Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-1521Robert F. Claraval, Esq. 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHELE REED, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant Og- 15a1 NO. 2008 CV C i vl(Ter-m CV : CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE - COMPLAINT 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 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 l Robert F. Claraval, Esq. CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiff MICHELE REED, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1521 V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP : Defendant : CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 19. Denied. Paragraph 19 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Moreover, Plaintiff has full tort coverage. 20. Denied. Paragraph 20 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 21. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was in any way contributorily negligent. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff: (a) failed to drive at a safe speed (b) failed to yield (c) failed to comply with traffic control devices (d) failed to comply with directions of traffic control officers and/or flagman (e) failed to stop for a vehicle before causing a crash (f) failed to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles (g) failed to keep adequate and proper control over her vehicle so as to avoid contact with the defendant's vehicle (h) operated her vehicle in careless disregard for the rights and safety of others (i) operated her vehicle in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others 0) failed to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal (k) failed to yield the right of way. 22. Denied. Paragraph 22 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 23. Denied. It is unknown what is plead in paragraph 23 as to the term "plaintiff s alleged harm." 24. Denied. Paragraph 24 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. CLARAVAL &CLARAVAL Date: 20 0 By: ROBERT F."tLARAVAL 500 North Third Street, 2°a Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. #19222 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION The language of the foregoing document is that of counsel and not necessarily my own; however, I have read the foregoing document and to the extent that it is based upon information that I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief; to the extent that the content of the foregoing document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C. S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. d ! &' 1&?? MICHELE REED G MICHELE REED, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1521 V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's New Matter by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL Date: By DENISE I. WILLIAMS _ ?s NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted an la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado gue si usted no se defienda, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier gueja o alivio gue es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUNENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 Robert F. Claraval, Esq. 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHELE REED, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2008 CV CV V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT Parties 1. The Plaintiff Michele Reed resides at 47 Edgewood Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055. 2. The Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp resides at 142 East Main Street, Apartment C, Blain, Pennsylvania, 17006. Background 3. On April 4, 2006 at approximately 11:20 a.m. Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving her 1999 Chevrolet. 4. On that same date the Defendant Martha Lee was driving a 2005 Hyundai Elantra owned by Darryl A. Higley. 5. Plaintiff Michele Reed was traveling west on PA 114 and was properly entering the intersection at Route 114 and US 11 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At that same time the Defendant Martha Lee was traveling north on US 11 and was approaching the intersection at PA 114. 7. The intersection on that date was controlled by flashing traffic lights and a flagman. 8. Without regard to the Plaintiff Michele Reed's vehicle which was lawfully proceeding through the intersection of Route 114 and US 11, or the flashing traffic signals or the flagman, the Defendant Martha Lee pulled directly into Michele Reed's lane of travel. 9. Defendant Martha Lee's vehicle struck the driver's side of Michele Reed's car, causing it to travel into a concrete barrier on the east side of Route 114. 10. The force of the impact caused serious injury to Plaintiff Michele Reed. -1- Negligence 11. The collision and all of the hereinafter mentioned injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff Michele Reed are the direct result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as more particularly described below. (a) In failing to stop her vehicle before causing a collision with the vehicle Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (b) In failing to keep alert and to maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles, more specifically, the Plaintiff Michele Reed's vehicle. (c) In failing to keep adequate and proper control over her vehicle to avoid contact with the automobile which the Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (d) In operating her vehicle with careless disregard for the rights or safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically 75 Pa.C.S. §3714 "Careless Driving." (e) In operating her vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway specifically including Michele Reed in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3736. -2- (f) In failing to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3112. (g) In violating 75 Pa.C.S. §3324, failure to yield when entering a roadway. Damages 12. The force and impact of the collision as caused by the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee caused serious and permanent injury to the Plaintiff Michele Reed for which she has received extensive medical care. 13. The Plaintiff Michele Reed suffered the following injuries as a result of the negligence of the Defendant: (a) Closed head injury; (b) Concussion; (c) Post-concussive syndrome; (d) Chronic headache; (e) Cervical injury; (f) Lumbar injury; (g) Fibromyalgia -3- (h) A greater susceptibility to cervical and lumbar injury; (i) Limitation in range of motion of cervical and lumbar spine; and 0) Possible aggravation of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. 14. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as described herein, the Plaintiff Michele Reed has suffered and will continue to suffer mental and physical pain, great difficulty in carrying out and engaging in life's activities, a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, humiliation and embarrassment. 15. Plaintiff Michele Reed has and may in the future sustain a loss of earnings and an impairment to her earning capacity. 16. Plaintiff Michele Reed has been forced to expend sums of money for medical services, medication, therapy and related expenses in the past and will be required to continue to do so in the future. 17. All of Plaintiff Michele Reed's injuries as herein described are continuing and will continue into the foreseeable future, as will the treatment costs thereof. 18. The negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee has resulted in the general deterioration of Plaintiff Michele Reed's well-being. -4- WHEREFORE, the PlaintiffMichele Reed demands judgment against the Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, together with delay damages if applicable and costs of suit. CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL Date: .3 .S Date:s l o g/ By: JZOBERT F. CLARAVAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. # 19222 Attorneys for Plaintiff By: 10A -? roaow? MAR ANN KENNEDY CLARA A 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4763 Supreme Court I.D. #87347 -5- Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION The language of the foregoing document is that of counsel and not necessarily my own; however, I have read the foregoing document and to the extent that it is based upon information that I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief; to the extent that the content of the foregoing document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C. S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 1-,b a h /' 4?? MICHELE REED d w o cr, a u? a -a , :721 "? l1'3 K 0 SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-01521 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND REED MICHELE VS LEE MARTHA AKA MARTHA ESTEPP R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: LEE MARTHA AKA MARTHA ESTEPP but was unable to locate Her deputized the sheriff of PERRY serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, Pennsylvania, to On