Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-06772 ?? d I Y I: a 0 o C-q I ?'C of Y, I ? T. ' 9`ILl 547 C/,? NOTICE OF APPEAL j CLIMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FROM JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT j' COMMON PLEAS No. 77z C t U(L. NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filet) in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgmmtt rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case mentioned below. TA 19 3l0 r J`? f // LT 19 / fL This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. R.C.P,J.P. No. 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy 11 appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(0) in action before District Justice, be MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) (lays after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 10010 in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice o/appeal to be Arve(I upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon (Common Pleas No appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal 1 within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. RULE: To , appellees) Name of appetleclsf Signature of appellant or his anorney (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of mailing. Date: AOPC 312-04 Name of appMteetsl 19- Signature of PrpthonomrY or Deputy COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY p. 000 T.. J: .,:.. .:J:. rail: V Tv Of _.._ AFFICA>.ri-: :t u... f S4: :i1`. i DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER, Plaintiff v. DISTRICT COURT 09-3-04 LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., Defendant CV-310-99 FACTS FROM TRIAL Plaintiff purchased a 1990 Explorer Van from Defendant on 6 Feb 1990. This van was customized by an after market company for Defendant to include supplementary rear area air conditioning. Plaintiff has complained about the air conditioning since July 1990 when the floor area was wet. The van was taken to Defendant more than eleven (11) times from 1990 to June 1997 for air conditioning related problems.' Plaintiff also utilized another service center in June 1992 to service the air conditioner as an interim stop gap measure. In October 1997, Plaintiff had the air conditioning repaired with subsequent remedial service by a third service center to apparent satisfaction. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the improper work of Defendant in repairing or servicing the air conditioner, loss of use of the van plus interest. Plaintiff avers that the continuing improper work of Defendant caused the continuing degradation and ultimately the failure of the air conditioning unit. DISCUSSION A lay understanding of mechanics of air conditioning reveals that: The compressor is a major component that compresses the gas into a high pressure, high temperature gas to create a bigger temperature difference from the ambient temperature. It is connected via piping (copper or aluminum, etc) to the condenser (where the high temp gas becomes a liquid), then to the evaporator core, which has'a metering device that meters the correct amount of refrigerant into the evaporator core. The evaporator core is where the liquid expands into a gas, and absorbs the heat from the air and is termed an "air conditioner". A review of bills indicates that the air conditioning unit has been serviced by evacuating and recharging the system, replacing valves and orifaces, replacing oil accumulator and lines, replacing the compressor, and Air conditioning was among the items checked or serviced during this period. I' 11 replacing the evacuator core. The only service that was duplicated was the evacuation and recharging of the system. Plaintiff's theory of the case that the original and subsequent work by Defendant was improper has not been shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Indeed, from the start a third party, not a party to this suit, installed this add on equipment. Whether this third party correctly installed this unit or is the cause of the continuing problems is unknown. The remedial measures by Defendant appear to be in the accordance with standard business practice in that they treated the symptoms of the problem. As in the course of all such repairs this either solves the problem or reveals another area to be addressed. There was no evidence to indicate that the problems related were inappropriately handled or required additional, non symptomatic but related type work, as in the case of a recall notice or other technical advice to the service centers. This is not to say that Plaintiff does not have a cause of action, but rather indicates that it has not been proven against this Defendant on this evidence. Clearly, there was an irritating ongoing problem which Defendant attempted to address. The reasons for the Defendant's inability to solve the problem may have been negligence on their part, which was not shown. It could also have been associated with the third party installer or the stop gap measures and other repairs by Plaintiff or an as yet unknown parts manufacturer defect. The Court is without specific evidence to determine whose fault, if any, was the cause of this problem and will not base a judgment on speculation. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant with costs on the Plaintiff. The parties have previously been advised of their appeal rights and the exhibits are being returned.to the presenting party. The original exhibits submitted by Plaintiff are being kept in the Court file to be picked up by Plaintiff as per the request at time of trial. By the Court, Grtg9 Date Th s A. Placey D.J. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CnI INTY nF• CUMBERLAND NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT Map Dal Na 09-3-04 PLAINTIFF: CIVIL CASE NAME aM ADDRESS rBOLDOSSER, DARRELL R 7 118 SPRUCE STREET MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057 L J VS. DEFENDANT: NAME aW ADDRESS rLAWRENCE CHEVROLET INC 6445 DJ Nana, Mon THOMAS A. PLACEY Am-, 104 S. SPORTING HILL RD. MECHANICSBURG, PA T.;.,waa (717) 761-8230 17055 DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER 118 SPRUCE STREET MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: ^OR DEPENDAUT ?X Judgment was entered for: (Name) T.AwRFNrF Cm=nT.F P TNr Fx] Judgment was entered against: (Name) namossFR, nARRR.T.T. K in the amount of $ On on: ? Defendants are jointly and severally liable. ? Damages will be assessed on: This case dismissed without prejudice. Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/Act 5 of 1996 $- El Levy is stayed for days or ? generally stayed. 0 Objection to levy has been filed and hearing will be held: Date: Place: Time: ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARYICLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY N ICE qF JUDGME CRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. I&AL99_ Date , District Justice I certify that this is a true and Corr co e r cord f the proceedings aining the judgment. '? - Date District Justice My commission expires first Monday of January, V P004 SEAL AOPC 31599 CARLISS PZtU3 PO BOX 510 LMECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 J DockelNo.: CV-0000310-99 % Date Filed: 6/16/99 AS& (Date of Judgment) 1 n411 /ea (Date 8 Time) Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Attorney Fees Total Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ ------------ Certified Judgment Total $ a? M c.. U t NOTICE OF APPEAL 7 9 -COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA - COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FROM 1 - JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. 