Defendant in this matter. however, has not produced at expert opinion concerning any alleged relationship between property damage and physical injury. Defendant will present no expert testimony refuting that PlaintilYs injuries were in tact caused by the Defendant's negligence. A lay person does not have the specialized knowledge necessary to decipher how vehicle damage may or may not play a role in the extent of physical in juries. The Delaware Supreme Court has specifically addressed the very issue presently before this Honorable Court. See Davis v. Maine. 770 A .2d 36 (De. 2001). In Davis, the court opined that "a party in a personal injury case may not directly argue that the seriousness ol'personal injuries from a car accident correlates to the extent of the damage to the cars. unless the party can produce competent expert testimony on the issue. Absent such expert testinunn.. any inference bythe jury that minimal damage to the plainfil7-s car translates into minimal personal injuries to the plaintiff would necessarily anwunt to unguided speculation." Davis s at 40 (emphasis added). Neither Defendant nor his attorney should be permitted to state their belief that because there was minimal damage to the vehicles there could not be serious personal injuries because " jnjo matter how skilled or experienced the witiess may be, he will not he permitted to guess or to state ajudgment based on mere conjecture." Collins v. Band. 346 A .2d 398. 404 (Pa. 1968) (citing Smail v. Flock. 180 A.2d 59 (Pa. 1963): Murray v. Siceal. 195 A .2d 790 (Pa. 1963)). '11'a party intends to make an argument involving all issue that is 'within the knowledge of experts only and not within the common kno\\ ledge OHM men.' the panty nnist present competent expert testimony to support that argtmtent.'" Dan is. at 4t1 n.2 (citing \Iazda Motor C'or . V. Lindahl, 706 A?d 536. X33 IDc.Supr. 199811. AS our ow 11 Suprcmc Court has stated. "jilt is generally, acl:notrledoed that the complexities of the human body place questions as to the cause of pain or injury beyond the knowledge of the a erage layperson.` I la nil v. Bashline, 392 A.2d 1280, 1285 (Pa. 1978) (emphasis added). Treatment and injury "are such that common knowledge or experience of laymen is not sufficient to form a basis for passing intelligent judgment." Collins v. Hand. 246 A .2d 398.401 (Pa. 1968) It is anticipated that Dclcndant kill assert that photographs showing the extent of damage to vehicles can be used to refine the alleged severity of damages suffered by Plaintiff based on the jury's common sense evaluation of conflicting evidence. See Cree v. Horn, 539 A.2d 466 ( Pa.Super. 1988). 'file Cree case is strikingly different from the present matter. Ili Cree, both parties utilized expert medical testinumy and these experts disputed the severity ofthe injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs. I lence, there was conflicting evidence presented to thejury by experts. In the present matter. Defendant has not oflcred the opinion of a biontechanical engineer, an accident reconstructionist, or a medical expert. Isere, there is no evidence other than the guess and Speculation the Defendant would have the jury engage in that conflicts with Plaintiffs expert's test i rtwnv. In Ferris v Pennsvlvania Federation Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, 153 F.Supp?d 736 (E.D.Pa. 2001), the plaintill'sought to present to the jury his opinion of how his injuries were caused. The court found that the plaintiffs" heliels as to hove his injuries were caused may not be presented to thejury in the ahsenee ofexpert tcstimonv regarding causation." Id. At 745. AS SUCh. Delcndam or his counsel. should not he permitted to express their beliefs regarding the Cause of plaintiffs igjuries in the present matter. Delendpw should not lie permitted to speculate as to the cause or severity of Plaintif fs igjuricS in the absence of expert testimony to support any assertion that minimal damage to the vehicles equates to minimal personal injuries. " 1O]pinion testimony by a lay %%itness, as distinguished from an expert witness, should be excluded because 'witnesses generally must give facts and not their inferences, conclusions, or opinions."' Lewis v. Mellor, 393 A .2d 94 L 946 (Pa.Super. 1978) (citing McCormick, Handbook on Evidence s I I (West ed. 1972). If the Defendant had wanted to show that the impact or damages sustained by the vehicles was a factor in the alleged injuries of the Plaintiff than an expert should have been utilized to that encl. However, to date no report front an expert has surfaced or is in the possession of the Plaintiff. Therefore, since no expert report is in existence relating to the damages of the vehicles and the alleged injuries ol'the Plaintiff. the evidence concerning the vehicle damages must be excluded. B. EVIDENCE CONCERNING DADIAGE TO THE VEHICLES IS NOT RELEVANT. As stated previously, Dclcndant has admitted negligence. As a result, the only issues forthe .jury are whether Defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident and the extent of Plaintiffs injuries. 'I'heref ore, the only evidence that is admissible is material bearing upon those issues. Rule 401 ofthe Pennsylvania Rules of I\idencC stones. ••'RCIOant I:Vidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence oftnty fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." furthermore. Rule 402 states. "All rCICVaut CvidCncE is MhitissihlC. except as otherwise provided by law. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.- Stated simply. Evidence Concernin2? the JamagC to the \ehiCICS involved in this collision is not relevcutt to the issue of injury to an occupant oI'one of the vehicles. further. Dclcndant has not provided Lin expert to dispute that plaintiffs injuries acre in fact related to the collision that is the subject of this lawsuit. Therefore, any evidence concerning the damages to the vehicles would not be relevant to the issues of proximate cause and damages. C. IF DAMAGES TO THE VEHICLES ARE FOUND RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF CAUSATION, THEN TESTIMONY, PHOTOGRAPHS, NON- EXPERT OPINIONS OR OTHER EXHIBITS ADDRESSING DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLES MUST 13E EXCLUDED PURSUANT TO RULE 403. Rule 403 of the Pennsvlvania Rules of Evidence states in relevant part, "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading thc,jury." The probative value of vehicle damage photographs is minimal when compared to the prejudice that will potentially befall the Plointit7'. 11'perntitted to see the vehicle damage photographs and hear evidence regarding the damage, the jury would be immediately prejudiced against the Plaintiff' and would likely disregard Plaintiffs case including his expert physician's testimony. According to the comment to Rule 4113. "unfair prejudice" means "a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury's attention away from its duty of neighing evidence inipartially." A jury would likely take one look at the vehicle photographs and conclude that there is no way a person could be injured based upon the minimal vehicle damage. In doing so, the jury panel would be doing preciscl what Rule 403 is attempting to prevent, namely. making a decision on Lm improper basis. Nonschanical analysis invokes a myriad of (actors including bumper strength. vehicle crashworthiness. scat rebound propensities. road surface. angle of impact. Size and strength of the _ individual, and others. lixpert testinunty Nuuld clcarty,he needed for an appropriate, legally sufficient, foundation to be laid in Order to make property damage evidence even arguably relevant. IV. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff. Frank DiGiacomo, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant his Motion in Limine to exclude evidence related to the damage sustained by thevehiclesintheAugust6, 1995.collision. Flaintif'fspecificalfyrequeststhatthisFlonorableCourt exclude all evidence and argument attempting to equate the severity of damages sustained by the vehicles involved in the collision to the severity of personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff. Such items include, but are not limited to, all testimony, exhibits, photographs, videos, statements. opinions of non-experts and diagrams ofdanwges sustained by the vehicles in the collision. Should this Court deny all relief specifically requested in this Motion. Plaintiff respectfully requests that a cautionary instruction be given to the jury informing it that there is no evidence of a correlation between the damage to the vehicles and the severity of Plaintiffs injuries. Respectfully submitted. HANDLER, HENNING S ROSENBERG Matth( Crosby, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. # 69367 1300 Linclcstown Road P.O. Box 60337 l larrisbum. PA 17105 _ (717)21S-2000 Auor'nccs fur Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the Defendant by sending a copy of the same to his counsel of record, as follows, by first- class United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on January X002. Andrew C. Lehman, Esq. NEALON & GOVER, P.C. 2411 North Front St. Harrisburg, PA 17110 DATE: /-3 Tli HAND R?4HENNING & R ENBERG B tthew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. #69367 P.O. Box 60377 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff 0 j Q rc z 'of 0 J < V 0 a Z Y j N 0 z > I z w I a z o Z 7 0 N 0 0 0 Q y K W 0 Q a m Z N R tt < I wNNim•%owiu•b nim•nnilo :on wxol 'KN 1YNOILYNY 1lN1911Y19'TIY M Ndfwq Y'N'J 1111v1f l1Y FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Question t: VERDICT SLIP Do you find that the Defendant, Charles Reylek, was negligent? Yes: A No: I I'you answer Question I "No", the Plaintiff cannot recover. You should not answer Question 2 and you should return to the C'ourlroom. II'you answer Question 1 "Yes", go on to Question 2. Question 2: Do you find that the negligence ol'the Defendant, Charles Reylek, was a substantial factor in bringing about harm to the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo? Yes No I I'you answer Question 2 "1'es", proceed to Question 3. If you answer Question 2 "No," Frank DiGiacomo cannot recover and you should not answer any further questions and should return to the Courtroom. Question 3: State the amount 01P1llalT, /a? y, sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of the accident: W ( S Pain and Sullering S Please have the Foreperso? sign and date this Verdict Slip. "fhe Jwy should then return to the Courtroom to make its verdict known. DATE FOREPERSON FRANK DIGIACOMO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 99.5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Question I: VERDICT SLIP Do you find that the Defendant, Charles Reylek, was negligent? Yes:_ X No: Ifyou answer Question I "No", the Plaintiff cannot recover. You should not answer Question 2 and you should return to the Courtroom. If you answer Question I "Yes", go on to Question 2. Question 2: Do you find that the negligence of the Defendant, Charles Reylek, was a substantial factor in bringing about harnh to the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo? Yes No f f you answer Question 2 "Yes", proceed to Question 3. If you answer Question 2 "No," Frank DiGiacomo cannot recover and you should not answer any further questions and should return to the Courtroom. Question 3: State the amount of damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of the accident: Workers' Compensation Lien Pain and Suffering Please have the Foreperson sign and date this Verdict Slip. Thejury should then return to the Courtroom to make its verdict known, DATE FOREPERSON FRANK DIGIACOMO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99.5371 CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERDICT SLIP Question 1: Do you find that the Defendant, Charles Rcylek, was negligent? Yes: N No: If you answer Question I "No", the Plaintiff cannot recover. You should not answer Question 2 and you should return to the Courtroom. If you answer Question I "Yes", go on to Question 2. Question 2: Do you find that the negligence of the Defendant, Charles Reylek, was a substantial factor in bringing about hams to the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacorno? Yes No I f you answer Question 2 "Yes", proceed to Question 3. If you answer Question 2 "No," Frank DiGiacomo cannot recover and you should not answer any further questions and should return to the Courtroom. Question 3: State the amount of damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of the accident: Workers' Compensation Lien Pain and Suffering Please have the Foreperson sign and date this Verdict Slip. The jury should then return to the Courtroom to make its verdict kno%en. DATE FOREPERSON O 0 r W < 3 w rc Q ¢ z r60 0 J r Q V 0 Q Z > } O z Z o z I F a 0 N z a Q w O i s W 0 Q Q V Z N p a x MM'Mlw • AOMIN • 16'661w • fl wm ' ON wum 'NM'T'Nd?rNYLwb31r1691r )0 NMSUw r'r41t 31r16 ?b 11 co FRANK DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff, V. CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT CHARLES REYLEK AND NOW, this the 2nd day of January, 2002, Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire, counsel for Defendant sets forth the following required information pursuant to Cumberland County Local Rule 212-4: 1. A Statement of the Basic Facts as to Liability. This civil action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 6, 1998, at approximately 4:30 p.m., on the exit ramp of State Route 581 at Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. At that time and place, Plaintiff, Frank Digiacomo, was the operator of a pickup truck owned by Monroe Muffler. As Mr. Digiacomo was stopped at the stop sign at the end of the 581 exit ramp, Defendant, Charles Reylek, was immediately behind Mr. Digiacomo in his Porsche 911. When Mr. Digiacomo appeared to merge into traffic in a westbound direction on Trindle Road, Mr. Reylek allowed his vehicle to drift forward so he could see if any traffic was approaching. However, Mr. Digiacomo did not pull into traffic and Mr. Reylek drifted into the rear of Mr. Digiacomo's truck. After Mr. Digiacomo indicated that he was not injured, both parties looked at the vehicles for damage. Mr. Reylek's Porsche had a scratch on the hood and the passenger's side headlight lens was also broken. However, there was no damage to Mr. Digiacomo's vehicle. II. A Statement of Basic Facts as to Damages. As stated above, there was minor damage to Mr. Reylek's vehicle, insofar as his passenger's side headlight lens was broken and there were scratches on the body of his Porsche in the general area where the front of his car made contact with Plaintiffs vehicle. Although Mr. Reylek contends he did not see any damage to Mr. Digiacomo's truck, Mr. Digiacomo testified in his deposition that the bumper of the Monroe Muffler truck was scratched on the underside. Mr. Digiacomo did not complain of any injuries at the scene. As for the nature and extent of any injuries suffered by Mr. Reylek, they are for him to prove at trial. III. A Statement as to the Principal Issues of Liability and Damages. The Defendant will admit that he was negligent. Defendant will not admit that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffs harm. The nature and extent of Plaintiffs injuries are for the jury to decide. IV. A Summary of the Legal Issues Regarding Admissibility of Testimony Exhibits, or Any Other Matter and Legal Authorities Relied On. Defendant would request that the parties stipulate to the authenticity of the medical records, employer records, as well as any vehicle damage estimates stemming 2 from the incident in question. Additionally, the Defendant would request that the parties also stipulate to the authenticity of any other documents exchanged through the course of discovery. V. The Identity of Witnesses to be Called. Defendant may call Charles Reylek. Defendant does not anticipate calling any other witnesses, however, Defendant does reserve the right to call Plaintiff as on cross- examination and any of the Plaintiffs healthcare providers. VI. A List of Exhibits with Brief Identification of Each. A. Photographs of Defendant's vehicle; B. Photographs of Plaintiffs vehicle; C. Photographs of the accident scene; D. All medical records exchanged during discovery including but not limited to: 1. Medical records from Hartman Rehabilitation; 2. Medical records from HealthSouth Rehabilitation; 3. Medical records from Hershey Medical Center and/or Penn State Geisinger. E. Defendant reserves the right to use as an exhibit any other documents exchanged in the course of discovery. 3 VII. The Current Status of Settlement Negotiations. Based on the nature of this accident, there has been no offer extended by Defendant to settle the within matter. Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER, P.C. By: a ' Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire I.D. #: 81937 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: 7171232-9900 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day 20" of January, 2002, 1 hereby certify that I have served the foregoing PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire i 1? d e v 8° w ? U `w o C ? "a w W=?? ?Y ? •a C O m m rnN y ,,, a v C ^ v = ? ??.n o o p O ?o. ^ za ^ ` -3 a° ? IL I g I ? = M = Q j ?? ik, FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. CHARLES REYLEK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-5371 CIVIL Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM 1. STATEMENT OF BASIC FACTS AS TO LIABILITY. This case arises out of a motor-vehicle collision that occurred on August 6, 1998, at approximately 4:30 p.m., on the exit ramp of State Route 581 at Trindle Rd., Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. At that time, the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, was attempting to pull out onto Trindle Rd. from the posted Stop sign at the end of the 581 exit ramp. The Defendant failed to observe the existing traffic conditions nd struck the rear of Ms. DiGiocomo's vehicle. II. STATEMENT OF BASIC FACTS AS TO DAMAGES As a result of the collision, Mr. DiGiocomo sustained injuries primarily to his neck, back, and right shoulder. III. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES Per Defendant's Pre-Trial Memorandum, he is admitting negligence. Defendant is disputing substantial factor and the nature and extent of Mr. DiGiocomo's injuries. -1- IV. SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF TESTIMONY EXHIBITS OR ANY OTHER MATTER AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES RELIED OW Plaintiff intends to object to the admission and use of vehicle photographs, to the extent that they are used to address the issue of causation. Plaintiff intends to file a Motion In Limine with the trial judge. Plaintiff will stipulate to the authenticity of medical records and all other documents exchanged through the course of Discovery, with the exception of vehicle-damage estimates. V. IDENTITY OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED: 1. Frank DiGiocomo. 2. Marion DiGiocomo. 3. Charles Reylek. 4. Dr. Stuart Hartman (by videotape). 5. Vincent Dastra. 6. Donald Norman Plaintiff reserves the right to call any witnesses identified or used by the Defendant. Plaintiff also reserves the right to supplement his witness list, should additional information become available. Plaintiff further reserves the right to call the following individuals as rebuttal witnesses, if necessary: 1. Mike Bruno. 2. Patricia Hoffman. -2- VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS WITH BRIEF IDENTIFICATION OF EACH. Photographs of collision scene. 2. Treatment calendars. 3. Deposition transcripts. 4. Transcribed recorded statements. 5. Videotapes and transcripts of expert medical testimony. 6. Medical records. 7. Portions of the Allstate claims investigation file. Plaintiff reserves the right to use any Exhibits identified and/or used by the Defendant. Plaintiff also reserves the right to supplement his Exhibit list, should additional information become available. VII. CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: Based on the nature of this collision, Plaintiff has made a settlement demand of $15,000. Defendant has made no settlement offer. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER E MIG & &ENB?R at`? BY: Matthew S. Crosby, Esq. Supreme Court ID No. 69367 1300 Linglestown Rd. P.O. Box 60377 Harrisburg, PA 17106 Tel. No.: 717-238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the Defendant by sending a copy of the same to his counsel of record, as follows, by first- class United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on January 3, 2002. Andrew C. Lehman, Esq. NEALON & GOVER, P.C. 2411 North Front St. Harrisburg, PA 17110 & ROSENBERG Matthew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. #69367 P.O. Box 60377 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 ' L Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. 