March 20th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PERRY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep Perry Country Postage 18.00 9.00 10.00 83.60 122.32` 03/20/2008 ROBERT CLARAVAL Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of in his bailiwick. He therefore So answers R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County 3/;L 7/08 A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania a Michele Reed vs. Martha Lee aka Martha Estepp Now, March 7, 2008 No. 08-1521 civil I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Perry County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, March 17, , 20 08 , at 4:35 o'clock P M. served the within Complaint upon Martha Lee aka Martha Estep at 142 E. Main St. Blain, PA 17006 (Blain Borough) by handing to Chad Higley- Person in Charge a True & Attested and made known to Him So answers, Sworn and subscribed before me this IJM day of ?, 20 D wwEf F. F660GER, Notary YUU" mmm" Boo. Percy :ounty ?..w. rw irm Feb.t6,2fl12 copy of the original Complaint COSTS SERVICE _ MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT the contents thereof. Der M. Bates Deputy Sheri of Perry County, PA s Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I . D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, V. Plaintiff Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, : Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendant in the above-captioned matter. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 4.fferson J. Ship an, Esquire . . 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Defendant DATE: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on April 21, 2008: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2"d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER efferson J. Shipman, Esquire D. #: 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Defendant 330239 r-.a r' ; ?., ^? ?.:. ?_.a - c ?.? `tl .:. r- " ;( f`?3 - - ;` -- --- -: ; , ??: .? Robert F. Claraval, Esq. 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHELE REED, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant : NO. 08-1521 : CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE - AMENDED COMPLAINT 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 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted an la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado gue si usted no se defienda, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier guej a o alivio gue es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUNENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 Robert F. Claraval, Esq. 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHELE REED, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1521 V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMENDED COMPLAINT Parties 1. The Plaintiff Michele Reed resides at 47 Edgewood Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055. 2. The Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp resides at 142 East Main Street, Apartment C, Blain, Pennsylvania, 17006. Background 3. On April 4, 2006 at approximately 11:20 a.m. Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving her 1999 Chevrolet. 4. On that same date the Defendant Martha Lee was driving a 2005 Hyundai Elantra owned by Darryl A. Higley. Plaintiff Michele Reed was traveling west on PA 114 and was properly entering the intersection at Route 114 and US 11 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At that same time the Defendant Martha Lee was traveling north on US 11 and was approaching the intersection at PA 114. 7. The intersection on that date was controlled by flashing traffic lights and a flagman. 8. Without regard to the Plaintiff Michele Reed's vehicle which was lawfully proceeding through the intersection of Route 114 and US 11, or the flashing traffic signals or the flagman, the Defendant Martha Lee pulled directly into Michele Reed's lane of travel. 9. Defendant Martha Lee's vehicle struck the driver's side of Michele Reed's car. Ms. Reed then drove to the curb on the east side of Route 114. 10. The force of the impact caused serious injury to Plaintiff Michele Reed. -1- Negligence 11. The collision and all of the hereinafter mentioned injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff Michele Reed are the direct result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as more particularly described below. (a) In failing to stop her vehicle before causing a collision with the vehicle Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (b) In failing to keep alert and to maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles, more specifically, the Plaintiff Michele Reed's vehicle. (c) In failing to keep adequate and proper control over her vehicle to avoid contact with the automobile which the Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (d) In operating her vehicle with careless disregard for the rights or safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically 75 Pa.C.S. §3714 "Careless Driving." (e) In operating her vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway specifically including Michele Reed in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3736. -2- (f) In failing to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3112. (g) In violating 75 Pa.C.S. §3324, failure to yield when entering a roadway. Damages 12. The force and impact of the collision as caused by the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee caused serious and permanent injury to the Plaintiff Michele Reed for which she has received extensive medical care. 13. The Plaintiff Michele Reed suffered the following injuries as a result of the negligence of the Defendant: (a) Closed head injury; (b) Concussion; (c) Post-concussive syndrome; (d) Chronic headache; (e) Cervical injury; (f) Lumbar injury; (g) Fibromyalgia -3- (h) A greater susceptibility to cervical and lumbar injury; (i) Limitation in range of motion of cervical and lumbar spine; and 0) Possible aggravation of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. 14. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as described herein, the Plaintiff Michele Reed has suffered and will continue to suffer mental and physical pain, great difficulty in carrying out and engaging in life's activities, a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, humiliation and embarrassment. 15. Plaintiff Michele Reed has and may in the future sustain a loss of earnings and an impairment to her earning capacity. 16. Plaintiff Michele Reed has been forced to expend sums of money for medical services, medication, therapy and related expenses in the past and will be required to continue to do so in the future. 17. All of Plaintiff Michele Reed's injuries as herein described are continuing and will continue into the foreseeable future, as will the treatment costs thereof. 18. The negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee has resulted in the general deterioration of Plaintiff Michele Reed's well-being. -4- WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Michele Reed demands judgment against the Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, together with delay damages if applicable and costs of suit. CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL Date: Date: L3 ?-U By: -5- ROBERT rCLARAVAL 1 500 North Third Street, 2 n, Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. #19222 Attorneys for Plaintiff MARY KENNEDY C: 500 N Third Street, 2"d F Harris urg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4763 Supreme Court I.D. #87347 Attorneys for Plaintiff AL VERIFICATION I, Robert F. Claraval, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state that I am the attorney for the Plaintiffs in this action and that the information contained in the foregoing document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 N.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. MICHELE REED, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1521 V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL Date: ??a 3J0? By DENISE I. WILLIAMS C°1 r?,? - . ,.., ?.,) j '-{ .. ? " . ? _ r' . ?. ; 4 - MICHELE REED, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1521 V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the originals of Plaintiff's Interrogatories Addressed to Defendant and Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Addressed to Defendant by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL Date: By DENISE I. WILLIAMS ? b co ? r•,.7 ? _ ^z"' Ana Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: hs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, V. Attorney for Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within Answer and New Matter within 20 days of s service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. JO ON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Je erson J. Shipman, squire I.D. #: 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Defendant Date: May 7, 2008 Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner Attorney for Defendants By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: ys@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, MARTHA LEE, A/K/A MARTHA ESTEPP, TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp, by and through her counsel, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, and Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3, Admitted only that on April 4, 2006 at approximately 11:20 a.m. Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving a 1999 Chevrolet. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted only that Plaintiff Michele Reed was traveling west on Pa. 114 entering the intersection at Route 114 and U.S. 11 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Admitted that Defendant Mrs. Lee was traveling north on U.S. 11 and was properly and legally entering the intersection at Route U.S. 11 and Route 114 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the intersection on the date in question was controlled by a flashing traffic light. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 7 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 8 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiffs alleged cause of action and further, that the Reed vehicle failed to yield and pulled directly into Mrs. Lee's lane of travel. 9. Denied as stated. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 10, relating to Plaintiffs alleged injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 11 and each and every subparagraph a. through g. is a conclusion of law and fact to which no response is response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph 11 and each and every subparagraph a. through g. is specifically denied. a. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee was negligent in allegedly failing to stop her vehicle before allegedly causing a collision with the vehicle Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving; b. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee failed to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles, more specifically, the Plaintiff Michele Reeds vehicle; C. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee failed to keep adequate and proper control over the vehicle so as to avoid contact with the automobile which the Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving; d. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee operated her vehicle with careless disregard for the rights of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3714 "Careless Driving"; e. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee operated her vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway, specifically, including Michele Reed allegedly in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3736; f. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee failed to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3112; and g. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3324, and failure to yield when entering a roadway. 12. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 12 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way of further response, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 12 relating to Plaintiffs alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 13 relating to Plaintiffs alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 14 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 14 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 15 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 16 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 17 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 18 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER By way of additional answer and reply, the Defendant interposes the following New Matter defenses: 19. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and by the Limited Tort Option. 20. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 21. That the Plaintiff herself was contributorily negligent in the following: a. Failing to drive at a safe speed; b. Failing to yield; C. Failing to comply with traffic control devices; d. Failing to comply with directions of traffic control officers and/or flagmen; e. Failing to stop her vehicle before causing a collision; f. Failing to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles; g. Failing to keep adequate and proper control of her vehicle so as to avoid contact with the Defendant's vehicle; h. Operating her vehicle in careless disregard for the rights and safety of others in violation of the Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3714, "Careless Driving"; i. Operating her vehicle in a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway, specifically including Defendant, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3736; j. In failing to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3112; and k. In violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3324 involving failure to yield when entering a roadway. 22. That if it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of the Answering Defendant, which is denied, then in that event any such negligence was not a substantial factor nor factual cause of the Plaintiffs harm. 23. That the Plaintiffs alleged harm may have been pre-existing the date of this accident. 24. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may have been caused in whole or in part by the negligence of third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER J erson J. Shipman, Esquire I. D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant Date: May 7, 2008 330618 VERIFICATION I, Martha Lee, have read the foregoing Answer, hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. A12Yz'a--" A..e' Martha (Lee DATE: 330629 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on May 7, 2008: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2"d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Jrso n J. Ship n, squire : 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant C:, Q C TI! 'n Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 Attorney for Defendant MICHELE REED, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V, NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TELCO INCORPORATED 1224 Cross Keys Road Reading, PA 19605-9505 Additional Defendant PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT Kindly issue a Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action against the following Additional Defendant advising that Defendant, Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp, has joined them as an Additional Defendant in the above action and that they will be required to defend: Telco Incorporated 1224 Cross Keys Road Berks County Reading, PA 19605-9503 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER J erson J. Sh' man, Esquire 1. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date : May 12, 2008 Attorneys for Defendant R CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on May 12, 2008: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval and Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2"d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Jeff son J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant 331084 r??. HiM r ,-- WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT Cumberland County, ss: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to TELCO INCORPORATED 1224 Cross Keys Road Reading, PA 19605-9505 You are notified that MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP has joined you as an additional defendant in this action, which you are required to defend. Date: 5/13/08 /11, C s . Lon othon ary By: Deputy (Seal) No. 08-1521 Civil Term MICHELE REED vs MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant TELCO INCORPORATED 1224 Cross Keys Road Reading, PA 19605-9505 Additional Defendant WRIT TO JOINED AN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT JEFFERSON J. SHIPMAN, ESQUIRE JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER PO BOX 109 LEMOYNE, PA 17043 (717) 761-4540 ID# 51785 Attorney for Defendant SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-01521 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND REED MICHELE VS LEE MARTHA AKA MARTHA ESTEPP R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named ADD'L DEFENDANT , to wit: TELCO INCORPORATED but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of BERKS serve the within WRIT TO ADD'L DEFEN. On June 5th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from BERKS Sheriff's Costs: So answers- %?. Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas ine Dep Berks County 30.06 Sheriff of Cu erland County Postage 1.35 68.41 ? G //p p ( , 06/05/2008 JOHNSON DUFFIE STEWART WEIDNER Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of County, Pennsylvania, to in his bailiwick. He therefore A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Michelle Reed VS Martha Lee aka Martha Estepp VS. Telco Incorporated No. Now, ; May 16, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Berks deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. County to execute this Writ, this 08-1521 civil Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, 20 , at o'clock M. served the within M -;= upon C`? Cc at < 7, -1 r by handing to a v: -Ij a and made known to copy of the original So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this day of , 20 COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA Ty« COUNTY OF BERKS, PENNSYLVANIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Courthouse- Td Floor 633 Court Street Phone: 610.478.6240 Reading, PA 19601 Fax: 610.478.6222 Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff Anthony Damore, Chief Deputy AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE DOCKET NO. 08-1521 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF BERKS Personally appeared before me, JASON WOLFE, Deputy for Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff of Berks County, 633 Court Street, Reading, Pennsylvania, who being duly swom according to law, deposes and says that on MAY 29, 2008 at 2:40 PM, he served the annexed WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT upon TELCO INCORPORATED, within named defendant, by handing a copy thereof to JOHN HINVER, SECRETARY, at 1224 CROSS KEYS ROAD, READING, MUHLENBERG TOWNSHIP, Berks County, Pa., and made known to defendant the contents thereof. DEPUTY SHERIFF Q"ERKS CO., PA Sworn and subscribed before me 2ND day of JUNE, 2008 t O bY PUBLI ADING, BERKS O., PA Service made as set forth above. NOTARIAL SEAL REBECCA OXENREIDER So Answers, Notory Public READING chy, um COUNry 1MV Commlalon ExpMes Fob 22, 2012 SHE OF BERKS COUNTY, PA Sheriffs Costs in Above Proceedings $ 100.00 DEPOSIT $ 30.06 ACTUAL COST OF CASE $ 69.94 AMOUNT OF REFUND All Sheriff s Costs shall be due and payable when services are performed, and it shall be lawful for him to demand and receive from the party instituting the proceedings, or any part liable for the costs thereof, all unpaid sheriff's fees on the same before he shall be obligated by law to make return thereof. _Sec. 2, Act of June 20, 1911, P.L/ 1072 Dedicated to public service with integrity, virtue & excellence www.countvofberks.com/sheriff JAI, ,?f1iU4 potaN r1MMo:) 8M!A3 YTia Q10GA A !t0! ,TS del so0gx3 1044IMMO7 VM MICHELE REED, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant V. NO. 08-1521 TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's Interrogatories and Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date: Ile CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL By DENISE I. WILLIAMS ? ? ?`:, °' ? -r ? . 4 ' ? . ? ? ?, y ? ,? ??F Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant: I.D. No. 51785 Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 7614540 MICHELE REED, V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, V. Plaintiff Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TELCO INCORPORTED, 1224 Cross Keys Road Reading, PA 19605-9505 Additional Defendant NOTICE CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-1521 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los prbximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacibn de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant: Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp MICHELE REED, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORTED, 1224 Cross Keys Road Reading, PA 19605-9505 Additional Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-1521 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant Martha Lee, by and through her attorneys Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner and files this Third-Party Joinder Complaint against Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated as follows: 1. Additional Defendant herein is Telco Incorporated, 1224 Cross Keys Road, Reading, Berks County, PA 19605-9503. 2. This matter involves an automobile accident that allegedly occurred on April 4, 2006, at the intersection of Route 114 and U.S. 11 in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("the intersection"). 3. The Defendant incorporates by reference the allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 4. The Defendant also incorporates herein her Answer and New Matter attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 5. It is believed that, at the time of the alleged accident, the traffic control signals were flashing red for Route 114 and yellow for U.S. Route 11. 6. It is believed and therefore averred that the traffic signals were undergoing maintenance by Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated. 7. It is believed and therefore averred that an employee or agent of Telco Incorporated caused the traffic signals to be inoperational and/or flashing. 8. Defendant Martha Lee was traveling eastbound on U.S. 11 when she noticed that the traffic signals pertaining to her lane of travel were flashing yellow. 9. Ms. Lee did not notice or observe any flagmen or individuals directing traffic at the intersection as she approached. 10. However, it is believed and therefore averred that despite the flashing yellow and red signals directing traffic, an employee or agent of Telco Incorporated began directing traffic at the intersection. 11. The employee or agent of Telco Incorporated was inconspicuously directing traffic in the intersection despite the fact that the signals were still set to yellow and red flashing lights. 12. As Ms. Lee approached the intersection she proceeded with caution through the intersection observing the yellow flashing signal light. 13. However, Ms. Lee did not observe anyone directing traffic in the intersection. 14. As Ms. Lee proceeded through the intersection, she made contact with a vehicle operated by Plaintiff Michele Reed which was proceeding west on Route 114. 15. Plaintiff has alleged injuries as a result of the accident as set forth in her Complaint. 16. Employees or agents of Telco Incorporated, for which Telco Incorporated is vicariously liable, were controlling traffic flow at the intersection at the time of the accident, either through the flashing signal lights or personal direction. 17. The accident between Plaintiff and Defendant occurred only because Telco Incorporated negligently controlled and/or directed the flow of traffic at the intersection. 18. The negligence of Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated includes: (a) Failing to safely direct traffic through the intersection in a conspicuous and organized manner; (b) Failing to set the traffic signals at the intersection in a safe manner; (c) Failing to use signs, flags, or other conspicuous notices on the ground to alert drivers of traffic direction in, the intersection in addition to, or in place of, the flashing signal lights; (d) Inattentiveness to existing traffic conditions including the approaching vehicles; (e) Carelessness in the control of traffic flow in the intersection; (f) failure to provide a safe means of passage through the intersection for the Defendant and Plaintiff; and (g) Otherwise creating and permitting a dangerous condition of traffic flow and direction at the intersection. 19. The Plaintiff's injuries are the proximate result of the negligence of the Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated and their agents or employees. WHEREFORE, the Defendant Martha Lee avers that the Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated is solely liable to the Plaintiff Michele Reed or liable over to the Defendant on the Plaintiff's claims or, in the alternative, liable to the Defendant for contribution and/or indemnification. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Jefflorsd'n J. Shipmarf, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant Lee Date: July 18, 2008 Robert F. Claraval, Esq. 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHELE REED, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1521 MARTHA LEE, &Wa MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant : CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE - AMENDED COMPLAINT 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 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted an la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notification. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado gue si usted no se defienda, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notification y por cualquier guej a o alivio gue es pedido en la petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUNENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (800) 990-9108 Robert F. Claraval, Esq. 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHELE REED, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1521 V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMENDED COMPLAINT Parties 1. The Plaintiff Michele Reed resides at 47 Edgewood Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055. 2. The Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp resides at 142 East Main Street, Apartment C, Blain, Pennsylvania, 17006. Background 3. On April 4, 2006 at approximately 11:20 a.m. Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving her 1999 Chevrolet. 4. On that same date the Defendant Martha Lee was driving a 2005 Hyundai Elantra owned by Darryl A. Higley. 5. Plaintiff Michele Reed was traveling west on PA 114 and was properly entering the intersection at Route 114 and US 11 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At that same time the Defendant Martha Lee was traveling north on US 11 and was approaching the intersection at PA 114. 7. The intersection on that date was controlled by flashing traffic lights and a flagman. 8. Without regard to the PlaintiffMichele Reed's vehicle which was lawfully proceeding through the intersection of Route 114 and US 11, or the flashing traffic signals or the flagman, the Defendant Martha Lee pulled directly into Michele Reed's lane of travel. 9. Defendant Martha Lee's vehicle struck the driver's side of Michele Reed's car. Ms. Reed then drove to the curb on the east side of Route 114. 10. The force of the impact caused serious injury to Plaintiff Michele Reed. -1- Negligence 11. The collision and all of the hereinafter mentioned injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff Michele Reed are the direct result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as more particularly described below. (a) In failing to stop her vehicle before causing a collision with the vehicle Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (b) In failing to keep alert and to maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles, more specifically, the Plaintiff Michele Reed's vehicle. (c) In failing to keep adequate and proper control over her vehicle to avoid contact with the automobile which the Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (d) In operating her vehicle with careless disregard for the rights or safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically 75 Pa.C.S. §3714 "Careless Driving." (e) In operating her vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway specifically including Michele Reed in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3736. -2- (f) In failing to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3112. (g) In violating 75 Pa.C.S. §3324, failure to yield when entering a roadway. Damages 12. The force and impact of the collision as caused by the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee caused serious and permanent injury to the Plaintiff Michele Reed for which she has received extensive medical care. 13. The Plaintiff Michele Reed suffered the following injuries as a result of the negligence of the Defendant: (a) Closed head injury; (b) Concussion; (c) Post-concussive syndrome; (d) Chronic headache; (e) Cervical injury; (f) Lumbar injury; (g) Fibromyalgia -3- (h) A greater susceptibility to cervical and lumbar injury; (i) Limitation in range of motion of cervical and lumbar spine; and 0) Possible aggravation of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. 14. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as described herein, the Plaintiff Michele Reed has suffered and will continue to suffer mental and physical pain, great difficulty in carrying out and engaging in life's activities, a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, humiliation and embarrassment. 15. Plaintiff Michele Reed has and may in the future sustain a loss of earnings and an impairment to her earning capacity. 16. Plaintiff Michele Reed has been forced to expend sums of money for medical services, medication, therapy and related expenses in the past and will be required to continue to do so in the future. 17. All of Plaintiff Michele Reed's injuries as herein described are continuing and will continue into the foreseeable future, as will the treatment costs thereof. 18. The negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee has resulted in the general deterioration of Plaintiff Michele Reed's well-being. -4- WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Michele Reed demands judgment against the Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, together with delay damages if applicable and costs of suit. CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL Date: JOS Date: ?-3 By: -5- Attorneys for Plaintiff 1VUIM Y N1V fIr"1V1Vr.L Y l 500 N?qfi Third Street, 2"d 1 Harris urg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4763 Supreme Court I.D. #87347 Attorneys for Plaintiff 500 North Third Street, 2nd Ploor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. #19222 VERIFICATION I, Robert F. Claraval, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state that I am the attorney for the Plaintiffs in this action and that the information contained in the foregoing document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subjectto the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. MICHELE REED, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant NO. 08-1521 CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL Date: 37 o By Lnw, WjW'W1xpy DENISE I. WILLIAMS 0 Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant O `" O - o ? ; !' ; z•• rn 23 'z i. -,:,Fn cry .: co Attorney for Defend 0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2"d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within Answer and New Matter within 20 days of s service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. JO ON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER T fferson J. Shipman, squire .D. #: 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Defendant Date: May 7, 2008 Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, V. Plaintiff Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, MARTHA LEE, A/K/A MARTHA ESTEPP, TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp, by and through her counsel, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, and Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3, Admitted only that on April 4, 2006 at approximately 11:20 a.m. Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving a 1999 Chevrolet. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted only that Plaintiff Michele Reed was traveling west on Pa. 114 entering the intersection at Route 114 and U.S. 11 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Admitted that Defendant Mrs. Lee was traveling north on U.S. 11 and was properly and legally entering the intersection at Route U.S. 11 and Route 114 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the intersection on the date in question was controlled by a flashing traffic light. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 7 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 8 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiffs alleged cause of action and further, that the Reed vehicle failed to yield and pulled directly into Mrs. Lee's lane of travel. 9. Denied as stated. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 10, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 11 and each and every subparagraph a. through g. is a conclusion of law and fact to which no response is response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph 11 and each and every subparagraph a. through g. is specifically denied. a. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee was negligent in allegedly failing to stop her vehicle before allegedly causing a collision with the vehicle Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving; b. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee failed to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles, more specifically, the Plaintiff Michele Reeds vehicle; C. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee failed to keep adequate and proper control over the vehicle so as to avoid contact with the automobile which the Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving; d. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee operated her vehicle with careless disregard for the rights of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3714 "Careless Driving"; e. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee operated her vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway, specifically, including Michele Reed allegedly in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3736; f. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee failed to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3112; and g. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3324, and failure to yield when entering a roadway. 12. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 12 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way of further response, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 12 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 13 relating to Plaintiff's alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 14 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 14 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 15 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 16 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 17 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 18 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER By way of additional answer and reply, the Defendant interposes the following New Matter defenses: 19. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and by the Limited Tort Option. 20. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 21. That the Plaintiff herself was contributorily negligent in the following: a. Failing to drive at a safe speed; b. Failing to yield; C. Failing to comply with traffic control devices; d. Failing to comply with directions of traffic control officers and/or flagmen; e. Failing to stop her vehicle before causing a collision; f. Failing to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles; g. Failing to keep adequate and proper control of her vehicle so as to avoid contact with the Defendant's vehicle; h. Operating her vehicle in careless disregard for the rights and safety of others in violation of the Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3714, "Careless Driving"; i. Operating her vehicle in a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway, specifically including Defendant, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3736; j. In failing to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3112; and k. In violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3324 involving failure to yield when entering a roadway. 22. That if it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of the Answering Defendant, which is denied, then in that event any such negligence was not a substantial factor nor factual cause of the Plaintiffs harm. 23. That the Plaintiffs alleged harm may have been pre-existing the date of this accident. 24. That the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may have been caused in whole or in part by the negligence of third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER J erson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant Date: May 7, 2008 330618 VERIFICATION I, Martha Lee, have read the foregoing Answer, hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. artha(, ee DATE: 330629 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on May 7, 2008: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2"d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Je erson J. Ship n, Esquire 1. . #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Martha Lee, have read the foregoing Joinder Complaint and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Martha e Date:'--/ (Is (D$ 330629 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Third-Party Complaint has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on July 18, 2008: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval and Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2na Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff Jane A. North, Esquire Deasey, Mahoney & Valentini, Ltd. 1601 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2301 Attorney for Telco, Inc. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 14 ZLj - Jeff s . Shipman -.? ' =, ::? _ .--? s ???,; ?_? ,,. _. _.: , : , ;i „ « 1 ? DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: JANE A. NORTH, ESQUIRE Identification No. 63728 1601 Market Street, 34 h Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-578-9400 Attorney for Additional Defendant, Telco, Inc. 059.23066 MICHELE REED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. c CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP NO. 08-1521 Defendant, vs. TELCO INCORPORATED Additional ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Additional Defendant, Telco, Inc., in the above- captioned matter. Defendant, by its undersigned counsel, hereby requests a trial by jury of twelve members plus two alternates. DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: 4A. I 611 F ANE A. NORTH, SQUIRE Dated: 7/16/08 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET - PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 ??? :? `? m:? G ? ?.-a -.? ?.. i ??._?^r_' ?? -?r, .+'} ..? . '1. '?„? r ?? ?..t„ DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: JANE A. NORTH, ESQUIRE Identification No. 63728 1601 Market Street, 34th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-578-9400 Attorney for Additional Defendant, Telco, Inc. 059.23066 MICHELE REED e COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP E CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant, vs. : NO. 08-1521 TELCO INCORPORATED Additional Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Rule upon Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp to file a Joinder Complaint in the above matter within twenty (20) days after service of the Rule or suffer the entry of a judgment of non-pros DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: Qh /)A _L a6A NE A. NORTH, ESQUIRE ttorneys for Defendant, Telco, Inc. RULE TO FILE JOINDER COMPLAINT TO: Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp You are notified that a Rule is hereby entered upon you to file a Joinder Complaint within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this Rule upon you. If you do not file a Complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS will be entered against you. BY: CURTIS R. LONG Dated: _7 Al O$ Prothonotary DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 M-? _ .....,., s ???. E'tiJ _3 K. f t Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: hs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, V. Attorney for Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant hereby certifies that: (1) A Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena, with copies of the subpoenas attached thereto, was mailed, via Certified Mail, or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoenas were sought to be served; (2) A copy of the Notice of Intent including the proposed subpoenas, is attached to this Certificate; (3) No objection to the subpoenas has been received, and (4) The subpoenas to be served are identical to the subpoenas attached to the Notice Of Intent. JOHNS , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By Jeffers J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com DATE: W*v Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, certified mail, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on M a Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By Jefferso J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant ?*.. ,t , Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, V. Plaintiff MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 TO Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants intend to serve nine (9) 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 records and serve upon the undersigned objections to the subpoenas. If no objections are made, the subpoenas may be served. JOH , DUFFIE, STEWAR & WEIDNER By Jeffers n J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com DATE: Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, certified mail, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on 111)-1W Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By Jeffe on J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Michele Reed, Plaintiff vs. Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estep, Defendant vs. Telco Incorporated, Additional Defendant File No. 08-1521 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Dr. Saniiv H. Naidu (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All documents pertaining to Michele Reed DOB: 6/29/62 SSN: 203 42-2406 identified in the Attached Addendum to Subpoena at Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne PA 17043. 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: NAME: Jefferson J Shipman Esquire ADDRESS: 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540 SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants DATE: / klp Se of the Court BY THE COURT: P othonota*.-i n D eputy (Eff. 7/97) Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 Attorney for Defendants MICHELE REED, V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ADDRESSED TO DR. SANJIV H. NAIDU Please provide legible copies of the following documents.- 1 . All medical records, reports, diagnostic test results and correspondence for a ten (10) year period prior to April 4, 2006, up to and including the present date, relating to any of the medical conditions and/or injuries listed below: a. Aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome b. Closed head injury c. Concussion d. Chronic headache e. Cervical injury including range of motion limitations f. Lumbar injury including range of.motion limitations g. Fibromyalgia Michele Reed, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiff vs. Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estep, Defendant vs. Telco Incorporated, Additional Defendant File No. 08-1521 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Dr. Ellen Smith (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All documents pertaining to Michele Reed DOB: 6/29/62 SSN: 203- 42-2406 identified in the Attached Addendum to Subpoena at Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O Box 109, Lemoyne PA 17043. 