9,J - ?772, C I I/ i L . NOTICE OF APPEAL ('..Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice .;_.! on the date and in the case mentioned below. .TA 19 316-F,* .:.: LT. 19 f U - - This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 10088. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. N appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 10010 in action before District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (201 days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. '. Signatwe of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE\TQ:.FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE fThis section of form to be rlsed ONLY when appellant was DEFeNDANT(see Pa. R.C.P.J:P. No. 10010in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach froln copy_of notice of appeal to be served upon dppelleel: PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal . Name of appelleelsl I (Common Pleas No. 1 within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. ,. Signaure of appellant or his attorney or agent , RULE: To - , appellee(s) Name of appelleelsl - (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after thedate of - service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of mailing. Date: , 19 _ Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy AOPC 71284 COURT FILE __ lC v r' Cv ?_ Ll CJ cn CJ PROOF Of SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COIMPLAINT -(Tliis'Amof of service 11JUST BE FILED WIT/11,11 FIVE 0) DA YS AFTEI, fil:ilg rheour r.„r a,:p ?fH. ??k au,dicdldv Loresl C0r I.170NW EAkzT:I OF.PENNSY LVANIA COUNTYOFgj AFFIDAVIT: I h rc. y srv ;n nr al(nn that I Ser;drl ,y i .. a Copy of ,h,. Prr ciu: of Appeal, _:w-11non PI. .,s ?1n.77_ /? n ,n tl•., D:}Inct Ju•.t?u J ign:rt?tl to r . •t oil ?.,Pi ulal ,;avr by lu.: tihj`'d_l/ in ten:dlmul srndirs N Q IbY On V C-- 9q [' (larr of n v rcl _ 19 h r Y GL GLG!' CO`?? .:. maapi ?;nqwU-?eA upeto.and , +on ihr 1/l aa( n .r htanir l .- I by o_?sunal ?, re t_I? by bu[f.m1)Lrrr,teredl n6t 1, cundu,n;r?q?t nltdChrrl. h.rnto. ., Cl and further 111at I iruxl the BOLT. to F?1, r Gon Gin arum-many nq ncL, ihcs Nn T ! tit Aiii-!l ungn the qip II r:I5) W I vll:nm Inc Ru!,! ,.rh lrrard or- t9 , r,onal SCivute i ..l hY lcr,rtihrd) frcrp:p•rcdl I mail. enncL!i's receipr aitachrd her,no. - SWORNAAF IRf:1E0) AND SUBSCRIBED BFFCaE r•'1` tT iIS DAY OF -\'Dvem M/140,2, - -•---'----- S9naurm O7aNnnr 9o rrr?_re r_o !•n:J rler.- sllwrr ?'! .rl?s l , I:r -- I Trr/n,uf ofI u I r q ?1 F lAy'commis•iou LaunA Hie h:tlo.tA y Puo!Ic 1.!'tc noro n County My con, iaY 29, 2002 I atlas of trosoes MOrnbar. Pennryroeraa i?sSGa I r I , REEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP 210 WALNUT STREET P.O. BOX 1199] HARRISBURG, PA 17100.1999 DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER :IN TI-IE COURT OF COJ,INION PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUN-rl', PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vVS. No. 99-06772 LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC. Civil Action at Law Defendant. TO THE WITHIN NAMED PLAINTIFF: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed answer with new matter of defendant Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. KEEFER WOOD ALLEN &s RAHAL, t.u, Donald N1?L- wis IfI DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER :IN THE COURT 01' CO\-Ii%10N PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, vs. No. 99-06772 LAWRENCE CIIEVROLET, INC. Civil Action at Law Defendant. ANSW1:1M-C-ON1L'LAINT NN'1T11- JAY_t U-T- 11 Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. ("Lawrence"), through its counsel, Kcefer Wood Allen S-, Rahal, LLP, submits the within answer with new matter in response to plaintiffs complaint, averring as follows: Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff Darrell K. Boldosser is an individual. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted, with clarification. The vehicle in q«cstion,vas equipped with an afternmarket rear air conditioner installed and warranted by a third party, which provided additional cooling to the rear portion of the vehicle, and which was not part of the original Chevrolet cgniPmcut. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, del'endant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, dclcndant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the avcnmcnts of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, dclcndant lacks sufficient kno«,Icd,,;c or information to form a belief as to the truth of the a vennents of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. S. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admittcd that plaintil7brought his vehicle to Lawrence on June 3, 1994 and that he advised the service department that he thought the compressor in the air conditioner was cycling too rapidly. It is further admitted that plaintiff was advised (correctly) that no leak was found, and that plaintiff was charged for labor and refrigerant at Lawrence's then-prevailing rates. It is denied that Lawrence received any prior notification "under the warranty." By way of further reply, Lawrence avers that the original manufacturer's warranty and the warranty on the aftermarket rear air conditioner had both expired by that tine. After reasonable investigation, dclcndant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, which arc, therefore, denied. 9. Ad mittctl in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought his vehicle to Lawrence on May 19. 1995 to have the air conditioner checked. that the air conditioner was recharged at that time, and that plaintiff was charged for parts and labor at Lawrence's then- prevailing rates. It is denied that there was an "ongoing problem since 1991" and it is further denied that Lawrence provided any assurance that it "would take care of any problems with the air-conditioning system." By way of further reply, Lmvrence avers that the original manufacturer's warranty and the warranty on the aftennarket air conditioner had both expired by that timo.. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficicnt knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining avenncnts of this par graph, which are, therefore, denied. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought his vehicle to Lawrence on August I, 1995 to have the air conditioner checked. With respect to the averment regarding statements in the work order, Lawrence denies the averment because the document speaks for itself and requires no further characterization. It is denied that any "problem' was found. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought his vehicle to Lawrence on September 13. 