99-5371 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Present at a pretrial conference held January 9, 2002, were Matthew R. Crosby, Esquire, attorney for the plaintiff, and Andrew Lehman, Esquire, attorney for the defendant. This case arises out of a rear-end motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 6, 1998. Liability will be conceded. The plaintiff intends to object to the admission and use of vehicle photographs to the extent that they are used to address the issue of causation. The plaintiff will stipulate to the authenticity of medical records and all other documents exchanged in the course of discovery, with the exception of vehicle damage estimates. The defendant is not available for the trial of this case on Friday, February 1, 2002. Defense counsel, Mr. Lehman, also has another case on the list. Ideally, this case should be listed for trial early in the week. The defendant, Mr. Reylek, may be acquainted with Judge Hoffer though it was not determined at the pretrial conference whether recusal is necessary or appropriate. That matter is, of course, for the trial judge. This trial should be of no more than two days' duration. Settlement appears unlikely. January 9, 2002 l Kevin . Hess, J. 47 u _ „J .`n; Matthew Crosby, Esquire For the Plaintiff Andrew Lehman, Esquire For the Defendant Am msc\trialsldigiacomo-pts4charge.wpd FRANK DIG IACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-5371 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' POINTS FOR CHARGE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, by and through his attorneys, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, by Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire, and provides the followingjury instructions which he moves the Court to read to the jury. Respectfully submitted, Date: HAND R, HENNING & ROSENBERG B_v: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. # 69367 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 60337 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff W V .0 Under all the law and evidence presented, I direct that you return a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, and against the Defendant on the issue of liability. 10 0 .0 2. The legal term negligence, otherwise known as carelessness, is the absence of ordinary care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the circumstances here presented. ,,,Negligent conduct may consist either of an act or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. t ?1?O In other words, negligence is the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something which a reasonably careful person would not do, in light of all the surrounding circumstances established by the evidence in this case. Generally, it is for you to determine how a reasonably prudent person would act in those circumstances but you need not do so because the Defendant has admitted negligence in this case. Therefore, you are to find Defendant, Charles Reylek, negligent. Under all the law and evidence presented, I direct that you return a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, and against the Defendant on the issue of negligence. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §3.01 .11 In order for Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, to recover in this case, the defendant's negligent conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the accident. This is what the law recognizes as legal cause. A substantial factor is an actual, real factor, although the result may be unusual or unexpected, but it is not an imaginary or fanciful factor or a factor having no connection or only an insignificant connection with the accident. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §3.25. .f r 4. In civil cases such as this one, the plaintiff has the burden of proving those contentions which entitle him to relief. When a party has the burden of proof on a particular issue, his contentions on that issue must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The evidence establishes a contention by a fair preponderance of the evidence if you are persuaded that it is more probably accurate and true than not. To put it another way, think, if you will, of an ordinary balance scale, with a pan on each side. Onto one side of the scale, place all of the evidence favorable to the plaintiff, onto the other place all of the evidence favorable to the defendant. If, after considering the comparable weight of the evidence, you feel that the scales tip, ever so slightly or to the slightest degree, in favor of the plaintiff, your verdict must be for the plaintiff. If the scales tip in favor of the defendant, or are equally balanced, your verdict must be for the defendant. In this case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the following propositions: that the defendant was negligent, and that that negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident. The plaintiff has met his burden of proving the defendant was negligent, therefore you need only determine if the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident. If, after considering all the evidence, you feel persuaded that this proposition is more probably true than not true, your verdict must be for the plaintiff. Otherwise, your verdict should be for the defendant. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §5.50. I 5. This is a civil case and not a criminal case. The Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, need not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. His obligation with reference to the burden of proof b is proof by a preponderance of the credible evidence and testimony. Petrov. Secarv Estate, 403 Pa. 540 (1961). 6. A negligent party is subject to liability for harm to another, although a physical condition of that person not known to the actor makes the injury greater than that which the actor, as a reasonable person, should have foreseen as a probable result of his or her conduct. If you find that the plaintiff had apre-existing injury that was aggravated by the defendant's negligence, you must find the defendant responsible for the enhancement of the plaintiffs injury. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §6.23. 7. The number of witnesses offered by one side or the other does not, in itself, determine F the weight of the evidence. It is a factor, but only one of many factors which you should consider. Whether the witnesses appear to be biased or unbiased; whether they are interested or disinterested persons, are among the important factors which go to the reliability of their testimony. The important thing is the quality of the testimony of each witness. In short, the test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses or presents the greater quantity of evidence; but which witness or witnesses, and which evidence, you consider most worthy of belief. Even the testimony of one witness may out weigh that of many, if you have reason to believe her testimony in preference to theirs. Obviously, however, where the testimony of the witnesses appear to you to be of the same quality, the weight of numbers assumes particular significance. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §5.03. 8. You may find inconsistencies in the evidence. Even actual contradictions in the testimony of witnesses do not necessarily mean that any witness has been wilfully false. Poor memory is not uncommon. Sometimes a witness forgets; sometimes he remembers incorrectly. It is also true that two persons witnessing an incident may see or hear it differently. If different parts of the testimony of any witness or witnesses appear to be inconsistent, you the juryshould try to reconcile the conflicting statements, whether of the same ordifferent witnesses, and you should do so if it can be done fairly and satisfactorily. If, however, you decide that there is a genuine and irreconcilable conflict of testimony, it is your function and duty to determine which, if any, of the contradictory statements you will believe. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §5.04. 9. If you decide that a witness has deliberately falsified his testimony on a significant point, you should take this into consideration in deciding whether or not to believe the rest of his i'y ", ?? testimony; and you may refuse to believe the rest of his testimony, but you are not required to do so. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §5.05. f • 1 , 10. In this case you have heard what the law calls circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts, or circumstances, from which it is reasonable to infer the existence of another fact. For example, a man may be able to testify that it was snowing at a particular time because he looked outside and saw the snow falling. It may be, however, that he did not actually see the snow coming down, but if when he gets up one morning and looks outside he sees fresh snow where there was none the night before, he can testify to these facts and the jury may infer that it snowed during the night. You may consider circumstantial evidence and you should give it whatever weight you believe it deserves. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §5.07. 11. A witness who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in a particular science, profession or occupation may give his opinion as an expert as to any matter in which he is skilled. In determining the weight to be given to his opinion, you should consider the qualifications and reliability of the expert and the reasons given for his opinion. You are not bound by an expert's opinion merely because he is an expert; you may accept or reject it, as in the case of other witnesses. Give it the weight, if any, to which you deem it entitled. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §5.30. 12. Members of the Jury, if you find that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, you must then find an amount of money damages which you believe will fairly and adequately compensate the Plaintiff for all the physical and emotional injuries he has sustained as a result of this accident. The amount which you award today must compensate the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, completely for damages sustained in the past, as well as damages he will sustain in the future. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) §6.00. 13. The paramount rule in assessing damages is that every person unjustly deprived of his rights should at least be fully compensated for the injuries he sustains. The primary function of C. compensatory damages is to shift the loss from an innocent party to one who is at fault. Spangler v. Helm's Neiv York-Pitlsburgh Motor Express, 393 Pa. 482 (1959); Esmond v. Liscia, 209 Pa.Super. 200 (1966). 14. It is a basic principle of law that damages are to be compensatory to the full extent of the injury sustained. Legal remedies seek to put the injured person in a position as nearly as possible equivalent to his or her position prior to the accident. That is, if injury occurs, the law attempts to place the injured party in the same position he occupied before the injury. Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center, 765 A.2d 786 (Pa. 2001) (citing Incollingo v. Ewing, 282 A.2d 206 (Pa. 1971)); Trotsky v. Civil Service Comm'n, City of Pittsburgh, 652 A.2d 813 (Pa. 1995) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 901); Hahn v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 625 F.2d 1095,1104(3 d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 891, 101 S.Ct. 1516 (1981). 15. In this case, ladies and gentlemen, if you find that the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, received injuries for which he is entitled to recover, you must be apprised of the different types of ?j damages available for compensation. Before instructing you, I will explain each of the types of damages which are recoverable. Frank DiGiacomo is entitled to recover for: i - (a) all past and future embarrassment and humiliation; (b) all past and future loss of enjoyment of life; (c) all past and future pain and suffering; (d) all past and future medical-bills; and (e) all past and future emotional distress and mental anguish; In the event that you find in favor of Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, you will add these sums of damage together and return your verdict in a single, lump sum. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) §6.01.; Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, 491 Pa. 561, 421 A.2d 1027 (1980); Stephens v. Economy Bank ofAmbridge, 413 Pa. 442, 197 A.2d 721 (1964); Lach v. Retch, 361 Pa. 340, 64 A.2d 821 (1949). 16. The plaintiff claims to different types or classes of damages in this case. The elements which the plaintiff has the burden of proving with respect to each type of damages are somewhat different. The first type or class of damages sought by plaintiff is generally referred to as "economic" loss damages and includes medical expenses. The second type or class of damages is generally referred to as "non-economic" loss damages and includes things such as pain (past, present, and future), emotional suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life and life's pleasures, embarrassment, and humiliation. As I indicated, what the plaintiff must prove differs somewhat depending on which type of damages claim is being considered - economic or non-economic loss damages. I will now instruct you regarding the elements which the plaintiff must prove. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §6.02B. 17, The Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated in the amount of all medical expenses reasonably incurred for the diagnosis, treatment and cure ofhis injuries in the past. These expenses, as alleged by the Plaintiff, amount to $1,2.87.43; an exhibit will be submitted to you, itemizing these costs, for your consideration during deliberation. Pa. SSJI(Civ.) §6.01 A. 18. The Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for such physical rn pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience and distress as you find he endured from the time ?y of the collision until today. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) §6.01 E. 19. If you find that the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, has suffered injuries for which he is ?J entitled to recover, you must then find he is also entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated V 1 for such physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience and distress as you believe he will endure in the future as a result of his injuries. Pa. SSR (Civ.) §6.01 F. 20. The legal concept of pain and suffering includes a wide variety of physical and emotional reactions to injuries for which the Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated. Some of these include, but are not limited to: (t) physical pain; (2) mental distress and anxiety; (3) loss of feeling of well-being; (4) embarrassment and humiliation; (5) loss of the ability to enjoy the normal and ordinary pleasures of life; (6) privation and inconvenience; and (7) inability to perform household tasks. The concept of pain and suffering includes both the physical and mental consequences of an injury. Frank DiGiacomo is entitled to recover for the mental pain and suffering and emotional upset which accompanies his physical injuries. Thompson v. lannuzzi, 403 Pa. 329, 169 A.2d 777 (1961). 21. In evaluating the amount to be awarded for pain and suffering, you should consider that the infliction of pain means taking from a person what is his own to possess and retain--namely, health and well-being. The law allows for compensation of this loss to the extent that any loss may be calculated in money damages. In arriving at any award for pain and suffering which the Plaintiff has undergone, you must also consider the extent to which his injuries have resulted in a loss or lessening of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. DiChiacchio v. Rockcraft Stone Products Company, 424 Pa. 77, 85, 225 A.2d 913 (1967); Corcoran v. McNeal, 400 Pa. 14, 26,161 A.2d 367 (1960); Carminati v. Philadelphia Transport Co., 405 Pa. 500, 176 A.2d 440 (1962). 22. 1 instruct you that under the general heading of pain and suffering, Frank DiGiacomo, ?P'is also entitled to recover damage for the fear, anxiety and apprehension relating to the possible ( future consequences of his injuries, where there is a reasonable possibility that such future consequences may occur. Reimer v. Delisio, 296 Pa. Super. 205, 442 A.2d 731 (1982), affd, 501 Pa. 662, 462 A.2d 1308 (1983); Walsh v. Brody, 220 Pa. Super. 293, 286 A.2d 666 (1971). 23. The plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for such embarrassment and humiliation as you believe he has endured and will continue to endure in the future as a result of his injuries. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) §6.01G. • . • . . . . 24. The plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for past, present and future loss of his ability to enjoy any of the pleasures of life as a result of his injuries. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) §6.011. 25. Ladies and gentlemen, if you find that Frank DiGiacomo's injuries will continue beyond today, you must determine the life expectancy of Frank DiGiacomo. According to statistics compiled by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the average life expectancy of all persons of Frank DiGiacomo's age at the time of the collision, sex and race was 41.9 years. This figure is offered to you only as a guide, and you are not bound to accept it if you believe that Frank DiGiacomo would have lived longer or less than the average individual in his category. In reaching this decision you are to consider Frank DiGiacomo's health prior to the collision, his manner of living, his personal habits and other factors that may have affected the duration of his life. Fa SSJI (Civ.) §6.21. • Y . . . .. . 26. You will now retire to consider all of the evidence received in this trial in light of the various factors I have presented to you and apply the law as I have given it to the facts as found by you. Since defendant has admitted negligence, you need only decide whether that negligence was p a substantial factor in bringing about the accident. If you conclude that the defendant's negligence v was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to the accident, your verdict must be in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. If you find that the defendant's negligent conduct was not a substantial factor in bringing about accident, your verdict must be for the defendant. If your verdict is in favor of the plaintiff, you must then determine what damage the plaintiff was and will be caused to suffer by reason of the defendant's negligence and return a verdict for the plaintiff in that amount. Pa SSJI (Civ.) §3.50. 27, Finally, ladies and gentleman, be mindful of the fact that this is Frank DiGiacomoIs l? ron y day in court, and whatever damages you find from the evidence, you must under the law, award `" to him in your verdict today. For it is the law that we cannot call jurors back at any later date and 7 request more compensation. Therefore, the award you find must include within it full and adequate compensation for all Plaintiff s past, present and future pain and suffering he has endured and will endure as a result of the injuries sustained in this collision. Jamison v. DeNardo, Inc., 302 F.2d 27, 30 (3d Cir. 1962). FRANK DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PROPOSED POINTS FOR CHARGE OF THE DEFENDANT, CHARLES REYLEK Respectfully submitted, NEALON & COVER, P.C. By: Andrew . Lehman, Esquire Atty. I.D. #81937 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-9900 DI. You are not permitted to determine your verdict based on guess work, speculation, conjecture or sympathy for a party. Engle v.. Spbno, 425 Pa. 254, 228 A.2d 745 (1967). D2. The Plaintiff claims that she was injured and sustained damage as a result of the negligent conduct of tlic Defendant. The Plaintiff has the burden of proving her claims. The Defendant admits that lie was negligent, but denies that such negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the Plaintiffs injuries. Based upon the evidence presented at this Trial, the only issues for you to decide in accordance with the law as I shall give it to you, are: First: Was the negligent conduct a Substantial Factor in bringing about the Plaintiffs harm? Second: If, and only if the Defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about hams to the Plaintiff, then you are to decide the amount of compensation, if any, to be awarded to the Plaintiff. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 3.00 D3. The legal term negligence, otherwise known as carelessness, is the absence of ordinary care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the circumstances here presented. Negligent conduct may consist either of an act or an omission to act when there is a 1 duty to (to so. In other words, negligence is the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something which a reasonably careful person would not do, in light of all the surrounding circumstances established by the evidence in the case. The Defendant has admitted his negligence in causing the accident. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 3.01 D4. Ordinary care is the care a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstance presented in this case. It is the duty of every person to use ordinary care not only -,A' lr' for his own safety and the protection of his property, but also to avoid injury to others. What a? constitutes ordinary care varies according to the particular circumstances and conditions existing V then and there. The amount of care required by the law must be in keeping with the degree of danger involved. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 3.02 D5. In order for the Plaintiff to recover, the Defendant's negligent conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the [Plaintiffs harm.] This is what the law recognizes as legal cause. A substantial factor is an actual, real factor, although the result may be unusual or unexpected, but it is not an imaginary or fanciful factor or a factor having no connection or only an insignificant connection with the accident. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 3.25 DG. The number of witnesses offered by one side or the other does not, in itself, determine weight of the evidence. It is a factor, but only one of many factors which you should consider. Whether the witnesses appear too biased or unbiased; whether they are interested or disinterested persons, are among the important factors which go to the reliability of their testimony. The important thing is the quality of the testimony of each witness. In short, the test is not which side brings greater number of witnesses or presents the greater number of witnesses or presents the greater quantity of evidence; but which witness or witnesses, and which evidence, you consider most worthy of belief. Even the testimony of one witness may outweigh that of many, if you have reason to believe this testimony in preference to theirs. Obviously, however, where the testimony of witnesses appear to you to be of the same quality, the weight of numbers assumes particular significance. Pa.SS.II (Civ) 5.03 D7. A witness who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in a ?p particular science, profession or occupation may give his opinion as an expert as to any matter in V ` which he is skilled. In determining the weight to be given to his opinion, you should consider the qualifications and reliability of the expert and the reasons given for his opinion. You are not bound by an expert's opinion merely because he is an expert; you may accept or reject it, as in the case of other witnesses. Give it the weight, if any, to which you deem it entitled. Pa. SSJI (Civ) 5.30 D8. In general, the opinion of an expert has value only when you accept the facts upon which it is based. This is true whether the facts are assumed hypothetically by the expert, come from his personal knowledge, from some other proper source or from some combination of these. Pa. SSJI (Civ) 5.31 . N V7 h 1 ,1 ? G? Q o C' C'Dq ^ 1--- ^ w Q h O M X Q C6 ? nl } 0 ,.. 0 m N ^ m o s ^ x Q FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 99- 5.37/ CIVIL CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant .AIRY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. 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 Telephone (717) 249-6166 Attorneys for Plaintiff DATE: ? 3 y I. D. #69367 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Dm/comp/DiGiacomo FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 99- CIVIL CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant .1 URY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING, & ROSENBERG, by Matthew S. Crosby, Esq., and makes the within Complaint against the Defendant, Charles Reylek, as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, is an adult individual currently residing at 1750 Lehman Street, Hershey, Dauphin County, PA 17033. 2. Defendant, Charles Reylek, is an adult individual currently residing at 421 Criswell Street, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, PA 17007. 3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, was the operator ofa pick-up truck owned by Monroe Muffler (hereinafter "Plaintiffs vehicle"). 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Charles Reylek, was the operator of a Porsche motor vehicle (hereinafter "Defendant's vehicle"). 5. On or about, August 6, 1998, at approximately 4:30 p.m., the Plaintiffs vehicle was stopped at a Stop sign at the bottom ofthe exit ramp of Route 581 at Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. On or about, August 6, 1998, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Defendant's vehicle was traveling down the exit ramp of Route 581 at Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. At approximately that same time and place, Defendant failed to observe the Plaintiff's stopped vehicle and suddenly, and without any warning, struck the rear of Plaintiffs vehicle. 8. Prior to the collision, Atlanta Casualty Insurance Company had issued a policy of automobile insurance to Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo. Under said policy, which was in effect on August 6, 1998, Plaintiff allegedly elected the limited-tort option as enumerated in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701 (a)(1)(A), et sea., as amended. Plaintiff is entitled to seek damages as though he had elected the full-tort alternative, because he was not an occupant of a private passenger motor vehicle as that term is defined in 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1702. 9. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, are the direct and proximate cause of negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Charles Reylek, generally, and more specifically, as set forth below: (a) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the position of Plaintiffs vehicle on the roadway; (b) In failing to operate his vehicle in such a manner that would allow him to apply the brakes and stop before striking Plaintiffs vehicle; I (c) In failing to operate his vehicle tinder proper and adequate control so that he could have avoided striking Plaintiffs vehicle; (d) In failing to operate his vehicle at a speed, and under such control, so as to be able to stop within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of 75 Pa. C'.S.A. § 3361; (e) In failing to keep a proper lookout of the traffic conditions then and there existing; (I) In failing to keep a proper lookout for vehicles lawfully traveling on the exit ramp of Route 581 at Trindle Road; (g) In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of his vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3714; (h) In failing to be continuously alert, and in failing to have his vehicle under such control, that injury to persons or property could be avoided; and 0) In failing to exercise the high degree of care required of an operator ofa motor vehicle approaching an intersection. 10. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, has suffered personal injuries, including, but not limited to, injuries to his head, neck, back, and right shoulder. 11. As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, has suffered physical pain and discomfort, and he may continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 3 12. As a result of the Defendant's negligence. the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and he may continue to sutter the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 13. As a result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, has been, and may in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties, to his great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 19. Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, seeks damages from Defendant, Charles Reylek, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Respectfully Submitted, HANDVIR, HENN[)t? & ROSENBERG By DATE: Matthew S. Crosbsquire I. D. No. 69367 > 19 Market Street P O Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not of my own. I have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d), relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: ?'5 Y F NK J. DIGIACO O, L` _J l , ` lJ \L u. N ice' la ?? . I: 1. ? V1 N m Q' W 0 a 0 J m 0 0 > a Q z n O 0 V O J YYYQJIJIJI Z 0 0 z m W 0 a J Q } I W ir O ~ Q w F N W Y i p N 0 x O m O a Q > N 2 W a 2 m N M C a Q 2 1LNA11O•AONIfO •lYAtIO•fpiua ON.0, ']M 1YNp1YNYi1Nl WYIS'l1Y f0 NNSI O V T'OT Lvlf'iW FRANK DIGIACOMO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Frank Digiacomo, and his attorney, Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, that the Answer to Complaint set forth herein contains averments against you to which you are required to respond within twenty (20) days after service thereof. Failure by you to do so may constitute an admission. Respectfully submitted, Date: 3 149 % NEALON & GOVER BY: 4? M hew R. Gover, Esquire Attorney I.D. #47593 301 Market Street -- 9th Floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0865 (717) 232-9900 FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF V. CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Charles Reylek, by and through his attorneys, NEALON & GOVER, P.C., and files the following Answer: 1. - 4. Admitted. 5.-9. Denied. pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 10.-19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted and proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Charles Reylek, respectfully request that the Complaint be dismissed with costs of this action. NEW MATTER 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of Defendant's Answer to the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 21. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by application of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. Respectfully submitted, Date: Z C NEAL GOVER? B Ma hew R. Gover, Esquire Attorney I.D. #47593 301 Market Street - 9th Floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0865 (717) 232-9900 I, Charles Reylek , verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer is true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Char s Rey ek CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ` I day of September, 1999, 1 hereby certify that 1 have served the foregoing Answer on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mails, postage prepaid, addressed to: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 M h R. Gover Esquire I I L•' P: t J __ L C J '. 1 CI. ... L .l r C , U, _y ? Q O U `? a TOO vt Y a ? C7 1 '- 0 N ?cn ?/? ... am 0)N N I? /? ce z o o ° MCa "o W a = ? FRANK DIGIACOMO, V. CHARLES REYLEK, Plaintiff Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-5371 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by Matthew S. Crosby, Esq., and answers as follows to Defendant's New Matter: 20. Paragraph 20 is a paragraph of incorporation and, therefore, no response is necessary. 21. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 21 contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is judicially determined to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. Date: a Z3 Matthew S. Cros ure Attorney I. D. # 69367 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's New Matter was served on the Defendant by sending a copy of the same to his counsel of record, as follows, by United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on September93, 1999. Matthew R. Gover, Esq., NEALON & GOVER 301 Market St., P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108 DATE:-- q 1113 q I HAND NNING a OSEN ERG By Matthew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. #69367 P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff PRANK DiOIAC'OMO. IN TI IE C'OI1R•r 01.- COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA • CIVIL AC'HON - LAW NO. 99-5171 CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DIAIANDFD CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I hate served a Uve and Curroct cop) Of the foregoing Notice'ro Attend On all COUnsel of record by placing the same in tic lhital States Mail at I lorrisburg. Pennsylvania. first-class postage prepaid. on the _ lay ol'January. 2002. addressed as Inflows: Andrew C. Lehman. Esquire NEALON & GOVEIZ 22411 N. Front Street i larriSbLll'e PA 17110 I IANDI.I?R. HENNING K ROSENBERG Mats e„ S C'rosb?, FSquhe Supreme ('OUrt II) -t;O91167 I .OO I.in° cstown Road I larrishm PA 17110 (717) ' 5-20110 Attorne, lirr Plaintiff J ti I" .. I _ IL 1i P.I .J FRANK DiGIACOMO, Plaintiff V. CHARLE5 REYLEK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA5 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN5YLVANIA NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF 5ERVICE AND NOW, this 2ay of November, 2001, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of a Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Dr. Stuart Hartman was served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Dr. 5tuart Hartman 4t' & Willow Streets 3'° Floor Lebanon PA 17046 Andrew Lehman, Esc(. NEALON & GOVER 2411 N Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 HANDLER, HENNING & K05ENDERG Matthew 5. Crosby, Esquire ID # 69367 1300 Linglestown Road PO Box 1177 Harrisburg PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff i, rf C . : ! J? : .; _?_: ?? 1 ? - ??n ci ,_1 ,l; " ? is : i ? t? SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1999-05371 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DIGIACOMO FRANK VS. REYLEK CHARLES HAROLD WEARY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT was served upon REYLEK CHARLES the defendant, at 18:50 HOURS, on the 3rd day of September 1999 at 421 CRISWELL STREET BOILING SPRINGS, PA 17007 CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to CHARLES REYLECK a true and attested copy of the COMPLAINT together with NOTICE, PLTFF'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing 18.00 ?^7? Service 4.34 J/ Affidavit .00 Surcharge 8.00 R. I omas ine, 5 eri 99HHENNING & ROSENBERG S3D?4?'OHAgI1D071 by epu y 5 e i Sworn and subscribed o before me this 9 ?' day of .nT G, 19 q A. D. 6LZ (1) Y ep Lea; ' rounonouary FRANK DIGIACOMO. IN TI 11: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff C11MBFRLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA ?'• NO. 99-5371 CHARLES REYLI?K• CIVII. ACTION - LAW Delcndant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this fday of December, 1999. 1 hereby certify that 1 have. on this date. served the within Notice of Deposition. by sending a true and correct copy of same to the attorney of'record. and including a copy to all parties of interest via first class United States snail. postage prepaid. and addressed as follows: Charles Rcvlck C/o Matthew R. Goner. Esq. NEALON K GOVER 301 Market Street I larrisburg PA 17108 HANDLER. IIENNING K 13v: -Matthm S. Crosby. Isyuirc ID 169367 319 Market Street P0 13ON 1 177 I Iarrisburg PA 17108 (717)238-2000 \ttorncvs for Plaintit•I' - c7 Ti Co- ?' `- cn iT _j FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 99-5371 CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAI. DEMANDED c CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW. this? day of.lanuarc. 3000. 1 herch\ ccrtil\ that I hare ser\cd the foregoing Responses to Request for Production of DOCUmenlS on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mail. postage prepaid. addressed to: Matthew R. Goer. Esquire NEALON & 60VER 301 Market Street 9"' Floor I larrishure PA 17105 Date: ?s Matthew S. Crr Esquire Attornec I.D. No. 69367 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1 177 1 Iarrisbure. PEA 17105 (717) 335-3000 C?; J - J CD U FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION- LAW r. NO. 99-5371 CHARLES REYLF,K, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ?H AND NOW, this AS day of .lanuary. ?000. I hercb\' certify that 1 ha\ e SCI'\ Cd the liircgoing \nswtrs to Interco atones un the folluwin_ b\ deho,iting a u ue and correct copy ol'same in the United States mail. postage prepaid. addressed to: Matthew R. Goer. IsgoirC NEALON x: GOVER 301 rlarket Street 9"' Floor I larrisburs PA 17108 Date: ?1Q lattlie S. C tosh\. I.syuuc Attorney I.D. No. 69"07 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1 177 l larrisbatg. PA 17108 (,717) '_38-?000 r .. . a? i . I ?.I S C,• r4 i ?_: F_ _, I J -' _ t' ?: IG_ 1- J 'I! _ J !7 :? FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 99-5371 CIVIL CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ORDER AND NOW, this Z 2'4 day of June, 2000, in consideration of the motion of Allstate Insurance Company to quash subpoena, a rule is issued on the plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested ought not to be granted. This rule returnable fifteen (15) days after service. BY THE COURT, 4? Ke7. Hess, J. TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony wh:r:.of, I h--r- unr..=.t my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa. ;=6Z3......d of..5lu?g...., 00 rothonotary - r N _ ? ?C? Gd ,1 {? ! }}? lttL L:. Nip V 7 U IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANK DIGIACOMO, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff V. NO. 99-5371 CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the signed Order of Court issuing a rule to show cause why the relief requested ought not to be granted was served by U.S. first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the following: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Matthew R. Gover, Esquire Nealon & Gover 301 Market Street, 9th Floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108 McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK By C Donald B. Kaufman Attorney I.D. No. 49674 Charles T. Young, Jr. Attorney I.D. No. 80680 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 232-8000 Attorneys for Movant Allstate Insurance Company Dated: June 26, 2000 PVII - Yu ..? ?rk HARRISBURG OFFICE 319 Moikel Street Hauisburg, PA 17101 717.238.2000 717.2333029 (fax) LANCASTER OFFICE 140A East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 71743/4000 July 6, 2000 DIRECT MAIL TO: P.O. Box 1111 Harrisburg, PA 17108 www. HHRLow.com CrosbyQhhr7aw.com dministrator ???,.... , _JNTY COURTHOUSE 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Re: Frank DiGiacomo v. Charles Reviek Cumberland County No. 99-5371 Civil Civil Action - Law; Jury Trial Demanded Dear Sir or Madam: In connection with the above-referenced matter, enclosed please find: 1. An original and two (2) copies of the Plaintiffs Brief in Response to Allstate Insurance Co.'s Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Alternative Motion for Protective Order; and 2. An original and two (2) copies of the Plaintiffs Answer to Allstate Insurance Company's Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Alternative Motion for Protective Order, which is supportive of the aforementioned Brief. Please docket and file these documents, which concern a Discovery issue; forward them to the Honorable Kevin A Hess, Judge, who is assigned to this case. The additional copies are to be clocked in copy for our files and to be provided to the counsel to be served. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should you have any questions or require anything else, feel free to contact me at the telephone number listed above. very truly HAND R, H NING & RO ERG BY atthew S. rosby MSC/vflenclosure cc: Mr. Frank DiGiacomo HANDLER HENNING& ROSENBERG ATTORNEYS AT IAV,, IESUE B. HANDLER REIRID W. SCOTT HENNING DAVID H ROSENIERG pA, III CAROCYN M. ARNER IRA, NY, IN) MATTHEW S. CRDSeI IYA, NO GREGORY M. f EAINER UN, ND SEEMING . HELD SAMUEL HANDLER (1922 90) July 6, 2000 Office of the Court Administrator CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Re: Frank DEGiacomo v. Charles Revlek Cumberland County No. 99.5371 Civil Civil Action - Law; Jury Trial Demanded Dear Sir or Madam: In connection with the above-referenced matter, enclosed please find: HARRISBURG OFFICE 319 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717.238.2000 7172333029 (fox) IANCASIER OFFICE 140A Easl King Street [ancestor, PA 17602 7174314000 DIRECT MAT[ 70: P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 www. HHRtawsoln CrosbyQhhdaw.com 1. An original and two (2) copies of the Plaintiffs Brief in Response to Allstate Insurance Co.'s Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Alternative Motion for Protective Order; and 2. An original and two (2) copies of the Plaintiffs Answer to Allstate Insurance Company's Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Alternative Motion for Protective Order, which is supportive of the aforementioned Brief. Please docket and file these documents, which concern a Discovery issue; forward them to the Honorable Kevin A Hess, Judge, who is assigned to this case. The additional copies are to be clocked in copy for our files and to be provided to the counsel to be served. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should you have any questions or require anything else, feel free to contact me at the telephone number listed above. very truly HAND R, H NING & RO ERG BY atthew S. rosby MSC/vf/enclosure cc: Mr. Frank DiGiacomo NO. 99-5371 CHARLES RFYLEK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Del'cndant JURY "TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r-w AND NOW, this cz?3 day of August- 2000,1 hereby certify that 1 have, on this date, served the within Notice of Deposition, by sending a true and correct copy of same to the attorney of record, and including a copy to all parties of interest via first class United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Patricia Hoffman c/o Donald Kauffman. Esq. McNees. Wallace & Nurick 100 Pine Street P 0 Box 1 166 Harrisburg PA 17108 By: Matthew Gover, Esq. Nealon & Gover 301 Market Street 9"' Floor I larrisburg PA 17101 IIANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBEDG Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire ID #69367 1300 Linglestown Road P 0 Box 1 177 l larrisburg PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff ) J J) p.i Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99-5371 CHARLES REYLEK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this l(/ day of October, 2000,1 hereby certify that I have, on this date, served the within Notice of Deposition, by sending a true and correct copy of same to the attorney of record, and including a copy to all parties of interest via first class United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Michael Bruno Matthew Gover, Esq. c/o Donald Kauffman, Esq. Nealon & Gover McNees, Wallace & Nurick 301 Market Street 100 Pine Street 9"' Floor P 0 Box 1 166 t larrisburg PA 17101 Harrisburg PA 17108 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG By: Matthew S. Crosby. Esquire ID #69367 1300 Linglestown Road P O Box 1177 I larrisburg PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff ., , .., -, =:; ,? . . ` ,_ ?. ?.; _ '•J V. NO. 99-5371 CHARLES REYLEK, CIVIL Aurm - LAW Defendant .AIRY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, thisszly ol'August, 2000, 1 hereby certify that 1 have, on this date, served the within Notice of Deposition, by sending a true and correct copy of same to the attorney of record, and including a copy to all parties of interest via first class United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Michael Bruno c/o Donald Knuffinan. Esq. McNees, Wallace & Nurick 100 Pine Street P O Box 1166 Harrisburg PA 17108 Matthew Gover, Esq. Nealon & Gover 301 Market Street 9"' Floor Harrisburg PA 17101 HANDLER. HENNING & ROSENBERG By: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire ID #69367 1300 Linglestown Road P O Box 1177 I larrisburg PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff ??, ; ? ... ; ? - ,>_i _, ?:? ._ ? ? • ,-? =, :, :_> TO THE PROINCTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: (Check one) ( X ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ( ) for trial without a jury. ----------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) FRANC DIGIACOMO, (X ) Civil Action - Law ( ) Appeal from Arbitration (other) VS. CHARLES REYLEK PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) (Plaintiff) The trial list will be called on June 12. 2 and vs. (Defendant) Trials comrence on July g 9nm Pretrials will be held on June 20, 2001 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) (The party listing this case for trial shal provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.) No. qq-g371 Civil 19 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Matthew R Gover Esquire 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire This case is ready for trial. Date: J l'i/ - ? l Signed: Print Name: Matthew R. Gover, Esquire Attorney for: Charles yiek } n r_ I w C1 u _ ? - O lJ FRANK DiGIACOMO, Plaintiff V. CHARLE5 REYLEK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA5 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN5YLVANIA NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Y,A AND NOW, this day of April, 2001, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of a Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Dr. Stuart Hartman was served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Dr. Stuart Hartman Matthew Gover, Esq. 2645 North Third Street NEALON & GOVER. 5uite #490 2411 N. Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 Harrisburg, PA 17110 HANDLER, HENNING & R05ENBERG G Matthew 5. Crosby, Esquire ID # 69367 1300 Lingle5town Road PO Box 1177 Harrisburg PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff L r CJ .i =;J r -- i ?,. L FRANK DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff V. CHARLES RFYLEK, Defendant CUMBERLAND COUN'rY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 0 day of October. 2000, I hereby certify that 1 have, on this date, served the within Notice of Deposition, by sending a true and correct copy of same to the attorney of record, and including a copy to all parties of interest via first class United States trail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Patricia I-loffman c/o Donald Kauffman, Esq. McNees, Wallace & Nurick 100 Pine Street P O Boa 1 166 Harrisburg PA 17108 Matthew Gover, Esq. Nealon & Gover 301 Market Street 9"' Floor I larrisburg PA 17101 I IANDLER. HENNING & ROSENBERG By: Matthew S. Crosby. Esquire ID #69367 1300 Linglestown Road P O Boa 1177 Harrisburg PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff C1 nl f-? '.J PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: (Check one) ( X ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ( ) for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) ( ) Assumpsit FRANK DiGIACOMO I ) Trespass ( ) Trespass (Motor Vehicle) Civil Action - Law (other) (Plainti(t) vs. CHARLES REYLEK (Defendant) vs. December 31, 2001 FThetrial will be called on January 28, 2002 mence on --- Frctnals will be he-1d nn _ Januar _ y 9, 2002 ---- - - (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel. pursuant to local Rule 2141.) No. 99_5371 civil -_-- 1999 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who (files this praecipe: -- Matthew S. Crosby, Esq., 1;,00 Linglestown Rd., Harrisburg, PA 17110 Indicate trial counsel for other parties i nowm, _ __ _ Matthew R. Gover, Esq., 2411 North Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17110 This case is ready for trial. Signed: ,l Matthew S. Crosby, Esq. Print Name: _-_- - -- ------• ?t ?a6 0 Attorney for Frank DiGiacomo_ ,_ ?> ?= t:' ? _ i- _ ??'? _ ?_. -- ... ???c_i n c.: ?_ '!iC? t.?... ?.,rL ? ":i J W Or e ° ,,, u o w .Y J LL ac LL w 0 y, LL w^ O V C C a Q c^ ? O F- Y O W = N ? N w y m C d m V = o o ?0 o ° ze?? °C FRANK DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff V. CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-5371 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Praecipe for Listing Case for Trial was served on the Defendant, Charles Reylek, by sending a copy of the same to his counsel of record, as follows, by United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on September 21, 2001. Matthew R. Gover, Esq., NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front St. Harrisburg, PA 17110 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG DATE:_ Ct) Z,6'0 By a ew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. #69367 P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (7171238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-5371 CIVIL CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ORDER AND NOW, this zo' day of July, 2000, a brief argument on the motion of Allstate Insurance company to quash subpoenas and alternative motion for protective order is set for Wednesday, August 9, 2000, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire For the Plaintiff Matthew R. Gover, Esquire For the Defendant Donald B. Kaufman, Esquire For the Movant BY THE COURT, jKevi. Hess, J. ? - O. r7-ao -oo RX8 :rlm V.i?? .. ?i\i ... W o LL 9 LL vo tow 0 N^ O 0 ?o LL N^ o O 1 4 C7 a W rn z W Y d ? o a ? CO i ti .M NW ` •l ? ^ y P u Q n 0 iMCn ? Z ?8 3-a V 3 rw W vJ ? Y ?? a jdWollonsWigiacomo•response FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. NO. 99-5371 CIVIL CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by Matthew S. Crosby, Esq., and hereby responds to Allstate Insurance Company's Motion to Quash Subpoenas, and Alternative Motion for Protective Order. In support thereof, Plaintiff asserts the following: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. By way of further response, Plaintiff believes that the subpoenas speak for themselves. Copies of the subpoenas were attached as Exhibit A to Allstate's Motion. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. By way of further response, the Explanatory Note to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 states, "a lawyer's notes or memoranda of an oral interview of a witness, who signs no ATitten statement, are protected but the same notes or memoranda made by an insurance investigator will not be protected. Id. (Emphasis added.) 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. By way of further response, the subpoenas referenced in Paragraph 6 simply request that the deponents bring with them "...any and all information...," pertaining to this case. Plaintiff is without information or belief as to whether all documents requested by the Subpoena include information regarding the mental impressions, conclusions or opinions of Hoffman, Bruno and Allstate. Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 4003.3, memoranda prepared by a private investigator employed by a party's counsel that summarized interviews with several persons were discoverable, provided that mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of the claim or defense or respecting strategy or tactics of the person who prepared these writings are deleted. See Briem v. Coppola, 37 D. & C.3d 350 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1984). 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff is attempting to obtain information concerning Allstate's investigation of this claim as is permitted by Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3. Plaintiff has repeatedly advised both counsel for Defendant, Charles Reylek, and counsel for Allstate Insurance Company that he will not seek information regarding Allstate's mental impressions, opinions, and conclusions, with respect to the value or merit of Plaintiffs claim or with respect to strategy or tactics. To that end, Plaintiff would agree to the protective order proposed by Allstate's counsel. Plaintiff simply wants to discover what the Allstate investigation uncovered about the facts of this collision. Defendant Reylek has testified in his deposition that he spoke with both Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Bruno about how this collision took place. The three pages of the Allstate claims diary that have been produced to date make no mention of any discussions with the Defendant about the facts of the 1) collision. Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 explicitly provides that "a party may obtain discovery of any matter discoverable under Rule 4003.1 even though prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative, including.... his insurer." Id. (Emphasis added.) 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Defendant has produced some documentation from Allstate's claims diary. Unfortunately, that documentation consists ofthree (3) pages. Attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit A," the pages from Allstate's claims diary that were provided to Plaintiff, in response to his Requests for Production of Documents. 11. Denied. Plaintiff seeks all portions ofAllstate's claims diary and/or investigatory file. Those portions of those documents that are privileged may certainly be redacted. Allstate cites a federal rules case for the proposition that the Subpoenas seek documents that are not permitted to be discovered under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Allstate fails to point out that Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 differs materially from Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). The Pennsylvania Rules of Procedure "are not, and cannot be, identical to the federal rules, because of the differences between state and federal practice." Kevin A. Hess, Seth A. Mendlesohn. & Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Pennsylvania Civil Practice § 14.1(3d ed. 1998). The Explanatory Note to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 suggests that the Pennsylvania Rule differs from the Federal Rule in two respects. "First, the Federal Rule permits discovery only when 3 the party seeking discovery shows a substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain a substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. Under the provisions of Rule 4003.3, such a showing of substantial need and undue hardship will not be required." Id. "Second, the work product protection of the Rule distinguishes between that afforded the attorney and that afforded the party's representative. They are on equal footing under the Federal Rules. The Committee viewed the work product privilege enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Hickman v. Tavlor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), as stating a special rule applicable to lawyers which need not necessarily be the same as that applied to other representatives, particularly insurance investigators." Id. (Emphasis added.) 12. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff submits that Pa.R.C.P. 4003.2 speaks for itself. Plaintiff also notes, however, that Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 permits the discovery of an insurance carrier's claims file. The explanatory note to Rule 4003.3 states that "the Rule is carefully drawn and means exactly what it says." Id. Furthermore, Rule 4003.3 itself explicitly provides that memoranda, notes, summaries, legal research and legal theories prepared by a party's attorney are not discoverable whereas the Rule, while providing that a party's representative's mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense are not discoverable, provides no similar protection for memoranda, notes, summaries, legal research and legal theories prepared by a party's representative. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff believes that the S•rarmack opinion 4 speaks for itself, With respect to Allstate's claim that Plaintiff is not entitled to an application for insurance, other private financial information or even an actual copy of the insurance policy, this is that the Plaintiff is not seeking in this case. 14. Denied. As discussed in Plaintiff's response to Paragraphs 6, 11, and 12, the information Plaintiff seeks in this case is clearly discoverable. Further, "the courts, since the adoption of the discovery rules, have followed the policy that discovery should be liberally allowed and limitations thereon should be narrowly construed." Kevin A. Hess, Seth A. Mendlesohn, & Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Pennsylvania Civil Practice § 14.1 (3d ed. 1998) (citing Szarmack v. Welsh, 456 Pa. 293, 318 A.2d 707 (1974)). 15. Denied. As discussed in Plaintiff's responses to Paragraphs 6, 11, and 12, the information Plaintiff seeks in this case is clearly discoverable. Furthermore, the Explanatory Note to Rule 4003.3 provides that "memoranda or notes made by the representative are not protected." Id. (Emphasis added.) 16. Denied. "While little discovery is possible without some person being annoyed, embarrassed, or caused some burden or expense, the mere existence of one or more of those factors is not sufficient grounds to forbid discovery. It is in the case of unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, etc., that discovery will be forbidden. Whether or not something is unreasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case." Kevin A. Hess, Seth A. Mendlesohn, & Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Pennsylvania Civil Practice § 14.4 (3d ed. 1998) (citing Geyer v. Seven Springs Farm. Inc., 36 Som. 95 (1978); Jamison v. Saul, 2 D.&C.3d 495 (1977); Davis v. Pennzoil Co., 38 5 D.&C.2d 289 (1965); Hall v. Sall, 86 Montg. 54 (1965); Feldman v. Seligman .& Latz Inc 9 D.&C.2d 394 m(1957); Simon v. Simon, 6 D.&C.3d 196 (1977)). Furthermore, the party objecting to discovery under the exceptions of Rule 4011 has the burden of establishing that the subject information sought falls within an exception under Rule 401 I. See Vinkso v. Fornara, 27 Bucks 363 (Pa.Com.P). 1975). The burden of proof is upon the party objecting to discovery to establish non- discoverability rather than upon the proponent to establish discoverability. See Winck v. Daley Mack Sales Inc., 21 D. & C.3d 399 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1980). Allstate makes nothing more than a bald assertion that the Subpoenas cause unreasonable annoyance, and cause undue burden and expense. Allstate offers no explanation as to how these Subpoenas would unreasonably annoy or cause undue hardship beyond that which every subpoena entails. 17. Denied. Paragraph 17 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response were judicially determined to be required, the allegations in Paragraph 17 are specifically denied. 18. Denied in part and Admitted in part. Plaintiff objects only to Allstate's Motion to Quash the Subpoenas. As aforementioned, Plaintiff does not seek discovery of mental impressions, conclusions and/or opinions of the Allstate employees. Therefore, Plaintiff does not object to Allstate's Motion for a Protective Order limiting the depositions of Hoffman and Bruno to discoverable matters, including but not limited to, Hoffman's and Bruno's communications with witnesses as to the facts of the accident and any injuries or treatment of Plaintiff. 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court deny Allstate Insurance Company's Motion to Quash the Subpoenas and, if this Court deems it necessary, issue a Protective Order precluding the Plaintiff from discovering, during the depositions of Hoffman and Bruno, Hoffman's and Bruno's mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions. Respectfully submitted, Date:_ G LG HANDLER NNING & ROSENBERG B Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 69367 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 0 c Ite SIU TRANSFER r Claim 31L, j ?<?/ I -' 1 1 ? ? I I I i 1 1 I 1 - I 1 1 1 Claim Rep t Date 1 `------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- --------------- 1 File To SIU 1 1 Retain In MCO 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 - 1 I I 1 1 CCM/P Date ------- -------------------- -------------J - ------- ---- ------- ----- p ---------------- i Q Assign SIU Re I 1 1 Return To MCO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 i SIU Mgr. _ -----------' I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 r` 'i 1 Date 1 ___ _ _ _ _ 0 ------------ ---- --------- - ---------- --------- ----------------, FILE TRANSFE '!HEFT ' NUMBER 71,3 TOCOMMENT !L/ TO: 1)L( DATE UCM COMMENTS SIU SCOREBOARD COMPLETED ES NO/Sr MIST YES NO UCM ITEMS 1`J)OSSibly DATE ?? COMP eren 1. INSD R/S 2. INSD DRIVER R/S 3. INSD PASSENGER R/S 4. PERMISSIVE USE R/S S. LATE NOTICE R/S 8. COVERAGE R/S l ? 7. CLMT DRIVER R/S 1 8. CLMT PASSENGER R/S 9. ACTIVITY CHECK 10. I.M.E OR PEER 11. WITNESS R/S 12. SCENE PHOTOS 13. PHOTOS INSD CAR 14. PHOTOS CLMT CAR 1S. POLICE REPORT (ca?) no police 18. CC CARRIER CONTACT _ne 17. CHECK PRIOR LOSS HISTORY 18. INCOME 6 ASSETS CHECK d UM/UIM CHECK LIST 19. ATTY CONTACT FILE ASSIGNED IN CONTINUING UNIT TO:?( f MANAGERS COMMENTC. F'FS-SCHED Fit) PF7-BACY.WD •x** ONLY EMPLOYEE GP29 CAN 1.'300 - CLAIM REPRESENTATIVE 1550 HARRISBURG tics CLAIM NUMBER: 155 318277 L.):NE: 10 PFS--FRWD PF9••PRINT PF11••PREV STMT PF12•-NEXT STMT LJF TF_ THE: STATEMENT YOU HAVE ^LECTED (** t•JOnK ORDER DESK: UCS 717--540--7300 DATE: 08/12/98 TIME: 09:05 AM 3 L.OSSDT: 08/06/98 POLICY: 008235051 EEFFDT: 03/15/90 ORIGINAL YR: 80 NOTDT: 00/08/98 INSURED NAME: STEPHANIE R REYLEK AND CHMRLES J 421 CRISWELL BOILING SPRINGS PA 170079606 AGENT NAME".: PAUL MATT'L1S AGY INC TELEPHONE: 717•-731--5456 ASSIGNMENT FOR: 02 MONRO MUFFLER DRAKE SRV EMP: ANG: Er ADDRESS: 3243 PAXTON ST FIARRISBURG Ph 17111 PHONE: 000-000••0000 BUS: 717••558-8846 X0000 HOURS: 00-00 - VEHICLE' 91 FORD RANGER 2DR YELLOW PLATE: YP30377 F IN.SF' I..OC:A'fT.ON:1F0 QF_bfil iNJA964VOONMETFF+I-IBG.?w DRIVEABLE: Y a qgs t,;REAS DAMAGE I) --R REAR PRIOR DAMAGE:: SHOP TRUCK ...Wll.L BE OUTSIDE. IF AFTER HOURS. CALL B/A GOING PRIOR CLAIM.':: 1558588867 1559081441 !HtMORE VEHICLE. S.-CODES DESCRIPTION FACTS OF LOSS: PER CLHT DRIVER/CLMT STOPPED AT STOP SIGN AT THE EXIT OF 50f AND TRENDEL. RD (2L.N ONE WAY EXIT HEADING W IN THE TURNING LN) AND INS WHO WAS TRAV IN T14E SAME LN AND DIR AS CLMT FAILED TO STOP AND STRUCK CLMT APPROX 25MPH PSI_ APPROX 25MPH ASSIGNMENT : 07 INSPECT ONLY 1'1-101'0 RED : Y LOSS OF USE INVOLVEMENT: N STATED VALUE: N ITEM/CLMT : BB02 TRAM REASON: LEASED: COMMENTS : NEED VERY VERY GOOD 35MM MIST P•IOTOS!!!!!!! ..REAR BUMPER... CU STOMER CARE : neu PRIOR CLAIM DATA MATCH FOUMD •• REFER TO SAR REPORT C600••XY.XX FOR FURTHER INFO *** COV LIMITS DESCRIPTION AA 500.000/500 .000 BODILY INJURY t t)B ioo.!•)00 PROPERTY DAMAGE ?o Cr f;F 10.000 900 2 MEDICAL PAYMENTS BENEFIT _` FUNERAL . . - COLLISION DD - 50!) Hl1 COMPREHENSIVE AW 500.000.'900 .000 - STACKAPLE UNINSURED MOTORIST N1I 'i!)?.F)1)!)