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: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT ID # ATTORNEY FOR: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 51785 Defendants BY THE COURT: Pro onotary/G? ivil D' ision DATE: Seal of the Court Deputy (Eff. 7/97) Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 Attorney for Defendants MICHELE REED, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ADDRESSED TO DR. ELLEN SMITH Please provide legible copies of the following documents: 1. All medical records, reports, diagnostic test results and correspondence for a ten (10) year period prior to April 4, 2006, up to and including the present date, relating to any of the medical conditions and/or injuries listed below: a. Aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome b. Closed head injury c. Concussion d. Chronic headache e. Cervical injury including range of motion limitations f. Lumbar injury including range of motion limitations g. Fibromyalgia Michele Reed, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiff vs. Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estep, Defendant vs. Telco Incorporated, Additional Defendant File No. 08-1521 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Turnpaugh Chiropractic Health (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All documents pertaining to Michele Reed DOB: 6/29/62 SSN: 203- 42-2406 identified in the Attached Addendum to Subpoena at Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne PA 17043. 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: NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire ADDRESS: 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540 SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants DATE: 211&1a Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: PrQ onotary/Cler , Ivll Di ision Deputy (Eff. 7/97) I F I V. Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHELE REED, V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, TELCO INCORPORATED, Attorney for Defendants NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Additional Defendant ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ADDRESSED TO TURNPAUGH CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH Please provide legible copies of the following documents: 1. All medical records, reports, diagnostic test results and correspondence for a ten (10) year period prior to April 4, 2006, up to and including the present date, relating to any of the medical conditions and/or injuries listed below: a. Aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome b. Closed head injury c. Concussion d. Chronic headache e. Cervical injury including range of motion limitations f. Lumbar injury including range of motion limitations g. Fibromyalgia Michele Reed, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiff vs. Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estep, Defendant vs. Telco Incorporated, Additional Defendant File No. 08-1521 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Holy Spirit Hospital _ (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All documents pertaining to Michele Reed DOB: 6129/62 SSN: 203- 42-2406 identified in the Attached Addendum to Subpoena at Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne PA 17043. 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: NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman. Esquire ADDRESS: 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540 SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants BY THE COURT: Proth notary/Cler 4ilD-is-ion DATE: ?cf Seal of the Court Deputy (Eff. 7/97) J 0 a Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, V. Plaintiff MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ADDRESSED TO HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Please provide legible copies of the following documents: 1. All medical records, reports, diagnostic test results and correspondence for a ten (10) year period prior to April 4, 2006, up to and including the present date, relating to any of the medical conditions and/or injuries listed below: a. Aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome b. Closed head injury c. Concussion d. Chronic headache e. Cervical injury including range of motion limitations f. Lumbar injury including range of motion limitations g. Fibromyalgia ? r Michele Reed, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiff vs. Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estep, Defendant vs. Telco Incorporated, Additional Defendant File No. 08-1521 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: _ Dr. Michael F. Lupinacci (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All documents pertaining to Michele Reed DOB: 6/29/62 SSN: 203- 42-2406 identified in the Attached Addendum to Subpoena at Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne PA 17043. 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: NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire ADDRESS: 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540 SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants DATE: 7///1/10 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: Prot o il D ision Deputy (Eff. 7/97) 1 I , . V. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHELE REED, V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, TELCO INCORPORATED, Attorney for Defendants NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Additional Defendant ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ADDRESSED TO DR. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI Please provide legible copies of the following documents: 1. All medical records, reports, diagnostic test results and correspondence for a ten (10) year period prior to April 4, 2006, up to and including the present date, relating to any of the medical conditions and/or injuries listed below: a. Aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome b. Closed head injury c. Concussion d. Chronic headache e. Cervical injury including range of motion limitations f. Lumbar injury including range of motion limitations g. Fibromyalgia Michele Reed, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiff vs. Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estep, Defendant vs. Telco Incorporated, Additional Defendant File No. 08-1521 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Healthsouth Rehab Center (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All documents pertaining to Michele Reed DOB: 6/29/62 SSN: 203- 42-2406 identified in the Attached Addendum to Subpoena at Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne PA 17043. 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: NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman. Esquire ADDRESS: 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540 SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants BY THE COURT: Proth otary/Clerk Divi ion DATE: r L i ZZ Seal of the Court Deputy (Eff. 7/97) ? ? I V. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I. D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHELE REED, V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, TELCO INCORPORATED, Attorney for Defendants NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Additional Defendant ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ADDRESSED TO HEALTHSOUTH REHAB CENTER Please provide legible copies of the following documents: 1. All medical records, reports, diagnostic test results and correspondence for a ten (10) year period prior to April 4, 2006, up to and including the present date, relating to any of the medical conditions and/or injuries listed below: a. Aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome b. Closed head injury c. Concussion d. Chronic headache e. Cervical injury including range of motion limitations f. Lumbar injury including range of motion limitations g. Fibromyalgia ? r+ Michele Reed, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiff vs. Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estep, Defendant vs. Telco Incorporated, Additional Defendant File No. 08-1521 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: PinnacleHealth F_redricksen Outpatient Center (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All documents pertaining to Michele Reed DOB: 6/29/62 SSN: 203- 42-2406 identified in the Attached Addendum to Subpoena at Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne PA 17043. 