1995 to have the air conditioner checked, and that the air conditioner was found to be working properly. With respect to the averment regarding statements in the work order, Lawrence denies the averment because the document speaks for itself and requires no further characterization. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining avenncnts of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. -3- 12. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought his vehicle to Lawrence on May 1, 1996 to have the air conditioner checked. With respect to the averment regarding statements in the invoice, Lawrence denies the averment because the document speaks for itselfand requires no further characterization. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or infonnation to form it belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought his vehicle to Lawrence on May 30, 1996 to have the air conditioner checked, that he advised the service department that he thought the air conditioner was not cooling sufficiently, and that repairs were recommended and parts were ordered. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought his vehicle to Lawrence on June 6, 1996 for completion of the repairs recommended by Lawrence on May 30, 1996. With respect to the averment regarding statements in the invoicc, Lawrence denies the avemient because the document speaks for itself and requires no further characterization. By way of further answer, Lawrence avers that excess oil will not damage the air conditioner compressor system; if anything, such a condition is beneficial. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought his vehicle to Lawrence on December 16, 1996 to have the air conditioner checked, and that the air conditioner was found to be working properly. It is denied that Lawrence requested than the vehicle be taken to its facility. With respect to the averment regarding statements in the invoice, -4- Lawrence denies the averment because the document speaks for itself and requires no further characterization. 16. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought his vehicle to Lawrence on lklarch 5, 1997, which is less than three months after the (late of December 16, 1996, to have the air conditioner checked, and that the compressor was recharged at that time. With respect to the averntcnt regarding statements in the invoice, Lawrence denies the averment because the document speaks for itself and requires no further characterization. 'file remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 17. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff brought his vehicle to Lawrence on June 18, 1997 to have the air conditioner checked, and that the compressor was replaced and other repairs were performed at that time. With respect to the averment regarding statements in the invoice, Lawrence denies the averment because the document speaks for itself and requires no further characterization. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or infortation to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. By way of further answer, Lawrence aver that as an accommodation and a gesture of goodwill to its customer, iVlr. Boldosscr, and without admitting any obligation to do so, Lawrence supplied all parts other than the compressor at its own expense. IS. Admitted in pan and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiffbrought his vehicle to Lawrence on June 27, 1997 to have the air conditioner checked, that the recently installed compressor was found to be faulty, and that it was replaced with a new compressor in -5- accordance with the warranty applicable to the replacement part. With respect to the averment regarding statements in the invoice, Lw rence denies the averment because the document speaks for itself and requires no further characterization. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this para,raph, which are, therefore, denied. By way of further answer, Lawrence states than its customers are welcome to review the service records on their vehicles, provided that reasonable advance notice is received from the customer. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this Para.-raph, which are, therefore, denied. 21. Denied. It is denied that Lawrence damaged any of the components of the vehicle's air conditioner ("cooling system"). After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or infonnation to form it belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 22. Denied. Lawrence denies that it repaired the air conditioner ("cooling system") twelve times between 1991 through Jnic 1997, that it failed to actually repair the air conditioner at any time that repairs were necessary, that all work was a "temporary fix," that it ever left the air conditioner in a non-working condition after performing service on it; and Lawrence denies every other averment of this paragraph. -6- . '. .._...JA 23. Denied. It is denial that Lamvrcnce danrtged the vehicle's air conditioner ("cooling sysleni'). After reasonable investigation, defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the avernmcnts of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 24. Denied. It is denied that Lawrence danmaged the vehicle's air conditioner ('cooling systenm") or rendered the compressor inoperable. 25. Denied. The avcrmcnts of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. To time extent a response is deemed required, it is denied that defendant committed any innproper or negligent acts in connection with the sale or service of plaintiffs vehicle, and it is further denied that plaintiff has been damaged in any manner. By way of further answer, defendant avers that liability for any and all consequential damages was expressly disclainmed, including, without limitation, any liability for loss of use of the vehicle, travel time, telephone calls, scheduling loss time and any other business losses. WHEREFORE, defendant Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and cntcrjudgmcnt in its favor, together with costs and such other and further relief as time Court deenms fair and just. NEW HATTER 26. Defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs I through 25 of this answer with new natter as if fully set forth at this place. 27. Plaintiffs complaint fails to state any cause of action against defendant. 7- 2S. 'ro the extent plaintiff's complaint purports to state a claim of negligence on the part of Lawrence, any such cause of action is barred by the economic loss doctrine. 29. 'File subject vchiclc, and the aftcmiarket rear air conditioner instal led Iherein, was in a merchantable condition when it felt the possession and control of Lawrence. 30. The applicable warranties were limited warranties, and limited plaintiffs remedies to repair, replacement or adjustment of parts during the applicable warranty periods, as follows: a. The limited warranty applicable to the aftertnarket rear air conditioner expired no later than twelve (12) months from the (late of purchase (February 6, 1990) or when the odometer reached 12,000 miles, whichever occurred first; and b. The limited warranty that was otherwise applicable to the subject vehicle expired no later than thirty-six (36) months from the date of purchase (February 6, 1990) or when the odometer reached 50, 000 miles, whichever occurred first 31. Appropriate repairs, replacement and adjustment of parts were completed as needed during the applicable warranty periods. 