/.'i4)1) ,000 STACKADLE UNDERINSURED MOTORIST CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on Allstate Insurance Co., by hand-delivering a copy of the same to Allstate's counsel of record, as follows Donald B. Kaufman, Esq., Charles T. Young, Jr., Esq. McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine St., P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 and to counsel for Defendant, Charles Reylek, as follows: Matthew R. Gover, Esq. NEALON & GOVER 301 Market St., 91h floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108 on July (o , 2000. DATE: HANDL HENNING & ROSENBERG B Matthew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. #69367 P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 23872000 Attorneys for Plaintiff I r ? V p N J ,.. v^O LL v?O ??W ? M y y P V O - z0 ? - ^ ? ~ L M o J- o ? Q All 0 6 200012" FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. CHARLES REYLEK, NO. 99.5371 CIVIL Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS This is a negligence case arising out of a rearend motor vehicle collision that occurred on or about August 31, 1999. Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Defendant, Charles Reylek. At the time of the collision, Mr. Reylek was insured with Allstate Insurance Cc (hereinafter, "Allstate.") The damage to both vehicles appeared to be relatively minor. Written discovery has been exchanged and depositions of both parties have been taken. Defendant is claiming, inter a/ia, that the impact between the two vehicles was too minor to cause injury to the Plaintiff. Defendant has indicated in discovery that his vehicle, essentially, slowly rolled into Mr. DiGiacomo's vehicle, at a speed of 2 mph or less. Conversely, Mr. DiGiacomo has testified that the impact was significant and that he did hear squealing tires just before being struck. There are clear discrepancies in both parties' accounts. -1- Also of note is the Defendant's testimony that he spoke with Mike Bruno and Patricia Hoffman, both Allstate adjusters, on separate occasions. These discussions centered around what happened in the collision. Allstate has provided Plaintiff's counsel with its claims diary, consisting of a total of three (3) pages. Said claims diary is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit A." 11. ISSUE PRESENTED IS THE PLAINTIFF IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION PERMITTED TO DEPOSE AN INSURANCE COMPANY ADJUSTER AND QUESTION SAID ADJUSTER REGARDING THE FACTS UNCOVERED IN HIS OR HER INVESTIGATION? (Proposed answer in the affirmative) Ill. ARGUMENT A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1(a). It is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial, if the information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1(b). In the case at bar, we know that Patricia Hoffman and Mike Bruno, both Allstate adjusters, conducted an investigation into the facts surrounding this collision. We know, from the Defendant's own testimony, that he personally spoke with both Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Bruno about what occurred in the collision. We know that the three-page claims diary, provided to the Plaintiff in discovery, makes no reference whatsoever to any discussions or statements between any Allstate Insurance Co. adjusters and the Defendant. The question now before this Honorable Court is -2- whether Mr. DiGiacomo's counsel may depose the aforementioned Allstate adjusters regarding the facts their investigations revealed. Plaintiff submits that this information is more than relevant. It goes to the very heart of the case. This case likely will come down to whether a jury panel believes the Defendant's version of how the collision occurred. The Defendant has essentially described the impact between the two vehicles as a "love tap." He claims to have not even realized that an impact had taken place. What the Defendant told Mr. Bruno and/or Ms. Hoffman may be very different than what he had testified to under oath. At a bare minimum, this information is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. Second, Plaintiff submits that the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Allstate adjusters in question may have also spoken with other witnesses or conducted a physical investigation of the collision scene. Furthermore, there is an outstanding issue with regard to the existence of videotaped surveillance. In response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory requesting surveillance information, the Defendant responded as follows: Objection. An objection is made to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks production of materials related to surveillance that may have been conducted regarding the Plaintiff's activities. This objection is made on the basis that production of such materials at this time is not required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. It is very likely that the aforementioned Allstate adjusters may have factual information -3- regarding any surveillance that may have been conducted in this case. Now that Plaintiff's deposition has been taken, Defendant cannot continue to withhold this information. Finally, Plaintiff would like to make it clear to this Honorable Court that he is not seeking to discover the mental impressions, conclusions, or opinions of Mr. Bruno or Ms. Hoffman. That information is clearly protected, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.3. To that end, Plaintiff would agree to conduct these depositions in accordance with Allstate's proposed Protective Order. IV. CONCLUSION The explanatory note to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.3 provides that, interaiia, "A lawyer's notes or memoranda of an oral interview of a witness, who signs no written statement, are protected, but the some notes or memoranda made by an insurance investigator will not be Protected." (Emphasis added.) The Rules of Civil Procedure are crystal-clear in addressing the discoverability of notes and memoranda made by an insurance investigator. In this case, Allstate is claiming that no such notes or memoranda exist. Plaintiff is simply asking this Honorable Court for the opportunity to discuss, with Mr. Bruno and Ms. Hoffman, the contents of their discussions with -4- the Defendant. Again, Plaintiff only seeks information regarding the facts of this collision and the facts that the Allstate's investigation revealed. Date: 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Respectfully submitted, HANDLE ENNING & ROSENBERG B : atthew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. # 69367 -5- M* TO: I r I -- I I I I I I I 1 I -- ?__----------• File To SIU I i Retain In MCO I r I r I I I 1 SIU TRANSFER Claim E ???? ict.a?)J Claim Rep Date ------------------ ------------- -------------------- r------------ ------------- Assign SIU Rep _ I r ' Return To MCO r r r r r CCM/P? ----_ Date I I r r i I SIU Mgr. r I Date ' ------------- -------------------------•-- ------------------------------------------- -------------- ------ -r V? . _ i r FILM TRANSPRR !!H!!T NUMBIR: /Ra773 To-.Plly 1.c) UCM COMMEN ddL' aY ' i „? SIU SCOREBOARD COMPLETED T ? ES NO Jii / st r MIST YES NO UCM ITEMS ibly DATE COM L 1 INSp R/S P _m ?. INSO DRIVER R/S 3. INSO PASSENGER R/S 4. PERMISSIVE USE R/S 5. IATE NOTICE R/S e. COVERAGE R/S 7. CLMT DRIVER R/S \ S. CLMT PASSENGER R/S 9. ACTIVITY CHECK 10. I.M.F OR PEER 11. WITNESS R/S 12. SCENE PHOTOS 13. PHOTOS INSD CAR 14. PHOTOS CLMT CAR 15. POLICE REPORT (1Q p0I 1 C P Ca ?11C 1S. (;C CARRIER CONTACT - 17. CHECK PRIOR LOSS HISTORY 18. INCOME 6 ASSETS CHECK & UMA11M CHECK LIST 19. ATTY CONTACT ._ L. FILE ASSIGNED IN CONTINUING UNIT TO:--If/,,F MANAGERS COMMENTS; .Y ,V !'F SCHf;1? !'; I1 F'*7-BACY.t•JD FFB--FRl-JD Pry--PRINT PF11•-PREV STMT PF12--NEXT' STMT ONLY EMPLOYEE GB2 9 CAM Ur TE TNE: STATEMENT YOU HAVE ':.Lf::CTED *** 1-300 - CLAIM REPRESENTATIVE W04.K ORDER DESK: UCS 1550 HriRrA.SPURG 717-•540-7500 !C'S DATE: 08/12/98 TIME: 09405 AM CLAIM NUMBER: 135 318277 3 L.OS'SDT: 08/06/98 POLICY: 008235071 1 INFi: to EF-F"DT: 03/113/98 ORIGINAL YR: 80 NOTDT: 08/08/98 INSURED PIAMF: STEPHANIE L riBOILI AND I 421 ISW 421 L MATI_LL_ BOILING SPRINGS NGS PA A 170079606 AGEhIT PlAMI?: PAUL MATTl1S AGY INC TELEPHONE: 717•-731-5456 ?( ASSIGNMFNI' FOR: 02 MONRU MUFFLER BRAKE SRV EMI'' 1 qNG: El ADDRESS: 3243 PAXTON ST HARRISBURG Ph f7111 F•NMMF: 000••000--0000 DUN: 717••558•41846 X0000 HOURS: 00-•00 VFIIICL.IS' 91 FORD RANGER 2DR YELLOW PLATE: YP30377 f VTN'-F--T-CA10 ,7/!W9450VODOMETER: Cu?w DRIVEABLE: Y INSP I.(Ir.A'fTON: MONROE UFFI_FR...PAXTON ST..I•IRG.. 7OL S$s mm-As DAMAta-v •-R REAR ?PRT0r: DAMAGF SHOP TRUCK ...WII..L. BE OUTSIDE IF AFTER HOURS, CALL. B/A GOING F'RIr)R CLAIMS: 155858SE167 1539081441 440MOR VFHTCI F .S'-CODES DESCRIPTION FACTS OF" LUSI: PER CLMT DRIVER/CLMT STOPPED AT STOP SIGN AT THE EXIT OF 581 AND TRENDEL. RD (2L.N ONE WAY EXIT HEADING W IN THE TURNING LN) AND INS WHU WAS TRAV IN THE SAME LN AND DIR AS CLMT FAILED TO STOP AND STRUCK CLMT Ar^•P•ROX 25MPH F'SI_ APPROX 25MPH AN JLIIMENT: 07 INSPECT ONLY r•i.in'1'(t RFo. Y LOSS OF USE INVOLVEMENT: N STATED VALUE: N ITEM/CLMT: T1802 TRAN REASON: LEASED: COMMFNTS: NEED VERY VERY GOOD 35MM MIST PHOTOS!!!!!!! ,.REAR Bl1MPF..R... CIISTOMFR ! hPF: 114,44 PRIOR CLAIM DATA MATCH FOUND •• REFEP. TO SAR REPORT C600••XY,Y,Y, FOR FURIMER INFO *** COV i.TMTTN DESCRIPTION O'd AA 7()() 000 BODILY INJURY - Bn t on moo PROPERTY DAMAGE '' 11 4.lit? - (:C t 0 , 111111 MEDICAL PAYMENTS N* t:J° P)o FUNERAL. BENEFIT sttp nJl-d i DD ^7 COL.L.ISION / 9 lIN COMPREHENSIVE i0^. w!d!•)/•?!?!!.000 - STACHABLE UNINSURED MOTORIST 1 'I'>^ ":`!> '°!!!).000 STACY,APLE UNDERINSUPED MOTORIST CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on Allstate Insurance Co., by hand-delivering a copy of the same to Allstate's counsel of record, as follows: Donald B. Kaufman, Esq., Charles T. Young, Jr., Esq. McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine St., P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 and to counsel for Defendant, Charles Reylek, as follows: Matthew R. Gover, Esq. NEALON&GOVER 301 Market St., V floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108 on July ? 2000. DATE: 7 ? HANDL ", ENNING & ROSENBERG B // Matthew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. #69367 P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff j0molionsW igiazamo-response FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYJc ,VANC IA Plaintiff r r. CIVIL ACTION - LAW rn V. NO. 99-5371 CIVIL CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED l - PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, by and through his attorneys, ll, )) HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by Matthew S. Crosby, Esq., and hereby responds to ??? Allstate Insurance Company's Motion to Quash Subpoenas, and Alternative Motion for Protective Order. In support thereof, Plaintiff asserts the following: Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. By way of further response, Plaintiff believes that the subpoenas speak for themselves. Copies of the subpoenas were attached as Exhibit A to Allstate's Motion. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. By way of further response, the Explanatory Note to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 states, "a lawyer's notes or memoranda of an oral interview of a witness, who signs no written statement, are protected but the same notes or memoranda made by an insurance investigator will not be protected. Id. (Emphasis added.) 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. By way of further response, the subpoenas referenced in Paragraph 6 simply request that the deponents bring with them "...any and all information...," pertaining to this case. Plaintiff is without information or belief as to whether all documents requested by the Subpoena include information regarding the mental impressions, conclusions or opinions of Hoffman, Bruno and Allstate. Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 4003.3, memoranda prepared by a private investigator employed by a party's counsel that summarized interviews with several persons were discoverable, provided that mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of the claim or defense or respecting strategy or tactics of the person who prepared these writings are deleted. See Briem v. Coppola, 37 D. & C.3d 350 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1984). 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff is attempting to obtain information concerning Allstate's investigation of this claim as is permitted by Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3. Plaintiff has repeatedly advised both counsel for Defendant, Charles Reylek, and counsel for Allstate Insurance Company that he will not seek information regarding Allstate's mental impressions, opinions, and conclusions, with respect to the value or merit of Plaintiffs claim or with respect to strategy or tactics. To that end, Plaintiff would agree to the protective order proposed by Allstate's counsel. Plaintiff simply wants to discover what the Allstate investigation uncovered about the facts of this collision. Defendant Reylek has testified in his deposition that he spoke with both Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Bruno about how this collision took place. The three pages of the Allstate claims diary that have been produced to date make no mention of any discussions with the Defendant about the facts of the I collision. Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 explicitly provides that "a party may obtain discovery of any matter discoverable under Rule 4003.1 even though prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative, including.... his insurer." Id. (Emphasis added.) 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Defendant has produced some documentation from Allstate's claims diary. Unfortunately, that documentation consists ofthree (3) pages. Attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit A," the pages from Allstate's claims diary that were provided to Plaintiff, in response to his Requests for Production of Documents. 11. Denied. Plaintiff seeks all portions ofAllstate'sclaims diary and/or investigatory file, Those portions of those documents that are privileged may certainly be redacted. Allstate cites a federal rules case for the proposition that the Subpoenas seek documents that are not permitted to be discovered under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Allstate fails to point out that Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 differs materially from Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). The Pennsylvania Rules of Procedure "are not, and cannot be, identical to the federal rules, because of the differences between state and federal practice." Kevin A. Hess, Seth A. Mendlesohn, & Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Pennsylvania Civil Practice § 14.1 (3d ed. 1998). The Explanatory Note to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3 suggests that the Pennsylvania Rule differs from the Federal Rule in two respects. "First, the Federal Rule permits discovery only when 3 the party seeking discovery shows a substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain a substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. Under the-provisions of Rule 4003.3, such a showing of substantial need and undue hardship will not be required." Id. "Second, the work product protection of the Rule distinguishes between that afforded the attorney and that afforded the party's representative. They are on equal footing under the Federal Rules. The Committee viewed the work product privilege enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), as stating a special rule applicable to lawyers which need not necessarily be the same as that applied to other representatives, particularly insurance investigators." Id. (Emphasis added.) 12. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff submits that Pa.R.C.P. 4003.2 speaks for itself. Plaintiff also notes, however, that Pa.R.C.P.4003.3 permits the discovery of an insurance carrier's claims file. The explanatory note to Rule 4003.3 states that "the Rule is carefully drawn and means exactly what it says." Id. Furthermore, Rule 4003.3 itself explicitly provides that memoranda, notes, summaries, legal research and legal theories prepared by a party's attorney are not discoverable whereas the Rule, while providing that a party's representative's mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense are not discoverable, provides no similar protection for memoranda, notes, summaries, legal research and legal theories prepared by a party's representative. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff believes that the Szannack opinion 4 speaks for itself. With respect to Allstate's claim that Plaintiff is not entitled to an application for insurance, other private financial information or even an actual copy of the insurance policy, this is that the Plaintiff i; not seeking in this case. 14. Denied. As discussed in Plaintiffs response to Paragraphs 6, 11, and 12, the information Plaintiff seeks in this case is clearly discoverable. Further, "the courts, since the adoption of the discovery rules, have followed the policy that discovery should be liberally allowed and limitations thereon should be narrowly construed." Kevin A. Hess, Seth A. Mendlesohn, & Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Pennsylvania Civil Practice § 14.1 (3d ed. 1998) (citing Szarmack v. Welsh, 456 Pa. 293, 318 A.2d 707 (1974)). 15. Denied. As discussed in Plaintiffs responses to Paragraphs 6, 11, and 12, the information Plaintiff seeks in this case is clearly discoverable. Furthermore, the Explanatory Note to Rule 4003.3 provides that "memoranda or notes made by the representative are not protected." Id. (Emphasis added.) 16. Denied. "While little discovery is possible without some person being annoyed, embarrassed, or caused some burden or expense, the mere existence of one or more of those factors is not sufficient grounds to forbid discovery. It is in the case of unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, etc., that discovery will be forbidden. Whether or not something is unreasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case." Kevin A. Hess, Seth A. Mendlesohn, & Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Pennsylvania Civil Practice § 14.4 (3d ed. 1998) (citing Geyer v. Seven Springs Farm. Inc., 36 Som. 95 (1978); Jamison v. Saul, 2 D.&C.3d 495 (1977); Davis v. Pennzoil Co., 38 5 D.&C.2d 289 (1965); Hall v. Sall, 86 Montg. 54 (1965); Feldman v. Seligman & Late Inc 9 D.&C.2d 394 m(1957); Simon v. Simon, 6 D.&C.3d 196 (1977)). Furthermore, the party objecting to discovery under the exceptions of Rule 4011 has the burden of establishing that the subject information sought falls within an exception under Rule 4011. See Vinkso v. Fomara, 27 Bucks 363 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1975). The burden of proof is upon the party objecting to discovery to establish non- discoverability rather than upon the proponent to establish discoverability. See Winck v. Daley Mack Sales Inc., 21 D. & C.3d 399 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1980). Allstate makes nothing more than a bald assertion that the Subpoenas cause unreasonable annoyance, and cause undue burden and expense. Allstate offers no explanation as to how these Subpoenas would unreasonably annoy or cause undue hardship beyond that which every subpoena entails. 17. Denied. Paragraph 17 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response were judicially determined to be required, the allegations in Paragraph 17 are specifically denied. 18. Denied in part and Admitted in part. Plaintiff objects only to Allstate's Motion to Quash the Subpoenas. As aforementioned, Plaintiff does not seek discovery of mental impressions, conclusions and/or opinions of the Allstate employees. Therefore, Plaintiff does not object to Allstate's Motion for a Protective Order limiting the depositions of Hoffman and Bruno to discoverable matters, including but not limited to, Hoffman's and Bruno's communications with witnesses as to the facts of the accident and any injuries or treatment of Plaintiff. 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court deny Allstate Insurance Company's Motion to Quash the Subpoenas and, if this Court deems it necessary, issue a Protective Order precluding the Plaintiff from discovering, during the depositions of Hoffman and Bruno, Hoffman's and Bruno's mental impressions, conclusions, and opinions. i Date: -7 G Lt d Respectfully submitted, HANDLER NNING & ROSENBERG B Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire Attorney I.D. 9 69367 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff SIU TRANSFER Claim /?cy 7/Lf..?77J TO: 1 1 1 I / - 1 I I 1 .?? 1 ? G 1 I 1 1 i I I I !I 1 - I I I I 1 f I • 1 I Claim Rep Date I I ------- ----------------------------------- ---- File To SIU 1 1 i Retain In MCO 1 { 1 I 1 1 II 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 -? 1 1 / 1 1 ?I I 1 CCM/P ; R Date ------------------------- ----------------------------------------? = Assign SIU Rep Return To MCO ; 1 1 I I 1 1 u I 1 1 I I II I 1 ` 1 1 I 1 1 - - 1 ? 1 1 SIU Mgr. 1 1 I -Date---- 1 ----------- ------------ ------ -------------------- -------------- ------------- ' I FILE TRANSFE SHEET ' NUMBER: /_.5 p 77 TO PI Iv - COMMEN _ - TO: q U' UCM COMMENTS"! i y SIU SCOREBOARD COMPLETED ES NO !'./( r ce- --- ----_ MIST YES NO -- -- ?