Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-86 IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF DAVID G. ROLAND ORPHANS COURT DIVISION 232 ORPHANS 1978 REPLY OF PMA INSURANCE COMPANY TO NEW MATTER OF COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK, GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID G. ROLAND 24. Corresponding paragraph of Commonwealth National Bank's New Matter constitutes a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer may be required, it is averred that the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act and the applicable case law will speak for themselves. 25. Denied as stated. It is denied that attorney's fees paid in this case amounted to 50 percent of the settlement proceeds. To the contrary, the gross settlement recovery in this case pursuant to the structured settlement was $797,762.00. Attorney's fees paid in this case were $246,000.00, which represents a contingency fee of 30 percent of the gross recovery. 26. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Hershey Foods Corporation appealed to the Superior Court. It is denied that a 50 percent contingent fee was paid in this case. To the contrary, the attorney's fees were 30 percent of the gross recovery. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that the guardian expended significant sums in order to properly present the guardian's claim. It is further averred that PMA Insurance Company, by and through its counsel, has requested an itemization of litigation expenditures made by the guardian to present the guardian's claim against Hershey Foods Corporation, but to date, counsel for the guardian has not provided said itemization. 28. It is admitted that PMA avers that it paid a total of $35,127.46 to the guardian on behalf of the Estate of David G. Roland. 29. Denied. It is denied that the objector's request to pay over or escrow the sum sought to be distributed to David G. Roland represents a grossly inflated claim against the Estate. To the contrary, it is averred that said figure represents far less than the total subrogation reimbursement to which PMA Insurance Company is entitled pursuant to the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is averred that the beneficiaries of the settlement of the third-party action are jointly and severally liable for such subrogation reimbursement. It is further denied that the objector has absolutely no pretense of right to anything more than $17,296.69 less its pro rata share of litigation costs. To the contrary, it is averred that the objector has a legitimate claim to the entire sum sought to be distributed to David G. Roland. -2- 30. Denied. It is denied that the objector's claim presented to this Court is in any manner filed in bad faith. 31. Denied. It is denied that the structured settlement as set forth in objector's paragraph 7 provides adequate security for the objector in the event the objector prevails on its claim pending before the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. To the contrary, it is averred that the objector is entitled to subrogation reimbursement from the funds sought to be distributed to David G. Roland. It is further averred that the beneficiaries of the structured settlement, including David G. Roland, are no longer residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and PMA does not therefore have adequate security for any judgment that it may obtain in the action instituted in the Court: of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. 32. Denied. It is denied that David G. Roland has a clear entitlement to the funds presently sought to be distributed to him. To the contrary, it is averred that the objector is entitled to the aforesaid funds. It is denied that the structured settlement in any manner defeats PMA's entitlement to the funds sought to be distributed to David G. Roland. 33. Denied. Corresponding paragraph of the guardian's new matter constitutes a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer may be required, it is averred that the possible substitution of the beneficiary for the -3- guardian as a Defendant in the Dauphin County action has positively no relevancy to the objections to the account presently pending before this Court. WHEREFORE, PMA Insurance Company prays the Court to enter an Order granting its objections to the account. PETERS & WASILEFSKI / ,~..--' Date: 7/}/J. . 1/; 0~ I I??t By :~-~ JOS 29 1 North Front Harrisburg, PA (717) 238-7555 -4- VERIFICATION I verify that I am counsel for PMA Insurance Company and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply of PMA Insurance Company to New Matter of Commonwealth National Bank, Guardian of the Estate of David G. Roland are 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 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date )'Y~ 11, 't' -/ . ; ,-"l- \ Q. '" I ! ,"> l p , -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply of PMA Insurance Company to New Matter of Commonwealth National Bank, Guardian of the Estate of David G. Roland, on all counsel of record and parties of interest by placing the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on this ~--(+~ day of May, 1986, and addressed as follows: Richard W. Cleckner, Esquire 31 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 PETERS & WASILEFSKI BY se1$l'r~ iln ~~M