32. Defendant is not liable for defects, failures, or other conditions arising in the air conditioner of the subject vehicle after the expiration of the applicable limited warranties. 33. Under the terns of the aforesaid written limited warranties, plaintiff is barred from recovery of damages for loss oftinte and enjoyment, loss ofuse, travel time, telephone calls, scheduling loss time, personal business losses, or any other consequential damages alleged in the complaint. -S- 33 4. Plaintiffs claim is barred by acceptance of the vehicle and by acceptance of repairs and replacement parts for the vehicle. 35. In an effort to accommodate plaintiffs nd as a gesture ofgoodwill, and notwithstanding the expiration of any applicable Waranties, Lawrence performed service and replaced parts at Lawrence's sole expense, which exceeded S400.00. 36. Plaintiffs claim is barred by the doctrine ofaccord and satisfaction. 37. Plaintiff, because of his own conduct, including acts and Failures to act, is estoppcd from recovery. 38. To the extent plaintiffs complaint purports to state a claim for breach of warranty, such claim is barred by his failure to comply with the conditions of the written limited warranty. 39. The alleged problems in the subject vehicle, if any, were the result of abuse; misuse; neglect; or improper or inadequate maintenance or alteration of the subject vehicle by plaintiff or other persons not within the control of Lawrence. 40. Plaintiffs claim is within thcjurisdictional amount requiring rcfcrral to compulsory arbitration. 41. Plaintiff faailcd to timely reject the subject vehicle. 42. Plaintiff faailed to timely revoke acceptance of the subject vehicle. 43. Plairtiff failed to give notice in a timely manner of the alleged defects that are the basis of his claim 44. Lawrence did not breach any warranty, express or implied, made to plaintiff. -9- 45. The alleged defect or condition in the subject vehicle, if any, has not substantially impaired the use, value or safety of the subject vehicle. 46. To the extent plaintiff's complaint purports to state a claim under the Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law, any such cause of action is barred against a motor vehicle dealer such as Lawrence. 47. To the extent plaintiffs complaint purports to state a claim under the Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law, any such cause of action is barred because an actionable nonconformity, if any, did not arise within the later of the first twelve (12) months or 12,000 miles of use of the subject vehicle. 4S. The damages complained of by the plaintiff resulted from the conduct of plaintiff or third parties over which Lawrence had no control or right of control and which could not reasonably be anticipated by Lawrence. 49. All obligations on the part of defendant towards plaintiff were fully and duly performed. 50. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any. 51. Plaintiffs purported causes of action arc time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including, but not limited to, 13 Pa.C.S. § 2725. -10- WHEREFORE, defendant Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. respectfully rcqucsts that this Honorable Court dismiss plaintiffs complaint with Prejudice and enterjudgment in its favor, together with costs and such otherand further reliefas the Court deems fair andjusl. Respectfully submitted, KEEPER WOOD ALLEN S RAIIAL, LUI 1 By; t.; h?? z? - Eugcnc E?.P insky, Jr. Attorney Id. No. 23702 Donald M. Lewis 111 Attorney Id. No. 55510 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17105-1963 (717) 255-5051 and -8038 Date: December, 1999 Attorneys for defcndant Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. bite undersigned. Kober, i3iocnrr. lar:,: ccnu ;;nu gales Ihat: I. lie a Service WlNqu ct to" 1 n ha P'1:2 he !s aUrhonzed ro CCtil' the foreeo:n,, ans?ccr'witn nci? :Hanes .,, r„ o. 2. 'fne facts set Inn in the icreF any tinsvicr 1'.!t!I now nmucr arc uve and con'ect to the best of his kno%v edec, iniormauun, :gnu an,: 4. He iS awatC that I&C Slr MI.-li'i 5tlnICC.: Io '.Ile pel-giltieS for Qe1JprC pnrc;tarn in [,,N Pa J;'..,. ; ,`l'!• :lace.." Dowcu1Ce' Ib.. ,: - - -- .CLIUIL-1CGlfli 0-I SLR\1cL 1, Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, one of the attorneys for dclcndant, hereby certify that 1 have screed the foregoing paper upon plaintiff this date by depositing it tt'ue and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to plaintif"at the address alleged in the complaint, as follows: Darrell K. Boldosser 600 East Main Street ivliddletown, PA 17057 KEEPER WOOD ALLEN &- RAFIAL,1.1.11 By x 6 Donald M. cwis III Dated: December # , 1999 . _?? DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER IN TIME COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V I NO. 99-6772 CIVIL 1 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LAWRENCE CHEVROLET INC. Defendants I CIVIL ACTION- LAW ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS NEW MATTER Plaintiff, Darrell K. Boldosser, submits the following response to Defendants New Matter: Paragraph 91 through 25 are Defendants answers to Plaintiff's Complaint and need no response from Plaintiff 26. No response required by Plaintiff. 27. Denied. The averments of paragraph 927 is a conclusion of law and therefore require no responsive pleading. In the event and the extent in or all of the averments of paragraph 927 do not contain conclusions of law Plaintiff, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained therein and therefore proof is demanded if relevant. 28. Denied. The averments of paragraph #28 is a conclusion of law and therefore require no responsive pleading. In the event and the extent in or all of the averments of paragraph #28 do not contain conclusions of law Plaintiff, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained therein and therefore proof is demanded if relevant. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 30 a. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 30b. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge are, information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which therefore, denied. ied ledge or 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient know information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, wh are, therefore, denied. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 36. Denied. The averments of paragraph #36 is a conclusion of law and therefore require no responsive pleading. In the event and the extent in or all of the averments of paragraph 936 do not contain conclusions of law Plaintiff, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained therein and therefore proof is demanded if relevant. 37. Denied. The averments of paragraph 937 is a conclusion of law and therefore require no responsive pleading. In the event and the extent in or all of the averments of paragraph #37 do not contain conclusions of law Plaintiff, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained therein and therefore proof is demanded if relevant. 