_ UCM ITEMS Po 55I ?y NEE DATE 1. INSD R/S DE COMp ?T D 2. INSD DRIVER R/S 3. INSD PASSENGER R/S 4. PERMISSIVE USE R/S S. LATE NOTICE R/S 8. COVERAGE R/S ?l 7. CLMT DRIVER R/S \ S. CLMT PASSENGER R/S 9. ACTIVITY CHECK 10. I.M.E OR PEER 11. WITNESS R/S 12. SCENE PHOTOS 13. PHOTOS INSD CAR 14. PHOTOS CLMT CAR IS. POLICE REPORT no po it c e C? 18, CC CARRIER CONTACT • .. one _ 17. CHECK PRIOR LOSS HISTORY 18. INCOME 6 ASSETS CHECK 6 UMA11M CHECK UST 19. ATTY CONTACT / FILE ASSIGNED IN CONTINUING UNIT TO:! f MANAGERS COMMENTS: . PF5-SCHED F/U PF7-BACY,WI) *** ONLY EMPLOYEE GB29 CAN 1.300 - CLAIM REPRESENTATIVE 1550 I H' RRISBLIRG !!CS CLAIM NUMBER: 155 3182117 1.INE: 10 F'FET--FRI•)D PF9--PRINT PF11-•PREV OF TE THE STATEMENT YOU HAVE 4JOnK ORDER 717-•540-7500 DATE: 08/12 3 L.OSSDT: 08/06/98 :F'F'DT: 03/15/98 ORIGINAL YR: STMT PF12--NEXT STHT TLF.CTF,.D *** DESK: UCS f98 TIME: 09:05 AM POLICY: 008235051 Be NOTDT: 08/08/98 INSURED NAME: STEPHANIE R REYLEK AND CHMRLES J 421 CRISWELL BOILING SPRINGS PA 170079606 AGENT NAME.: PAUL MATT'US AGY INC TELEPHONE: 717•-731-5456 ASSIGNMENT FOR: 02 MONRO MUFFLER BRAKE SRV IG; Ei ADDRESS: 3243 PAXTON ST HARRISBURG PA 17111 PHONE: 000-000•-0000 BITS: 717••558-8846 X0000 HOURS: 00-00 VEHICLE! 91 FORD RANGER 2DR YELLOW PLATE: YP30377 f VIN1-F-7'l', lb A7/1J(JAgsa,9Y0DOMETER: (edk DRIVEABLE: Y T.NSP i..CICATION: MONROE MUFFLER ...PAXTON ST..I•IBG.. 11) i a%REAS DAMAGED: •-R REAR S8s 1. PRIOR .DAMAGE: SHOP TRUCK ...WIL.L. BE OUTSIDE IF AFTER HOURS. CALL. B/4 GOING PRIOR CLOIMS: 1558588E167 155908iAO MMORF VEHICLE S...CODES DESCRIPTION FACTS OF' LOSS: PER CLMT DRIVER/CLMT STOPPED AT STOP SIGN AT THE EXIT OF 581 AND TRENDEL. RD (2LN ONE WAY EXIT HEADING W IN THE TURNING LN) AND INS WHO WAS TRAV IN THE SAME LN AND DIR AS CLMT FAILED TO STOP AND STRUCK CLMT APPROX 25MPH F'SI_ APPROX.25MPH ASSIGNMENT: 07 INSPECT ONLY F-'I-IOTO RE?: Y LOSS' OF USE INVOLVEMENT: N STATED VALAJE: N ITEM/CLMT: FIB02 TRAN REASON: LEASED: COMMENTS: NEED VERY VERY GOOD 35MM MIST F'FIOTOS!!! ! ! ! ! :.REAR BUMPER... CUSTOMER CARE: o*u PRIOR CLAIM DATA MATCH FOUND - REFER TO EAR REPORT C600--XXY,X FOR FURTHER INFO *** COV LIMITS DESCRIPTION AA 500.000/500.000 BODILY INJURY DD 100.!•)00 PROPERTY DAMAGE .. II a liV - ° CC 10.000 MEDICAL PAYMENTS N CF' 2.500 FUNERAL- BENEFIT y.. 5 DD -- 500 COLLISION 1 9 !tli COMPREHFNS IVE 500.000, 500, 000 - STACKABLE UNINSURED MO TOFtT.ST ::TI SJO. E)!d!di'!E)!>, 000 STACY.ADLE UNDERINSURED MOTORIST CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on Allstate Insurance Co., by hand delivering a copy of the same to Allstate's counsel of record, as follows: Donald B. Kaufman, Esq., Charles T. Young, Jr., Esq. McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine St., P.O. Boy. 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 and to counsel for Defendant, Charles Reylek, as follows: Matthew R. Gover, Esq. NEALON & GOVER 301 Market St., 91" floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108 on July - ? , 2000. DATE: 7 .- HANDHENNING & ROSENBERG Dy// Matthew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. #69367 P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Pl u: r _ t .7 i www'W-Aoaim. 1s 10.n-ni:u :"mw. 9M1T Wft-? V"mr wx sm viron un,T Q o o 0 J 'n 0 V 0 Q ? 0 N >I O 0 Z Q N 0: W 0 a a Z; N N ¢ m 0 0 0 m 4 0 2 ? N Z F NN W w 0 N ?- m 2 f 0 W W 4 0. Y ? ¢ ¢ i ? m o N n ? ¢ a x FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF V. CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a Subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant, Charles Reylek, certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena with a copy of the Subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least 20 days prior to the date on which the Subpoena is sought to be served, 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed Subpoena, is attached to this Certificate. 3. No objection to the Subpoena has been received, and 4. The Subpoena, which will be served, is identical to the Subpoena, which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena. DATE: 3/8/00 mct:e w 9 (?/? f MA HEW R. GOVER, ESQUI E ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT L Ion March 8, 2000 Penn State Geisinger P.O. Box 850 Hershey, PA 17033-0850 In Re: Frank DiGiacomo Social Security #: 110-52-9122 Dear Records Custodian: 701 MARKET STREET • 9- FLOOR P.O. BOX 865 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 272.9900 FAX: (717) 236.9119 JAMES G. NEALON, III MATTHEW R. COVER BRIAN W. PERRY DAVID J. FREED CHRISTOPHER J. KNIGHT You are being served with a Notice and Subpoena for you to bring the records referred to in the Subpoena for examination by the undersigned at the time and place indicated. In serving upon you the Notice and Subpoena, I am proceeding under applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Subpoena and a Notice of Intent to Service the Subpoena was served upon the attorney for the Plaintiff more than 20 days ago. No objections to the Subpoena have been filed. If you would prefer, you may in advance of the deposition date send us photocopies of the records. With such photocopies, please include your statement for the cost of preparing the same, which we will promptly pay. In addition, you must complete the enclosed Certificate of Compliance. Upon receipt of such photocopies and the completed Certificate of Compliance by this office, your appearance will be canceled and the Subpoena withdrawn. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Should there be any questions, please telephone the undersigned at the above number. Sincerely, Barbara Baker, Paralegal NEALON & GOVER BJB/bib Enclosures FRANK DIGIACOMO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 99-6371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.2 2 TO: Penn State Gelsinger Within twenty (20) days after service of this Subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: SEE ATTACHED at the offices of Nealon & Gover, 301 Market Street, 9' Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this Subpoena, together with the Certificate of Compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this Subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this Subpoena may seek a Court Order compelling you to comply with it. This Subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Matthew R. Gover, Esquire 301 Market Street, 9ttt Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-9900 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT: DATED:?F Cooo Seal of the Court PROTHONOTARY EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: Custodian of Records For: Penn State Geisinger ANY AND ALL MEDICAL RECORDS, OFFICE NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDUM, INSURANCE FORMS, PROGRESS NOTES, REPORTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY EXAMINATION, CONSULTATION, CARE OR TREATMENT. DATES REQUESTED: Up to and Including the Present SUBJECT: Frank DiGiacomo SOCIAL SECURITY #: 110-52-9122 DATE OF BIRTH: 8/19/63 FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF v. CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT TO: Penn State Geisinger : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Records Custodian for Penn State Geisinger, certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the Subpoena issued on have been produced. DA Records Custodian l n March 8, 2000 Hartman Rehab Hospital 2645 N. 3rd Street, Suite 490 Harrisburg, PA 17110 In Re: Frank DiGiacomo Social Security #: 110-52-9122 Dear Records Custodian: 301 MARKET STREET-9-FLOOR P.O. BOX 86S HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 232-9900 FAX; 17171236-9119 JAMES O. NEALON, N MATTHEW R. GOVER BRIAN W. PERRY DAVID]. FREED CHRISTOPHER J. KNIGHT You are being served with a Notice and Subpoena for you to bring the records referred to in the Subpoena for examination by the undersigned at the time and place indicated. In serving upon you the Notice and Subpoena, I am proceeding under applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Subpoena and a Notice of Intent to Service the Subpoena was served upon the attorney for the Plaintiff more than 20 days ago. No objections to the Subpoena have been filed. If you would prefer, you may in advance of the deposition date send us photocopies of the records. With such photocopies, please include your statement for the cost of preparing the same, which we will promptly pay. In addition, you must complete the enclosed Certificate of Compliance. Upon receipt of such photocopies and the completed Certificate of Compliance by this office, your appearance will be canceled and the Subpoena withdrawn. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Should there be any questions, please telephone the undersigned at the above number. Sincerely, C"bo-?'-c ?C-, rbara Baker, Paralegal NEALON & GOVER BJB/bjb Enclosures FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hartman Rehabilitation Center Within twenty (20) days after service of this Subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: SEE ATTACHED at the offices of Nealon & Gover, 301 Market Street, 9" Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this Subpoena, together with the Certificate of Compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this Subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this Subpoena may seek a Court Order compelling you to comply with it. This Subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Matthew R. Gover, Esquire 301 Market Street, 9' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-9900 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT: DATED:11L?UO6 ' PROTHONOTARY Seal of the Court ^ ?\ EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: Custodian of Records For: Hartman Rehabilitation Associates ANY AND ALL MEDICAL RECORDS, OFFICE NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDUM, INSURANCE FORMS, PROGRESS NOTES, REPORTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY EXAMINATION, CONSULTATION, CARE OR TREATMENT. DATES REQUESTED: Up to and Including the Present SUBJECT: Frank DiGiacomo SOCIAL SECURITY #: 110-52-9122 DATE OF BIRTH: 8/19/63 FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF V. CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO: Hartman Rehabilitation You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Records Custodian for Hartman Rehabilitation, certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the Subpoena issued on have been produced. DATE: Records Custodian Ion March 8, 2000 Healthsouth Rehabilitation Center P.O. Box 2016 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 In Re: Frank DiGiacomo Social Security #: 110-52-9122 Dear Records Custodian: 301 MARKET STREET • 9- FLOOR P.O. BOX 865 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 232.9900 FAX; (717(236.9119 JAMES G. NEALON, BI MATTHEW R. COVER BRIAN W. PERRY DAVID J. FREED CHRISTOPHER 1. KNIGHT You are being served with a Notice and Subpoena for you to bring the records referred to in the Subpoena for examination by the undersigned at the time and place indicated. In serving upon you the Notice and Subpoena, I am proceeding under applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Subpoena and a Notice of Intent to Service the Subpoena was served upon the attorney for the Plaintiff more than 20 days ago. No objections to the Subpoena have been filed. If you would prefer, you may in advance of the deposition date send us photocopies of the records. With such photocopies, please include your statement for the cost of preparing the same, which we will promptly pay. In addition, you must complete the enclosed Certificate of Compliance. Upon receipt of such photocopies and the completed Certificate of Compliance by this office, your appearance will be canceled and the Subpoena withdrawn. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Should there be any questions, please telephone the undersigned at the above number. Sincerely, ?Gtti? ? j J Bar ara Baker, Paralegal NEALON & GOVER BJB/bjb Enclosures FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 99-5371 CHARLES REYLEK, : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Healthsouth Rehabilitation Center Within twenty (20) days after service of this Subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: SEE ATTACHED at the offices of Nealon & Gover, 301 Market Street, 91t Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this Subpoena, together with the Certificate of Compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this Subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this Subpoena may seek a Court Order compelling you to comply with it. This Subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Matthew R. Gover, Esquire 301 Market Street, 9`^ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-9900 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT: DATED: -+ oI 00 d zqz PROTHONOTARY Seal of the Court C?? ? / C? ? EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: Custodian of Records For: Healthsouth Rehabilitation Center ANY AND ALL MEDICAL RECORDS, OFFICE NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDUM, INSURANCE FORMS, PROGRESS NOTES, REPORTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ANY EXAMINATION, CONSULTATION, CARE OR TREATMENT. DATES REQUESTED: Up to and Including the Present SUBJECT: Frank DiGiacomo SOCIAL SECURITY #: 110-52-9122 DATE OF BIRTH: 8119163 FRANK DIGIACOMO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO: Healthsouth Rehabilitation Center You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Records Custodian for Healthsouth Rehabilitation Center, certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the Subpoena issued on been produced. DATE: Records Custodian ?1. Ion `_100 r ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 8, 2000 Royal Insurance Company 1510 Valley Center Parkway Bethlehem, PA 18017 In Re: Frank DiGiacomo Social Security#: 110-52-9122 Dear Records Custodian: 301 MARKET STREET • 9- FLOOR P.O. BOX 863 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 232.9900 FAX: (717) 236.9119 JAMES G. NEALON, III MATTHEW R. GOVER BRIAN W. PERRY DAVID J. FREED CHRISTOPHER J. KNIGHT You are being served with a Notice and Subpoena for you to bring the records referred to in the Subpoena for examination by the undersigned at the time and place indicated. In serving upon you the Notice and Subpoena, I am proceeding under applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Subpoena and a Notice of Intent to Service the Subpoena was served upon the attorney for the Plaintiff more than 20 days ago. No objections to the Subpoena have been filed. If you would prefer, you may in advance of the deposition date send us photocopies of the records. With such photocopies, please include your statement for the cost of preparing the same, which we will promptly pay. In addition, you must complete the enclosed Certificate of Compliance. Upon receipt of such photocopies and the completed Certificate of Compliance by this office, your appearance will be canceled and the Subpoena withdrawn. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Should there be any questions, please telephone the undersigned at the above number. Sincerely, Barbara Baker, Paralegal NEALON & GOVER BJB/bjb Enclosures FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF V. CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Royal Insurance Company Within twenty (20) days after service of this Subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: SEE ATTACHED at the offices of Nealon & Gover, 301 Market Street, 9" Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this Subpoena, together with the Certificate of Compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this Subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this Subpoena may seek a Court Order compelling you to comply with it. This Subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: DATED: `?i?C)06 Seal of the Court Matthew R. Gover, Esquire 301 Market Street, 9" Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717.232-9900 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT: Z0,N) PROTHONOTARY EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: Custodian of Records For: Royal Insurance Company - Attention: Donna Sandutch ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, STATEMENTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, MEDICAL RECORDS, MEDICAL BILLS, PEER REVIEW, REPORTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO A CLAIM MADE BY THE SUBJECT LISTED BELOW AS A RESULT OF AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE CLAIM No. IS 2900053962. DATES REQUESTED: Up to and Including the Present SUBJECT: Frank DiGiacomo SOCIAL SECURITY #: 110-52-9122 DATE OF BIRTH: 8/19/63 FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF V. CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT T0: Royal Insurance Company : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Records Custodian for Royal Insurance Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the Subpoena issued on have been produced. DATE: Records Custodian salon March 8, 2000 Atlanta Casualty Company P.O. Box 105435 Atlanta, GA 30348 In Re: Frank DiGiacomo Social Security #: 110-52-9122 Dear Records Custodian: 301 MARKET STREET -9TM FLOOR P.O. BOX 865 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 232.9900 FAX: (717) 236.9119 JAMES G. NEALON, III MATTHEW R. GOVER BRIAN W. PERRY DAVID J. FREED CHRISTOPHER J. KNIGHT You are being served with a Notice and Subpoena for you to bring the records referred to in the Subpoena for examination by the undersigned at the time and place indicated. In serving upon you the Notice and Subpoena, I am proceeding under applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Subpoena and a Notice of Intent to Service the Subpoena was served upon the attorney for the Plaintiff more than 20 days ago. No objections to the Subpoena have been filed. If you would prefer, you may in advance of the deposition date send us photocopies of the records. With such photocopies, please include your statement for the cost of preparing the same, which we will promptly pay. In addition, you must complete the enclosed Certificate of Compliance. Upon receipt of such photocopies and the completed Certificate of Compliance by this office, your appearance will be canceled and the Subpoena withdrawn. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Should there be any questions, please telephone the undersigned at the above number. Sincerely, 0,?0`-- P) Barbara Baker, Paralegal NEALON & GOVER BJB/bjb Enclosures FRANK DIGIACOMO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Atlanta Casualty Company Within twenty (20) days after service of this Subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: SEE ATTACHED at the offices of Nealon & Gover, 301 Market Street, 91" Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this Subpoena, together with the Certificate of Compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this Subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this Subpoena may seek a Court Order compelling you to comply with it. This Subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Matthew R. Gover, Esquire 301 Market Street, 9' F:oor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717.232-9900 Attorney for Defendant BY THE COURT: DATED: .2000 Seal of the Court )OQ? EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: Custodian of Records For: Atlanta Casualty Company ALL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, STATEMENTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, MEDICAL RECORDS, MEDICAL BILLS, PEER REVIEW, REPORTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO A CLAIM MADE BY THE SUBJECT LISTED BELOW AS A RESULT OF AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE POLICY No. Is 06319722. DATES REQUESTED: Up to and Including the Present SUBJECT: Frank DiGiacomo SOCIAL SECURITY #: 110-52-9122 DATE OF BIRTH: 8119/63 FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF V. CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT TO: Atlanta Casualty Company : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION -AT LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, Records Custodian for Atlanta Casualty Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the Subpoena issued on have been produced. DATE: Records Custodian FRANK DIGIACOMO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ` V. : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendant, Charles Reylek, intends to serve Subpoenas identical to the ones that are attached to this Notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the Subpoenas. If no objection is made the Subpoenas may be served. Date: 2/14/00 M -t7ft D &K. CI U /1' Matthe R. Gover, Esquire V Attorney for the Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2000, 1 hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of a Subpoena on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mails, postage prepaid, addressed to: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Mann w R. Cover, Esquire FRANK DIGIACOMO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COLINTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 99-5371 CIVIL CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ORDER AND NOW, this Z z `? day of June, 2000, inconsideration of the motion of Allstate Insurance Company to quash subpoena, a rule is issued on the plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested ought not to be granted. This rule returnable fifteen (15) days after service. BY THE COURT, Kevin . Hess, J. e?? ar, ,n n JUN 15 2000 1P IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANK DIGIACOMO, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff V. NO. 99-5371 CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this _ day of , 2000, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion, it is hereby ordered that a rule is issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why Allstate's Motion to Quash, and alternative Motion for Protective Order should not be granted; RULE RETURNABLE on , 2000, at , in Courtroom _ of the Cumberland County Courthouse, I Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA. Failure of the Plaintiff to appear will result in the automatic granting of Allstate's Motion to Quash. BY THE COURT: J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANK DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant NO. 99-5371 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW this _ day of , 2000, upon consideration of the Motion to Quash by Allstate Insurance Company in connection with subpoenas to Allstate's adjusters Patricia Hoffman and Michael Bruno served by Plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that Allstate's Motion is granted, and the subpoenas are quashed. BY THE COURT: J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANK DIGIACOMO, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff V. I CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant NO. 99-5371 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 AND NOW this A?day of?''2000, upon consideration of Allstate insurance Company's alternative Motion for Protective Order in connection with the subpoenas to Allstate's employees Patricia Hoffman and Michael Bruno served by Plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the following Protective Order is issued with respect to the subpoenas: The depositions shall be limited solely to Patricia Hoffman's and Michael Bruno's communications with witnesses to the facts of the accident giving rise to the claim and any alleged injuries or treatment of Plaintiff; ?. The documents to be produced pursuant to the Subpoenas are limited to those concerning the facts of the accident giving rise to the claim and any alleged injuries or treatment of Plaintiff; and, 3. Plaintiff is not permitted to inquire or obtain documents as to Patricia Hoffman's or Michael Bruno's or Allstate Insurance Company's mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of the claim or the defense thereof, or respecting strategy or tactics. BY THE COURT: c J2 i.l. U rj U U MCNEES. WALLACE & NURICK 100 PINE Si RFFT r o eo. .. en HARRISBURG. PA 17108 JUN 1 5 200RC?, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANK DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff' V. CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-5371 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR PROTECT VF ORDER Movant, Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), by its attorneys, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, hereby submits this Motion to Quash Subpoenas, and Alternative Motion for Protective Order. In support thereof, Allstate asserts the following: Procedural Back ground 1. On or about August 31, 1999, the Plaintiff, Frank DiGiaconto, filed a Complaint against Defendant, Charles Reylek. His sole cause of action, arising from an automobile accident, is for the alleged negligence of the Defendant. 2. Defendant is insured by Allstate. 3. Plaintiff has served Subpoenas To Attend And Testify (the "Subpoena") upon Patricia Hoffman ("Hoffman") and Michael Bruno ("Bruno"), Allstate employees who handled this claim. The Subpoenas provide that Hoffman and Bruno each are to conic to Plaintiffs attorney's office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania at 3 p.m. on June 23, 2000 to "testify on behalf of Frank DiGiacomo" and to bring with them "any and all infomtation pertaining to claim #1553182773 Insured - Charles Reylek." A copy of the Subpoena to Hoffman and a copy of the Subpoena to Bruno are attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 4. On June 12, 2000, Plaintiffs attorney (Matthew Crosby, Esquire) and Allstate's attorney (Donald Kaufman, Esquire) orally agreed that the date for the aforesaid depositions would be continued so that the instant motions first could be ruled upon by the Court. Plaintiff Cannot Discover Allstate's Mental Impressions, Opinions Or Conclusions Regarding The Value Or Merit Of Plaintiffs Claim Or Regard ,effigy Or Tactic 5. Pa. R. Civ. P. 4003.3 provides that, "With respect to the representative of a party other than the party's attorney, discovery shall not include disclosure of his or her mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense or respecting strategy or tactics." 6. The documents requested by the Subpoenas include information regarding the mental impressions, conclusions or opinions of Hoffman and Bruno and Allstate respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense or respective strategy or tactics. Plaintiff is not permitted to discover such documents, or to question Hoffman or Bruno with respect to such matters. The Subpoena Seeks Discovery Already Produced Or Objected To By Defendant It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to obtain information concerning Allstate's investigation of Plaintiffs claim. Specifically, Plaintiff may seek information regarding Allstate's mental impressions, opinions and conclusions with respect to the value or merit of Plaintiffs claim, or with respect to strategy or tactics. 8. Concurrently with the Complaint, the Plaintiff had served the Defendant with his first set of interrogatories and request for production of documents. _2 9. Defendant has responded, by answer or objection, to the aforesaid discovery requests. 10. Defendant has produced to Plaintiff, inter g(ja, Allstate's claims diary (redacted to protect non-discoverable matter), photographs, and statements. 11. The Subpoenas seek the production of items already produced or objected to by Defendant. Moreover, the Subpoenas seek documents not permitted to be discovered under the Rules of Civil Procedure. 5-u Basinger v. Glacier Carriers. Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771 (M.D. Pa. 1985). Pa. R. Civ P 4003.2 Limits The Scope Of Discovery With Regard To Insurance 12. Pa. R. Civ. P. 4003.2 (SCOPE OF DISCOVERY. INSURANCE) provides that: "A party may obtain discovery of the existence and terms of any insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment." "It codifies the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Szarmack v. Welch, 456 Pa. 293, 318 A.2d 707 (1974)." See Explanatory Note to Rule 4003.2. 13. In zarma k, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the Plaintiff was entitled "to pretrial discovery of the extent of automobile liability insurance carried by [the Defendant]." 318 A.2d at 708 (emphasis added). Subsequent court decisions, however, have determined that the Plaintiff is not entitled to an application for insurance, other private financial information, or even an actual copy of the insurance policy. Transue v. O'Brien, 37 D.&C.3d 567 (Lehigh Co. 1984); lorio v. Carnevie Borough, 13 D.&C.3d 236 (Allegheny Co. 1980). -3. 14. Under Rule 4003.2, the Plaintiff is explicitly entitled to discover the existence and tenns of Reylek's automobile liability insurance policy. He is not thereby entitled to obtain Allstate's investigatory file or depose Allstate's employees. 15. By specifically stating what insurance information a Plaintiff is entitled to, Rule 4003.2 indicates what type of information is not discoverable, such as the information sought in the Subpoenas. The Discovery Sought By The Subpoena Would Cause Unreasonable Annoyance Burden and Expense 16. Under Pa. R. Civ. P. 4011, no discovery or deposition will be pennitted which would cause unreasonable annoyance, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party. The Subpoenas to Hoffman and Bruno cause unreasonable annoyance, and cause undue burden and expense. Permitting negligence actions to result in the depositions of an insurer's employees, and to require the production of documents already requested from (and produced or objected to by) the Defendant-insured, causes unreasonable annoyance, burden and expense to the insurer and its employees. 17. The Subpoenas should be quashed in their entirety, for the reasons set forth above. 18. In the alternative, should the Subpoenas not be quashed in their entirety, a protective order should be issued: limiting the depositions solely to Hoffman's and Bruno's communications with witnesses to the facts of the accident and any alleged injuries or treatment of Plaintiff, and similarly limiting the documents to be produced at the depositions: and, explicitly precluding discovery of protected mental impressions, conclusions and opnions. -4- WHEREFORE, Allstate Insurance Company requests that the Subpoenas be quashed or, in the alternative, that the Court issue a Protective Order limiting the depositions solely to Hoffman's and Bruno's communications with witnesses to the facts of the accident and any alleged injuries or treatment of Plaintiff, and similarly limiting the documents to be produced at the depositions, and explicitly precluding discovery of protected mental impressions, conclusions and opinions. Respectfully submitted, McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK By I(J I;. Donald B. Kaufman Attorney I.D. No. 49674 Charles T. Young, Jr. Attorney I.D. No. 80680 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1 166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 232-8000 Attorneys for Movant Allstate Insurance Company Dated: June 13, 2000 -5- Exhibit A CCt.R?!(?NWEALIH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND FRANK DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. File No 99-5371 CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY TO: Patricia Hoffman Allstate Insurance Company -- 6345 Flank Drive, Suite 1000, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17172 - - 1. You are ordered by the court to come to the law office of HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, 319 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17101 (Specify courtroom or other place) at Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on June 23, 2000 at 3:00 o'clock, P.M., to testify on behalf of Frank Di Giaeomo in the above case, and to remain until excused. -- 2. And bring with you the following: Any and all information pertaining to claim N 1553182773 Insured - Charles Reylek If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. REQUESTED BY A PARTY/ATTORNEY IN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa. R. C. P. No. 234.2(a): Name: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Address: 319 Market Street, P 0 Box 1177 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17101 - Telephone: 717-238-2000 Supreme Court ID # 69367 Date: MAY -2-5. UO_?------- Sml Of !hu Court BY THE CO RT. ///,J,Prothonotnnr'Clerk, Civil Divislo De; ^, Official Note: This form of subpoena shall bC' used c:henever a Subpoena is issuabb., Including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters, commissioners, etc. in compliance with Pa. R. C. P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for a production of documents. records or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. (Eff. 7/97) CCMranNWE.ALTH C.- PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OFCUMBtnLAND FRANK DiGIACOMO, CIVIL ACTION - LAN Plaintiff V. CHARLES REYLEK, File No. , Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY TO: Michael Bruno Allstate Insurance Company P 0 Box 610, Dresher, Pennsylvania, 19025 You are ordered by the court to come to the law office of HANDLER, HENNIN6 i ROSENBERG, 319 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17101 (SPedty murtroom or other place) at Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on June 23, 2000 at 3:00 o'clock, P.M., to testify on behalf of Frank DiGiacomo in the above case, and to remain unfit excused 2. And bring with you the following: Any and aij information pertaining to claim / 1553182773 Insured - Charles Reylek If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be,subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and Imprisonment. REQUESTED BY A PARTY/ATTORNEY IN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa. R. C. P. No. 234.2(a} Name: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire, HANDLER, HENNING Address: 319 Market Street, P 0 Box 1177 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17101 Telephone: 717-238-2000 Supreme Court ID p 69367 Date: Seal of Ire Court ROSENBERG BY THE COURT: A -&Z Prolhonolary/Cwk Cavil Divlalo n ?. Deputy Official Note: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable. including hearings In connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters, Commissioners, etC.in compliance with Pa. R. C. P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for a production of documents, records or things is desired complete paragraph 2. (Eff. 7/97) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the following: Attorney for the Plaintiff Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attomey for the Defendant Matthew R. Gover, Esquire Nealon & Gover 301 Market Street, 9th Floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Donald B. Kaufman, Esq. Of Counsel for Movant Allstate Insurance Company Dated: June 13, 2000 .-_ FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. CHARLES REYLEK, NO. 99-5371 CIVIL Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.'S MOTION r TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS This is a negligence case arising out of a rearend motor vehicle collision that occurred on or about August 31, 1999. Plaintiff, Frank DiGiacomo, was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Defendant, Charles Reylek. At the time of the collision, Mr. Reylek was insured with Allstate Insurance Cc (hereinafter, "Allstate.") The damage to both vehicles appeared to be relatively minor. Written discovery has been exchanged and depositions of both parties have been taken. Defendant is claiming, inter aiia, that the impact between the two vehicles was too minor to cause injury to the Plaintiff. Defendant has indicated in discovery that his vehicle, essentially, slowly rolled into Mr. DiGiacomo's vehicle, at a speed of 2 mph or less. Conversely, Mr. DiGiacomo has testified that the impact was significant and that he did hear squealing tires just before being struck. There are clear discrepancies in both parties' accounts. -1- Also of note is the Defendant's testimony that he spoke with Mike Bruno and Patricia Hoffman, both Allstate adjusters, on separate occasions. These discussions centered around what happened in the collision. Allstate has provided Plaintiff's counsel with its claims diary, consisting of a total of three (3) pages. Said claims diary is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked, "Exhibit A." II. ISSUE PRESENTED IS THE PLAINTIFF IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION PERMITTED TO DEPOSE AN INSURANCE COMPANY ADJUSTER AND QUESTION SAID ADJUSTER REGARDING THE FACTS UNCOVERED IN HIS OR HER INVESTIGATION? (Proposed answer in the affirmative) III. ARGUMENT A party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1(a)• It is not grounds for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at trial, if the information appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1(b). In the case at bar, we know that Patricia Hoffman and Mike Bruno, both Allstate adjusters, conducted an investigation into the facts surrounding this collision. We know, from the Defendant's own testimony, that he personally spoke with both Ms. Hoffman and Mr. Bruno about what occurred in the collision. We know that the three-page claims diary, provided to the Plaintiff in discovery, makes no reference whatsoever to any discussions or statements between any Allstate Insurance Co. adjusters and the Defendant. The question now before this Honorable Court is -2- whether Mr. DiGiacomo's counsel may depose the aforementioned Allstate adjusters regarding the facts their investigations revealed. Plaintiff submits that this information is more than relevant. It goes to the very heart of the case. This case likely will come down to whether a jury panel believes the Defendant's version of how the collision occurred. The Defendant has essentially described the impact between the two vehicles as a "love tap." He claims to have not even realized that an impact had taken place. What the Defendant told Mr. Bruno and/or Ms. Hoffman may be very different than what he had testified to under oath. At a bare minimum, this information is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. Second, Plaintiff submits that the information sought is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Allstate adjusters in question may have also spoken with other witnesses or conducted a physical investigation of the collision scene. Furthermore, there is an outstanding issue with regard to the existence of videotaped surveillance. In response to Plaintiff's Interrogatory requesting surveillance information, the Defendant responded as follows: Objection. An objection is made to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks production of materials related to surveillance that may have been conducted regarding the Plaintiff's activities. This objection is made on the basis that production of such materials at this time is not required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. It is very likely that the aforementioned Allstate adjusters may have factual information -3- regarding any surveillance that may have been conducted in this case. Now that Plaintiff's deposition has been taken, Defendant cannot continue to withhold this information. Finally, Plaintiff would like to make it clear to this Honorable Court that he is not seeking to discover the mental impressions, conclusions, or opinions of Mr. Bruno or Ms. Hoffman. That information is clearly protected, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.3. To that end, Plaintiff would agree to conduct these depositions in accordance with Allstate's proposed Protective Order. IV. CONCLUSION The explanatory note to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.3 provides that, inter aiia, "A lawyer's notes or memoranda of an oral interview of a witness, who signs no written statement, are protected, but the same notes or memoranda made by an insurance investigator will not be nrotected." (Emphasis added.) The Rules of Civil Procedure are crystal-clear in addressing the discoverability of notes and memoranda made by an insurance investigator. In this case, Allstate is claiming that no such notes or memoranda exist. Plaintiff is simply asking this Honorable Court for the opportunity to discuss, with Mr. Bruno and Ms. Hoffman, the contents of their discussions with -4- the Defendant. Again, Plaintiff only seeks information regarding the facts of this collision and the facts that the Allstate's investigation revealed. Date: ( 1 Respectfully submitted, HANDLE ENNING & ROSENBERG B atthew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. # 69367 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff -5- lie SIU TRANSFER Claim 7 1 1 I i 1 I 1 I 1 f 1 1 1 -I Claim Rep - 1 1 Date - 1 1 - ------------------------------------------------------------------f f 1 File To SIU 1 f i Retain In MCO ; 1 1 1 I 1 1 I ? 1 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 ? 1 f CCM/P i Date i -----...--•---------------------- --------°-- -------- ---------------? -- ----------------------------- Ass i n SIU Re ----- ---------------- -------- i . f Return To MCO ' 1 f 1 . . 1 1 f ? I 1 -' 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 SIU Mgr. Date --- ----------------------------------------------------------- k - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- j RILE TRAN>lF M SHEET NUMBER: 1,; .5 1A 77 3 COMMENT DATE TO UCM COMMENTS, ?? ?? /' __M?/1? /! c• „!7i>i.? /a'i fir SIU SCOREBOARD COMPLETED ES NO 1,>( UCM MIST YES NO 11 GATE LT_EMS I- b, NEEDE COMPLETED 1. INSO R/S 2. INSD DRIVER R/S_ 3. INSO PASSENGER R/S 4. PERMISSIVE USE R/S S. LATE NOTICE RIS e. COVERAGE RIS ?l 7. CLMT DRIVER R/S S. CLMT PASSENGER RIS 9. ACTIVITY CHECK 10. LM.F OR PEER 11. WITNESS R/S 12. SCENE PHOTOS 13. PHOTOS INSD CAR 14. PHOTOS CLMT CAR f10 polt?' C 15. POLICE REPORT 18. t;C CARRIER CONTACT 17. CHECK PRIOR LOSS HISTORY 18. INCOME 6 ASSETS CHECK & UMAIIM CHECK LIST 19. ATTY CONTACT FILE ASSIGNED IN CONTINUING UNIT TO: 4f --+= MANAGERS COMMENTS: mo'w' .r 0 .1, FF.'S--SCHEI! fill PF7-BACY.I•Il) F'F,q-•FRND PF9--PRINT PF11-•PREV STMT PF12--NEXI' STMT x°x* ONLY EMPLOYEE GB29 CAM UP TF THE.. STATEMENT YOU HAVE ELECTED xxx ! 200 - CLAIH REPRESENTATIVE 41GnlC ORDER 1 550 HAd:R1:SDURG 717-•540-7500 DESK: UCS UCS DATE: 08/12/98 TIME: 09:05 AM CLAIM i!