38 Denied. The averments of paragraph #38 is a conclusion of law and therefore require no responsive pleading. In the event and the extent in or all of the averments of paragraph #38 do not contain conclusions of law Plaintiff, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained therein and therefore proof is demanded if relevant. ?r 39. Denied 40. Denied. The averments of paragraph #40 is a conclusion of law and therefore require no responsive pleading. In the event and the extent in or all of the averments of paragraph #40 do not contain conclusions of law Plaintiff, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained therein and therefore proof is demanded if relevant. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied. 43. Denied 44. Denied 45. Denied. Defendants assertion that the alleged defect or condition in the subject vehicle, has not impaired the use, value or safety of the subject vehicle is ludicrous at best. The loss of an air conditioning system definite affects the value of any vehicle and defendant would be the only one in the automotive industry that would maintain that position. The Plaintiff has loss considerable use of the vehicle while trying to have repairs to the system so as to allow the vehicle to be used for Plaintiffs normal buisness. Plaintiff lost the use of the vehicle while system was not working properly. Defendants assertion concerning safety certainly shows defendants lack of knowledge about the vehicle's they sell and service. The vehicle was designed for the air conditioning system to work in conjunction with the defrosting system of the windshield. 46. Denied. The averments of paragraph 946 is a conclusion of law and therefore require no responsive pleading. In the event and the extent in or all of the averments of paragraph #46 do not contain conclusions of law Plaintiff, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained therein and therefore proof is demanded if relevant. 47. Denied. The averments of paragraph #47 is a conclusion of law and therefore require no responsive pleading. In the event and the extent in or all of the averments of paragraph #47 do not contain conclusions of law Plaintiff, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained therein and therefore proof is demanded if relevant. 48. Denied 49. Denied 50. Denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff has been quite patient with Defendant's attempt, without success, to make the required repairs over a period of several years. The failure of Defendant to make appropriate repairs on their own negligence cause Plaintiff considerable expense to Defendant as well as loss of use of his buisness vehicle, traveling expense, loss of work time, traveling expense and other related expenses. 51. Denied. The averments of paragraph #51 is a conclusion of law and therefore require no responsive pleading. In the event and the extent in or all of the averments of paragraph 451 do not contain conclusions of law Plaintiff, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained therein and therefore proof is demanded if relevant. Wherefore, this paragraph contains a pleading for reliefwhich requires no responsive pleading to the extent that a pleading is required, Plaintiff states that defendants are not entitled to any relief. Further, Plaintiff request the court to award judgment in excess of $4,737.75 dollars against defendants and award court cost, legal expenses, and attorney fees and request the court award other relief as the court determines is just, fair and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, January 5, 2000 ??c? l1,-. Darrell K. Boldosser, Plaintiff 600 E. Main St. Middletown, Penna. 17057 717-944-0128 Pro Sc Verification 1, Darrell K. Boldosser, PlaintilFherein, do hereby state that the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTEER is true and correct to the best ormy knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904,relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: January 5, 2000 Ll k . Darrell K. Boldosser CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER, hereby certify that on this day of Jan 5, 2000, 1 mailed a true and correct copy of this Complaint by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, certified addressed as follows, Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal Donald M. Lewis I II Attorneys for Lawrence Chevrolet Inc 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, Pa 17108-1963 Darrell K. Boldosser Plaintiff 118 Spruce St. or 600 E. Main St. Middletown, Penna.17057 717-944-0128 DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER IN THE COUR'r OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V NO. 99-6772 CIVIL JURY 'TRIAL DEMANDED LAWRENCE CHEVROLET INC. Defendants CIVIL AC'riON -LAW PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST REQUEST FOR REPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. It is the Plaintiffs firm belief that these records are already in the possession of the Defendant. As a dealership that sells and provides maintenance on these vehicles, their records should be more complete than Plaintiffs. 2. It is the Plaintiffs firm belief that these records are already in the possession of the Defendant. As a dealership that sells and provides maintenance on these vehicles, their records should be more complete than Plaintiffs. 3. It is the Plaintiffs firm belief that these records are already in the possession of the Defendant. As a dealership that sells and provides maintenance on these vehicles, their records should be more complete than Plaintiffs. 4. It is the Plaintiffs firm belief that these records are already in the possession of the Defendant. As a dealership that sells and provides maintenance on these vehicles, their records should be more complete than Plaintiff's. 5. It is the Plaintiffs firm belief that these records are already in the possession of the Defendant. As a dealership that sells and provides maintenance on these vehicles, their records should be more complete than Plaintiffs. 6. Documents on repair receipts included with response. 7. It is the Plaintiffs firm belief that these records are already in the possession of the Defendant. As a dealership that sells and provides maintenance on these vehicles, their records should be more complete than Plaintiffs 8. None available at this time. 9. None available at this time. 10. Documents included with response. 11. All communication with defendant where oral since obviously taped or recorded information unless done with defendants permission violate the law. 12, None available at this time. January 5, 2000 ( ? I /./ /---' Darrell K. Boldosser, Plaintiff 600 E. Main St. Middletown, Penna. 17057 717-944-0128 Pro Se r1 yeri ficat ion I, Darrell K. Boldosser, Plaintif Herein, do hereby state that the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTEER is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of I8 Pa.C.S. 4904,relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: January 5, 2000 ?al Darrell K. Boldosser CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER, hereby certify that on this day of Jan 5, 2000, I mailed a true and correct copy of this Complaint by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, certified addressed as follows, Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal Donald M. Lewis III Attorneys for Lawrence Chevrolet Inc 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, Pa 17108-1963 Darrell K. Boldosser Plaintiff 118 Spruce St. or 600 E. Main St. Middletown, Penna.17057 717-944-0128 ?,' a T] U i G Ii. ? p O -7 V FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR PENNSYLVANIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, PLAINTIFF VS. WILLIAM D. SHIELDS, DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 1999 06272 . IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE RETURN OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have deposited in the U.S. Mails at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on , a true and correct copy of the Notice of Sale of Real Estate pursuant to PA R.C.P. 3129.1 to the Defendants herein and all lienholders of record by regular first class mail (Certificate of Mailing form in compliance with U.S. Postal Form 3817 is attached hereto as evidence), and also to the Defendants by Certified Mail, which mailing receipts are attached. Service addresses are as follows: William D. Shields 668 State Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Mellon Bank, N.A. 10 South Market Square Harrisburg, PA 17101 Commerce Bank Harrisburg National Association ATTN: Credit Administration De_ot. 100 Senate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 DOMESTIC RELATIONS OFFICE Cumberland County Courthouse Hanover and High Streets Carlisle, PA 17013 / <B.y PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER Attorneys for Plaintiff 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 rf 1 301 IN %V PURCH I. HOWARD W KIWO LLON V. II:\LI.I'N 1(31 IN W. I'I!R('IA I- 1R. BRIAN 1. IYI-I:R 111.1. M. \\'INI:1:,\ NOTICE TO: William D. Shields 668 State Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Mellon Bank, N.A. 10 South Market Square Harrisburg, PA 17101 LAW OFFICES PURCELL, KRUG AND HALLER 1710 N01011 FRONT STRFET II:\ILRISF3URG, PENNSYLVANIA 17102-23,02 'FiiLITIIONE (717) 23.1.4179 F0IZI:C1.0SURE DEN'. FAX (717)'_3.1-1'_116 (711) 5]9.193•] Commerce Bank Harrisburg National Association ATTN: Credit Administration Dept. 100 Senate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 DOMESTIC RELATIONS OFFICE Cumberland County Courthouse Hanover and High Streets Carlisle, PA 17013 JOSEPH NISSLEY 11010.1901) ANTHONY D.SANTO OF COUNSEL HERSHEY 1099 GOVERNOR ROAD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the Defendants in the within action and those parties who hold one or more mortgages, judgments or tax liens against the real estate which is the subject of the Notice of Sale pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3129.1 attached hereto. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that by virtue of a Writ of Execution issued out of the Court of Common Pleas of the within county on the judgment of the Plaintiff named herein the said real estate will be exposed to public sale as set forth on the attached Notice of Sale. YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that the lien you hold a inst the said real estate will be divested by the sale and that d have an opportunity to protect your interest, if any, by ji tified of said Sheriff's Sale. By: Leon P. Haller PA I.D.15700 Attorney for Plaintiff FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR PENNSYLVANIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW VS. NO. 1999 06272 WILLIAM D. SHIELDS, DEFENDANT IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICE OF SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 3129 TAKE NOTICE: That the Sheriff's Sale of Real Property (real estate) will be held: DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2000 TIME: 10:00 O'clock A.M. LOCATION: Commissioner's Hearing Room 2nd Floor Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 THE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD is delineated in detail in a legal description mainly consisting of a statement of the measured boundaries of the property, together with a brief mention of the buildings and any other major improvements erected on the land. (SEE DESCRIPTION ATTACHED) THE LOCATION of your property to be sold is: 668 STATE STREET LEMOYNE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA THE JUDGMENT under or pursuant to which your property is being sold is docketed in the within Commonwealth and County to: NO. 1999 06272 THE NAME(S) OF THE OWNER(S) OR REPUTED OWNERS of this property is: WILLIAM D. SHIELDS A SCHEDULE OF DISTRIBUTION, being a list of the persons and/or governmental or corporate entities or agencies being entitled to receive part of the proceeds of the sale received and to be disbursed by the Sheriff (for example, to banks that hold mortgages and municipalities that are owed taxes) will be filed by the Sheriff of this County thirty (30) days after the sale and distribution of the proceeds of sale in accordance with this schedule will, in fact, be made unless someone objects by filing exceptions to it within ten (10) days of the date it is filed. Information about the Schedule of Distribution may be obtained from the Sheriff of the Court of Common Pleas of the within County at the Courthouse address specified herein. THIS PAPER IS A NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE SALE OF YOUR PROPERTY. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED BECAUSE THERE IS A JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU IT MAY CAUSE YOUR PROPERTY TO BE HELD TO BE SOLD OR TAKEN TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. You may have legal rights to prevent your property from being taken away. A lawyer can advise you more specifically of these rights. If you wish to exercise your rights, YOU MUST ACT PROMPTLY. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET FREE LEGAL ADVICE: Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 717-249-3166 Legal Services, Inc. 8 Irvine Row Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-9400 THE LEGAL RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE ARE: 1. You may file a petition with the Court of Common Pleas of the within County to open the judgment if you have a meritorious defense against the person or company that has entered judgment against you. You may also file an petition with the same Court if you are aware of a legal defect in the obligation or the procedure used against you. 2. After the Sheriff's Sale you may file a petition with the Court of Common Pleas of the within County to set aside the sale for a grossly inadequate price or for other proper cause. This ,_ H petition MUST BE FILED BEFORE THE SHERIFF'S DEED IS DELIVERED. 3, A petition or petitions raising the legal issues or rights mentioned in the preceding paragraphs must be pretence to the Court of Common Pleas of the within County. The served on the attorney for the creditor or on the creditor before presentation to the court and a proposed order or rule must be attached to the petition. if a specific return date is desired, such date must be obtained from the Court Administrator's office - Civil Division, of the within County courthouse, before a presentation of the petition to the Court. A copy of the Writ of Execution is attached hereto. PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER Attorneys for Plaintiff 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 ALL THAT CER'rAIN tract of real esmie situate in the Borough of Lemoyne. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at an x-cut on the southern right-of-way line of Suue Street on the northeastern corner of Lot No. 3 on [lie Final Re-Subdivision Plan for West Shore Radiator Works recorded in Plan Book 40, Page 66, Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office; THENCE along [lie southern right-of-way line of State Street North 51 degrees 35 minutes East, 35.00 feet to an x-cut in the concrete walk; TIIENCE South 38 degrees 25 minutes East, 75.00 feet through a partition wall dividing the premises known as 668 and 666 State Street to a point at the northeastern corner of Lot No. 5 on the aforementioned Subdivision Plan; THENCE South 51 degrees 35 minutes West, 35.00 feet to a point at the southeastern corner of Lot No. 3; THENCE along the eastern line of Lot No. 3 •Nonh 38 degrees 25 minutes West, 75.00 feet to a point, the place of BEGINNING. BEING Lot No. 4 on the Final Re-Subdivision Plan for West Shore Radiator Works recorded in Plan Book 40, Page 66, Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office. BEING all of Parcel No. 1 of Tract No. 2 and the eastern 1/2 of Parcel No. 2, Tract No. 2. HAVING THEREON ERECTED a dwelling known as 668 State Street, Lemoyne, PA. BEING THE SAME PRELIISES which Claude tilheeler, Sr. and Patsy L. Wheeler by deed dated June 27, 1994 and recorded July 7, 1951 in Cumberland County Deed book 108 Page 128 granted and conveyed unto l,lilliam D. Shields. TO BE SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF I4I: LIAM D. SHIELDS ON JLuGMEN'1' NO. 1999 06272. ASSESSMENT: 12-21-02'07-422 ALL THAT CERTAIN tract of real estate siunte in the Borough of Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at an x-cut on the southern right-of-way line of State Street on the northeastern corner of Lot No. 3 on the Final Re-Subdivision Plan for West Shore Radiator Works recorded in Plan Book 40, Page 66, Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office; THENCE alung the southern right-of-way line of State Street North 51 degrees 35 minutes East, 35.00 feet to an x-cut in the concrete walk; THENCE South 38 degrees 25 minutes East, 75.00 feet through a partition wall dividing the premises known as 668 and 666 State Street to a point at the northeastern corner of Lot No. 5 on the aforementioned Subdivision Plan; TIIT_NCE South 51 degrees 35 minutes West, 35.00 feet to a point at the southeastern corner of Lot No. 3; THENCE along the eastern line of Lot No. 3 •North 38 degrees 25 minutes %Vcst, 75.00 feet to a point, doe place of BEGINNING. BEING Lot No. 4 on th6 Final Re-Subdivision Plan for West Shore Radiator Works recorded in Plan Book 40, Page 66, Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office. BEING all of Parcel No. 1 of Tract No. 2 and the eastern 1/2 of Parcel No. 2, Tract No. 2. HAVING THEREON ERECTED a dwelling known as 668 State Street, Lemoyne, PA. BEING THE SAME PREMISES which Claude Wheeler, Sr. and Patsy L. L9heeler by deed dated June 27, 1994 and recorded July 7, 1994 in Cumberland County Deed book 108 Page 128 granted and conveyed unto Plilliam D. Shields. TO BE SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF' PIILLIAM D. SHIELDS ON JUDGMENT NO. 1999 06272. ASSESSMENT: 12-21-0267-422 Re: PHFA v. Shields Cumberland County Sale 6/7/00 U. S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (In compliance with Postal Service Form 3877) Received from: Purcell, Krug & Haller Postage: 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 One piece of ordinary mail addressed to: Postmark: William D. Shields 668 State Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 U. S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (In compliance with Postal Service Form 3877) Received from: Purcell, Krug & Haller Postage: 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 One piece of ordinary mail addressed to: Postmark: Mellon Bank, N.A. 10 South Market Square Harrisburg, PA 17101 U. S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (In compliance with Postal Service Form 3877) Received from: Purcell, Krug & Haller Postage: 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 One piece of ordinary mail addressed to Postmark: Commerce Bank Harrisburg National Association i 2 Q ?o ATTN: Credit Administration Dept. 100 Senate Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 %' ,?? U. S. POSTAL SERVICE Received from: Postage: Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Postmark: One piece of ordinary mail addressed to: DOMESTIC RELATIONS OFFICE Cumberland County Courthouse Hanover and High Streets Carlisle, PA 17013 / A lix- cri r, C e O c, U DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff' ? CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V NO. 99-6772 CIVIL I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LAWRENCE CI-IEVROLET INC. Derendants CIVIL ACTION- LAW 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 tiling in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and ajudgment 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 LAWER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTE 1 BELOW TO FIND OUTWHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator 4°i Floor Cumberland County Court House Carlisle, Pa 17013 717-240-6200 DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V NO. 99-6772 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LAWRENCE CHEVROLET INC. Defendants CIVIL ACTION- LAW COMPLAINT Now comes, the Plaintiff, Darrell Boldosser, and files this Complaint in support of which states as follows: The Plaintiff, Darrell K. Boldosser, is an individual residing at 600 E. Main St, in the Borough of Middletown, County of Dauphin, Pennsylvania. 2. 3. 4. The Defendant, Lawrence Chevrolet Inc., is a Corporation doing buisness at 6445 Carlisle Pike, PO Box 510, Mechanicsburg, County of Cumberland, Pennsylvania. On or about February, 1990, Plaintiff purchased a 1990 Chevy Explorer Van from Defendant. On or about July 21, 1990, Plaintiff took the vehicle to Defendant regarding a water leak on the rear inside of vehicle from the vehicles air conditioning system. Air Conditioning was work properly except for a leak of water from condensation of air conditioning core Plaintiff worked on the vehicle and corrected the water problem by opening drain from core. 5. On or about June 1991, Plaintiff took the vehicle to Defendant because the vehicle air conditioner on unit was not cooling properly and Defendant replaced a part and certified the air conditioner was corrected. 6. On or about June 1992, Plaintiff notified Defendant that with the warm season the air conditioning unit of the vehicle was not cooling properly again and due to immediate need for buisness and time restraints, the vehicle was being fixed locally. On or about May 13, 1993, Plaintiff notified defendant that he was having the air problems with the air conditioning unit not cooling and again because of Defendants scheduling and loss of use of vehicle for a whole day, Defendant notified that he would have the work done locally, with instructions from Defendant that if any problems or upon warm season next year to bring vehicle to their location to be evaluated for problems with the air conditioner. 