(IMDER: 135 318277 3 L.OSSDT: 08/06/98 POLICY: 008235031 IIHE: 10 EFFDT: 03/15/98 ORIGINAL YR: 80 NOTDT: 00/08/98 INSURED NAME: STEPHANIE I<BI_ AND RIGS 421 C A 421 RI 1 AT1U- BOILING SPRINGS PA 170079106 r1GEAIT NAME: PAUL MATTUS AGY INC TELEPHONE: 717•-731-•5456 I? ASSTGNMFHT FOIL: 02 MONRO MUFFLER DRAKE SRV EMP ?! ANG: E ADDR@:SS•: 3:243 PAXTON ST HARRISBURG PA 17111 pliMIF: 000--000--0000 BUS: 717•-558--171846 X0000 HOURS: 00--00 VEHICLE, 91 FORD RANGER 2DR YELLOW PLATE: YI'30377_ V1Ni-F-T'CA/fi,7/AIIAQSagVODOMETER: L•+n DRIVEADLE: Y INEP I_(!r_A'ITON: MONROE UFFI_ER...PAXTON ST..I-IDG.. ?F'rE"nS nnrlnr,rePRTOF: DAMM, F: PRIOR, Ia.nl!IS: V!-HIC1.1- s-COPES FACTS (11' L(ISS: --R FEAR SHOP TRUCI!...WIL.I.. BE OUTSIDF 1558588067 DESCRIPTION PER CLMT DRIVER/CLMT STOPPED TRENDEL. RD (2L.N ONE WAY EXIT WHO WAS TRAV IN THE SAME LN STRUCK CI..MT APPROX 23MPH PSI- `1& Tt$S IF AFTER HOURS. GALL B/9 Cc,im f 559081 441 !N1MOF AT STOP SIGN AT THE EXIT OF 581 AND HEADING W IN THE TURNING LN) AND INS AND DIR AS CLMT FAILED TO STOP AND APPROX.25MPH ASSTGNMIAT: 07 INSPECT ONLY P•IInI'n Ko! Y LOSS OF USE INVOLVEMENT: N STATED VALUE: N ITEM/(;I.MT: DE102 TRAN REASON: LEASED: COMMENTS: NEED VERY '•JERY GOOD 35MM MIST PHOTOS! ! ! ! ! ! ! , .REAR DUMPI=R.. . CUSTnMF;R CARE: nau PRIOR CLAIM DATA MATCH FOUND - • REFER TO SAR REPORT 0600--XXY,Y, FOR FURTHER INFO *x* QIV I.TMIN; DESCRIPTION ?. 3n AA 7001, 700/1300. 000 BODILY INJURY 4B C:C 1 A?) 1150 1 A , nnn PROPERTY DAMAGE ' MEDICAL PAYMENTS /Jo ? - ? C1.' ;!.1500 FUNERAL BENEFIT ' 7- P >a DT) ?^^ , f S COLLISION IfFI COMPRI:HrNSIVE gr,n , i r_ n r nn, app _ STACKABLF. UNINSURED MOTORT-TT "90,000 -- STACKARLE UNDERINSURED MOTURIST CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on Allstate Insurance Co., by hand-delivering a copy of the same to Allstate's counsel of record, as follovlfs: Donald B. Kaufman, Esq., Charles T. Young, Jr., Esq. McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK 100 Pine St., P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 and to counsel for Defendant, Charles Reylek, as follows: Matthew R. Gover, Esq. NEALON & GOVER 301 Market St., 91" floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108 on July ? , 2000. DATE:_ 7 W ('( HANDL HENNING & ROSENBERG B Matthew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. #69367 P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff N N 0 2 0 VJ F W a O < V o < 0 W 14 i } w x t Z Z W l f m i O N 0 W y 0 W a a Z`a f 'm < 0 N ¢ I I l 11M NI(0 •/.O iVI{0 •ly [f110•IN{il{? VN MbVf ]NI'1YAq{YNYl1N1 ?31Y{51M1 q NOISIAIq Y 1Y 9J1 IIVIS IIY FRANK DIGIACOMO, PLAINTIFF V. CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5371 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please enter the undersigned's appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Charles Reylek, with regard to the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER By: 9421?tz?___ Matthew R. Gover, Esquire Attorney I.D. #47593 301 Market Street -- 9th Floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0865 Date: 09/10/99 (717) 232-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 10" day of September, 1999, 1 hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Praecipe on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mails, postage prepaid, addressed to: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harrisburg, PA 17108 vNezo,- Matthew R. Gover Esquire 0 o r W m ¢ a ¢ tt z 0 0 J r ¢ 0 4 m > u = t?S y 0 z z z 0 z = a 0o0 0 Q w r z W 0 ¢ a m Z D N R ¢ I .6110 • Au GG I'.. 1B [410.16 401(0 :0N N00, W11Y UVNWIN. Ulis 1110.01.1. I bD3131v161b FRANK DIGIACOMO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 99-5371 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW CHARLES REYLEK, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the undersigned's appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Charles Reylek, with regard to the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER, P.C. By:? Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 81937 2411 North Front Street G Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: (717) 232-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 31st day of December, 2001, 1 hereby certify that I have served the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire M ` ? co c ' r C^ _. J C• C .1 U i 3 L5 d a o u2 O w N ? ?LL v O v c C o o voo ^ ° O =g d • d g Q Q1 v c > a c ¢ m 00 C W ?v m" ? F ? QQv ed Zpo^ O < O^ ti = 0 a g ° FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMIIERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. CHARLES RF.YLEK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-5371 CIVIL Defendant IURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE SEEKING TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE. CONCERNING DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLES AND NOW, comes the plaintiff. Frank DiGiacomo, by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG. by Matthew S. Crosby, Esquire, and makes the within Motion in Limine requesting this I lonorable Court exclude argument and evidence equating the severity of damages sustained by the vehicles involved in the collision to the severity of personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff. Such evidence includes, but is not limited to, all testimony, exhibits, photographs, videos, statements, opinions of non-experts and diagrams of damages sustained by the vehicles in the collision. Such evidence is not relevant nor probative of any issue in this case, but rather, is highly prejudicial to the plaintiff. Further. absent expert testimony, any inference that minimal damage to the vehicles translates into minimal personal injuries would amount to unguided speculation. Therefore, Defendant should be precluded from trying to equate, directly or by inference, the amount of damage to the vehicles to the amount of injury to the person. 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS Chu or about August b. 1998, at approximately +0 p.m.. Plaintiff. Frank DiGiacomo, was attempting to pull out onto Trindle Rd. from the pasted Stop sign at the end of the Rt. 581 exit ramp. At approximately the sane time. Defendant was directly behind Mr. DiGiacomo's vehicle. The Dclcndant failed to observe the existing traffic conditions and struck Plaintiffs vehicle in the rear. As a result of the collision Plaintiff. Frank Di(ALIC01110. sustained injuries to his right shoulder and neck. The damage to the vehicle was minimal. Dclcndant admitted his negligence. It is anticipated that Defendant v kill use photographs ol'the vehicles to suggest to the jury that Plaintiffs injuries are not it result of the collision because there is little damage to the vehicles. With this in mind, it is appropriate that evidence concerning damage to the vehicles be excluded. The defense will offer no expert testimony that there is any connection whatsoever between vehicle damage and physical injury. Thus any testimony. argument or exhibits related to property damage would have no proper foundation and would not be relevant 11. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED A. WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE VEHICLES IN THE COLLISION WHEN DEFENDANT HAS NOT OFFEREDANY EXPERTTESTIMONV RELATING TO THE DAMAGE OF THE VEHICLES TO THE EXTENT OF PHYSICAL INJURY. Suggested Answer: Yes. B. WHETHER TESTIMONY, EXHIBITS, PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEOS, STATEMENTS AND/OR DIAGRAMS OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE VEHICLES IN THE COLLISION ARE RELEVANT TO THE CAUSATION OF PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES. Suggested Answer: No. C. IF DAMAGES TO THE VEHICLES ARE FOUND TO BE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF CAUSATION, WHETHER SAID EVIDENCE MUST BE EXCLUDED PURSUANT TO RULE 1113 Suggested Answer: Yes. Ill. ARGUMENT A. THE DEFENSE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATING THE DAMAGE OF THE VEHICLES TO THE EXTENT OF PHYSICAL INJURY AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING TESTIMONY, EXHIBITS, PHOTOGRAPHS, VIDEOS, STATEMENTS, NON-EXPERT OPINIONS AND/OR DIAGRAMS OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED 13Y THE. VEHICLES IN THE COLLISION. Rule 702 of the Pennsylvania Rules ofevidence states: If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge beyond that possessed by a layperson will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. Pa.R.E. Rule 702. The test for admissibility of an expert opinion is set birth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D. C. Cir. 1923) which was adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. To a, 369 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 1977). Simply stated, the Frye test holds that admissibility of scientific evidence requires "the general acceptance of its validity by those scientists active in the field to which the evidence belongs." Frve. Rule 701 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence states: If thewitness is not testifying as an expert, the witness testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are rationally based on the perception of the witness, helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination ofa Bret in issue, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Pa.R.E. Rude 701 (emphasis added). The need f'or an expert to explain the relationship between the damages sustained by the vehicles and the injuries suffered by tits Plaintiff is obvious. '['here have been many studies conducted by scientists and physicians concerning this issue. Biomechanical engineers and accident reconstructionists frequently testify as to the nexus, or lack thereof', between vehicular damage and physical injury. The Defendant in this matter, howeeer. has not produced an expert opinion concerning any alleged relationship between property da nage and physical injury. Defendant will present no expert testimony refuting that Plaintiff"s injuries were in filet caused by the Defendant's negligence. A lay person does not have the specialized knowledge necessary to decipher how vehicle damage may or may not play a role in the extent of physical injuries. The Delaware Supreme Court has specifically addressed the very issue presently before this 1 lonorable Court. See Davis V. Matte, 770 A .2d 36 (N. 2001 ). In Davis, the court opined that "a party in a personal injury case may not directly argue that the seriousness of personal injuries from a car accident correlates to the extent of the damage to the cars, unless the party can produce competent expert testimony on the issue. Absent such expert testimony, any inference by thejury that minimal damage to the plaintiff's car translates into minimal personal injuries to the plaintiff would necessarily amount to unguided speculation 12nh at 40 (emphasis added). Neither Defendant nor his attorney should be permitted to state their beliefthat because there was minimal damage to the vehicles there could not be serious personal injuries because " [njo matter how skilled or experienced the witness may be, he will not be permitted to guess or to state ajudgment based on mere conjecture." Collins v. I land, 346 A .2d 398, 404 (1'a. 1968) (citing Smail v. Flock, 180 A.2d 59 (Pa. 1962): Murray v. Siegal. 195 A .2d 790 (13a. 1903)). -11'a party intends to make an argument involving an issue that is'within the knowledge of experts only and not within the common knowledge oflaymen.' the party must present competent expert testimony to support that argument." Divis. at 40 n.3 (citing Mazda Motor Corp. V. Lindahl, 706 A.2d 526, 533 (De.Supr. 1998)). As our own Supreme Court has stated, "Jilt is generally acknowledged that the complexities of the human body place questions as to the cause of pain or injury beyond the knowledge of the average layperson." I lamil v. Bashline, 392 A.2d 1280, 1285 (Pa. 1978) (emphasis added). 'treatment and injury "are such that common knowledge or experience of laymen is not sufficient to fiorm a basis fir passing intelligentjudgment." Collins v. I land, 246 A.2d 398, 401 (Pa. 1968) It is anticipated that Defendant will assert that photographs showing the extent of damage to vehicles can be used to refute the alleged severity of damages suffered by Plaintiff based on the jury's common sense evaluation of conflicting evidence. See Cree v. Born, 539 A.2d 466 (Pa.Super. 1988). 'the Cree case is strikingly different from the present matter. In Cree, both parties uti lined expert medical testimony and these experts disputed the severity of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs. I fence, there was conflicting evidence presented to thejury by experts. In the present matter. Defendant has not offered the opinion of a biomechanical engineer, an accident reconstructionist, or a medical expert. Here, there is no evidence other than the guess and speculation the Defendant would have the jury engage in that conflicts with Plaintiffs expert's testimony. In Ferris v Pennsylvania Federation Brotherhood ol'Maintenance of Way Employees, 153 F.Supp.2d 736 (E.D.Pa. 2001). the plaintiff sought to present to the jury his opinion of how his injuries were caused. The court found that the plaintiffs "beliefs as to how his injuries were caused may not be presented to the jury in the absence ofexpert testimony regatrding causation." Id. At 745. As such, Defendant or his counsel. should not lie permitted to express their belief's regarding the cause of plaintiff"s injuries in the present matter. Defendant should not be permitted to speculate as to the cause or severity of Plaintiffs injuries in the absence of expert testimony to support any assertion that minimal damage to the vehicles equates to minimal personal injuries. "jOjpinion testimony by it lay witness, as distinguished from an expert witness, should be excluded because 'witnesses generally must give facts and not their inferences, conclusions, or opinions."' Lewis v. Mellor, 393 A.2d 941.946 (Pa.Super. 1978) (citing McCormick, Flandbook on Evidence, s I 1 (West ed. 1972). If the Defendant had wanted to show that the impact or damages sustained by the vehicles was a factor in the alleged injuries of the Plaintiff than an expert should have been utilized to that encl. I lowever, to date no report from an expert has surfaced or is in the possession of the Plaintiff. Therefore, since no expert report is in existence relating to the damages of the vehicles and the alleged injuries of the Plaintiff, the evidence concerning the vehicle damages must be excluded. B. EVIDENCE CONCERNING DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLES IS NOT RELEVANT. As stated previously, Defendant has admitted negligence. As a result, the only issues forthe jury are whether Defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident and the extent of Plaintiffs injuries. Therefore, the only evidence that is admissible is material bearing upon those issues. Rule 401 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence states, "'Relevant Evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." furthermore. Rule 402 states. "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by law. Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible." Stated simply, evidence concerning the damage to the vehicles involved in this collision is not relevant to the issue ol'injury to an occupant of one ol'the vehicles. Further, Defendant has not provided an expert to dispute that Plaintifl-s injuries were in fact related to the collision that is the subject of this lawsuit. Therefore. any evidence concerning the damages to the vehicles would not he relevant to the issues of proximate cause and damages. C. IF DAMAGES TO THE VEHICLES ARE FOUND RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF CAUSATION, THEN TESTIMONY, PHOTOGRAPHS, NON- EXPERT OPINIONS OR OTHER EXIIIBITS ADDRESSING DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLES MUST BE EXCLUDED PURSUANT TO RULE 403. Rule 403 ofthe Pennsylvania Rides ol'Evidence states in relevant part, "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is ouhveighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury." The probative value of vehicle damage photographs is minimal when compared to the prejudice that will potentially befall the Plaintif l'. If permitted to see the vehicledamage photographs and hear evidence regarding the damage, the jury would be immediately prejudiced against the Plaintiff and would likely disregard Plaintil7's case including his expert physician's testimony. According to the comment to Rule 403. "unfair prejudice" means "a tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury's attention away from its duty of weighing evidence impartially." A jury would likely take one look at the vehicle photographs and conclude that there is no way a person could be injured based upon the minimal vehicle damage. In doing so, thejury panel would be doing precisely what Rule 403 is attempting to prevent, namely, making a decision on an improper basis. Biontechanical analysis invokes it myriad of factors including hamper strength, vehicle crashworthiness. seat rebound propensities. rood surfeco. angle of impact. sire and strength of the individual. and others. Fxpert testimony would clearly be needed for an appropriate, legally sufficient, foundation to be laid in order to make property damage evidence even arguably relevant. IV. CONCLUSION For the at'orementioned reasons, Plaintiff, Prank DiGiaeonto, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant his Motion in l Arnine to exclude evidence related to the damage sustained by thevehiclesintheAugust6. 1998,collision. Plaintiffspecificallyrequests that this IlonorableCourt exclude all evidence and argument attempting to equate the severity of damages sustained by the vehicles involved in the collision to the severity ol'personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff. Such items include, but are not limited to, all testimony, exhibits, photographs, videos, statements, opinions ofnon-experts and diagrams of'dtunMgeS sustained by the vehicles in the collision. Should this Court deny all reliel'specifieally requested in this Motion. Plaintiff respectfully requests that a cautionary instruction be given to the jury informing it that there is no evidence of a correlation between the damage to the vehicles and the severity of Plaintiff-s injuries. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Ily: Matth Crosby, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. # 69367 1300 Linglestown Road P.O. Box 60337 Ilarrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the Defendant by sending a copy of the same to his counsel of record, as follows, by first- class United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on January L002. Andrew C. Lehman, Esq. NEALON & GOVER, P.C. 2411 North Front St. Harrisburg, PA 17110 DATE: Z3 C2, HAND yHENNING & R ENBERG B thew S. Crosby, Esq. Attorney I.D. #69367 P.O. Box 60377 Harrisburg, PA 17106 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiff ?_; ;:: ?? ,:_ ? ... -?: ;> ? -? . ?.:; _.. N ,.; i.: i <: y :], `? u ?7 U A FRANK DIGIACOMO, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant NO. 99-5371 CIVIL TERM VERDICT [In this case Defendant concedes that his negligence caused the accident which occurred on August 6, 19981 uestion I: Was Defendant's negligence a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to Plaintiff? / Yes No If you answer Question I "No," Plaintiff can not recover and you should return to the Courtroom. If you answer Question 1 "Yes," you should proceed to Question 2. uestion 2: State the total amount of damages, if any, you find Plaintiff sustained as a result of the accident: - ? /,Iq /0 f-- (Date) n (?K :l oreperson) V? - - -- J -- ud90- Cj-"Profh TlpataR_ CASE NO.: COURTROOM NO.: ? 1. "h vs (L, Q ? . /ri„ b, DOCKETNO.: M5 -1. 71 r' G la DATE: Jumr# Name Random No. 2002877651 - '-92 -- -Prange Andrew W . -2018780930 ---- 135 Bleyer, Deborah L -1935166317 108 Miller, Roland J -1503747148 147 Schoffstall, Twila S -1458377777 176 R -11 c om , LaVe to V -t370363777 T ;;a - -Gib",.,-Mary J -1363771739 102 ias-- Ward, Daniel A -------------- ?+ii B b -1294091370 ------------------ Al - son otms - M2-?_ 65 Weak, Earl E Jr -1190925058 100 Burd, Linda E -814304247 70 Perry, Jennifer R -702751577 =694438132--- - 119 Keller, Maria E -602111742 95 Armold,John P -536293080 CI - 143 VVMe, ic ara K ------_ -526477063 154 Hines-Bridge,Judith M -521179804 137 Ebersole, Michael E -344535080 120 Wertz, Renee N 57309531 64 VanKirk, Ryan R 108114961 128 Spraalin, Kenneth L 258592023 122 Piper, Alan E 310318848 144 Duncan, William E 445684166 106 Mumma, Matthew J 520273247 131 Sanders(Smith), Christine G 651425053 125 Pentz,Ginny E 788597505 94 Thomas, Austin L 1721195811 ,w+nn.wJi,ttfMJMy ri W'1 - PM„ ',10F'I?" ate FRANK DiGIACOMO, Plaintiff V. CHARLES REYLEK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 99-5371 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: MOTION IN LIMINE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of January, 2002, upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude introduction of and reference to photographs of the vehicles involved in this case, the Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. By the Court, J. esley Oler r., j /Matthew Crosby, Esquire For the Plaintiff n ??yp Andrew Lehman, Esquire L021.05 ox k" s For the Defendant :mae , -c