8. On or about June 2, 1994, Plaintiff took the vehicle to the Defendant with what Plaintiff felt would be a check of the system due to the notification of the problems under the warranty of that vehicle. Plaintiff was charged for repair of the system with notification that their was not a leak in the system even though it had done so for some time. 9. On or about May 19,1995, Plaintiff took the vehicle to the Defendant with problem again that the air conditioning system did not cool. Plaintiff was charged to have the system recharged and a leak repaired. At this time Plaintiff was very angry with Defendant because of the cost of repairs and that since this had been an ongoing problem since 1991. After, Plaintiff argued the warranty issue and the on going problem, Defendant assured Plaintiff that Defendant would take care of any problems with the air conditioning system if this did not in fact cure the problem. 10. On or about August I, 1995, Plaintiffagain took the vehicle to Defendant for the same problem with the air conditioning system and loss of cool air. Defendants work order indicates that there is no apparent miss but yet had to top off the freon. I I. On or about Sept 13, 1995, Plaintiff again took the vehicle to defendant because Plaintiff could feel that air conditioning system was not getting as cool as when freon was topped off. Defendant's work order indicated no problems and system was working properly 12. On or about May 1, 1996, Plaintiff again took the vehicle to the Defendant because air conditioner not getting cold. Defendant's invoice indicated that the system was evacuated and recharged. 13. On or about May 30, 1996, Plaintiff again took the vehicle to the Defendant because air conditioner not getting cold and Defendant worked on the system. Approximately ten minutes after leaving the Defendants buisness, Plaintiff notified the Defendant by cellular phone that the system was not working. Defendant advised to set up another appointment to have the vehicle checked. 14. On or about June 6, 1996, Plaintiff again took the vehicle to the Defendant. Defendant's invoice indicated that they found "there is excess oil in the refrigerant system. Replace accumulator, and lines add 3.5 Ibs Freon". I5. On or about December 16, 1996, at the request of the Defendant vehicle was taken to Defendant. Defendant's invoice indicated check VC, test A/C, has normal operation. 16. Less than three months later, on or about March 5, 1997, Plaintiff again had to take the vehicle back to the Defendant because air conditioning system not working well. Defendants invoice showed pressure slightly low, no leaks found, added I lb offreon Compressor noisey-should be replaced-customer declined at this time. 17. On or about June 18,1997, Plaintiff took the vehicle to the Defendant with air conditioning not working. Defendant's invoice indicated compressor not running and leak at the high side of schrader valve, replaced valve and orifice tube, replaced compressor and evacuated and recharged system. This repair was extensive and expensive for Plaintiff. 18. On or about June 27, 1997, Plaintiff took the vehicle to the Defendant with the air conditioning compressor not working. Defendant's invoice indicated that compressor faulty, locked up, replaced compressor and belt, evacuated and recharged system. 19. On or about June 1997, Plaintiff requested a complete history of the air conditioning problems on this vehicle and was refused access to those records. 20. On or about the end of August 1997, Plaintiff called Defendant and talked with the service manager and advised him that the vehicle was losing coolant. 21. Plaintiff no longer trusted or felt the Defendants company was not competent to repair the vehicle and had damaged the vehicles cooling system components. Plaintiff took the vehicle to an independent repair company for an evaluation on the cooling system on or about Oct 14, 1997 at which time evaluation revealed a leak in the rear evaporator core of the cooling system which was repaired and subsequently a small leak in the hose going to the rear evaporator core, Since that repair in 1998, until the present the vehicle cooling system has functioned properly. 22, Defendant had the vehicle twelve times front 1')91 though June 1997 to repair the coolant system on this Vehicle. At no time did defendant actually repair the system to a satisfaclory working condition fix any extended lime frames. All work was a temporary fix, that left the vehicle cooling system in the saute non working condition within a G month time frame. 23. Defendant did cause damage to the coolant system in the Ibllowing manner. In 1990 the cooling system was working properly on the vehicle and no problem was experienced until Defendant had worked by the rear evaporator core to fix a water leak. No other companies or individuals had worked in that area and that was where the major problem with the system was found by an independent source. 24. Defendants attempts to repair the system did damage and render inoperable the compressor for the cooling system for which plaintill'was charged. 25. As a direct result of the improper and negligent acts of the Defendant, Plaintifl'suflered damages of a personal, buisness and pecuniary nature including costs of repair and replacement of parts, loss of use of vehicle for buisness, travel time of two people and cost of travel tin- repairs, phone calls, scheduling loss time of Plaintiffs buisness WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Darrell K. Boldosser, requests this Honorable Court to enter judgement against the Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet Inc for a sum of money in excess of $4,737.75, together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law, to fairly compensate the Plaintiff for the injuries he sustained and for such other relief as Court determines is just, fair and equitable. Respectfully Submitted Dated: Nov 24, 1999 Darrell K. Boldosser, Plaintiff 600 E. Main St. Middletown, Penna. 17057 717-944-0128 Pro Se Verification I, Darrell K. Boldosser, I'lainlifl' hcrcin, do hcrchy state that the foregoing Complaint is true and correct to the best ol'nry knowledge, inlixmation and belief. I understand that Ihlse statements hcrcin are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904,relating to unswvan lillsilicauioo to authorities. DATED: Nov 24, 199') GAG -4-1-4` airell K. Boldosser CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, DARRELL K. BOLDOSSER, hereby certify that on this day of Nov 24, 1999, 1 mailed a true and correct copy of this Complaint by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, certified addressed as follows, Lawrence Chevrolet Inc 6445 Carlisle Pike P.O. Box 510 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17055 Darrell K. Boldosser Plaintiff 118 Spruce St. or 600 E. Main St. Middletown, Penna.17057 717-944-0128 , -- . - - ? I