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: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: DATE: Seal of the Court Jefferson J. Shipman. Esquire 301 Market Street Lemoyne. PA 17043 717-761-4540 51785 Defendants BY THE COURT: ?'7a? Proth notary/CI , ivil Dfvision Deputy (Eff. 7/97) t Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I. D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 Attorney for Defendants MICHELE REED, V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ADDRESSED TO PINNACLEHEALTH FREDRICKSEN OUTPATIENT CENTER Please provide legible copies of the following documents: 1. All medical records, reports, diagnostic test results and correspondence for a ten (10) year period prior to April 4, 2006, up to and including the present date, relating to any of the medical conditions and/or injuries listed below: a. Aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome b. Closed head injury c. Concussion d. Chronic headache e. Cervical injury including range of motion limitations f. Lumbar injury including range of motion limitations g. Fibromyalgia 1 i a • Michele Reed, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiff vs. Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estep, Defendant vs. Telco Incorporated, Additional Defendant File No. 08-1521 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Good Hope Familv Phvsicians (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All documents pertaining to Michele Reed DOB: 6/29/62 SSN: 203- 42-2406 identified in the Attached Addendum to Subpoena at Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street. P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043. 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: NAME: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire ADDRESS: 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 TELEPHONE: 717-761-4540 SUPREME COURT ID #: 51785 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants BY THE COURT: Proth notary/Cler ' it Div' ion DATE: Z/' r. Seal of the Court Deputy (Eff. 7/97) 0 ( - r Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 Attorney for Defendants MICHELE REED, v : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ADDRESSED TO GOOD HOPE FAMILY PHYSICIANS Please provide legible copies of the following documents: 1. All medical records, reports, diagnostic test results and correspondence for a ten (10) year period prior to April 4, 2006, up to and including the present date, relating to any of the medical conditions and/or injuries listed below: a. Aggravation of thoracic outlet syndrome b. Closed head injury c. Concussion d. Chronic headache e. Cervical injury including range of motion limitations f. Lumbar injury including range of motion limitations g. Fibromyalgia J *? • Michele Reed, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Plaintiff vs. Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estep, Defendant vs. Telco Incorporated, Additional Defendant File No. 08-1521 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hampden Township EMS (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All medical records trip reports correspondence regarding an accident date of April 4 2006 pertaining to Michele Reed DOB: 6/29/62 SSN: 203-42-2406 at Johnson Duffle Stewart & Weidner. 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043. 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: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: DATE: Seal of the Court Jefferson J Shipman Esquire 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 51785 Defendants BY THE COURT: Protho tary/Clerk i it ivis' nn Deputy (Eff. 7/97) r?s w c-z C%Z ci ` FJ 7 co DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: JANE A. NORTH, ESQUIRE JORDAN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Identification No. 63728/206134 1601 Market Street Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2301 215-578-9400 059.23066 MICHELE REED Plaintiff, VS. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant, VS. TELCO INCORPORATED Additional YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE tENNTERED AGAIN T YOU. Namerow, Esquire Attorneys for Additional Defendant, Telco, Inc. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-1521 ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TELCO INCORPORATED'S ANSWER TO THE THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, by and through its undersigned counsel, Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated (hereinafter "Answering Defendant'), sets forth the following Answer with New Matter to the Third Party Complaint filed by Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp: Upon information and belief, admitted. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering 2 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it or its employees or its agents were negligent in any way or that any such conduct on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to any injury, damage and/or loss to the Plaintiff Reed, the existence of which is denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering 3 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the 4 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied in part, admitted in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff Reed alleges she sustained injuries. The remainder of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies that the alleged injuries, if truthful, are causally related to the incident set forth in Plaintiff Reed's Complaint. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it or its employees or its agents were negligent in any way or that any such conduct on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to any injury, damage and/or loss to the Plaintiff Reed, the existence of which is denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are 5 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 specifically denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency are specifically denied. 17. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it was negligent in any manner at any time material hereto. To the extent that any of these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency and causation are specifically denied. 18(a-g). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph, including each and every one of its sub-parts, are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it was negligent and/or careless in any way or that any such conduct on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to any injury, damage and/or loss to the Plaintiff Reed, the existence of which is denied. To the extent that any of these allegations, including the allegations in the sub-parts, are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency and causation are specifically denied. 6 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 19. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it was negligent in any manner at any time material hereto or that any such conduct on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to any injury, damage and/or loss to the Plaintiff Reed, the existence of which is denied. To the extent that any of these allegations, including the allegations in the sub-parts, are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency and causation are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Telco Incorporated demands judgment in it favor and against Plaintiff Reed and/or Co-Defendant Lee. NEW MATTER 20. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-19 of their Answer to the Third Party Complaint as though the same were set forth fully herein. 21. The Third Party Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 22. Plaintiff Reed's and Defendant Lee's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (a) The alleged motor vehicle accident which is the subject of Plaintiff Reed's occurred on April 4, 2006. (b) Plaintiff Reed served her Complaint on Defendant Lee on March 17, 2008. (c) On April 25, 2008, Plaintiff Reed filed an Amended Complaint with the Court. 7 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 (d) The applicable statute of limitations to recover damages for personal injury or property damage arising from alleged negligent or intentional conduct is two years in Pennsylvania. (e) Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253(a)(1) dictates that a Joinder Complaint must be filed sixty days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial pleading of the plaintiff or any amendment thereof. (f) Defendant Lee failed to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure by not filing her Third-Party Complaint against Answering Defendant until July 18, 2008, well after the time allotted by the applicable rules. 23. Defendant Lee's claims are barred by the Doctrine of Latches. 24. At all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendant acted in a reasonable and proper manner. 25. Answering Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff Reed or Defendant Lee at any time material hereto. 26. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. 27. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Additional Defendant. 28. Service was improperly made upon Additional Defendant. 29. Any acts and/or omissions on the part of this Answering Defendant which are alleged to constitute negligence, all of which are specifically denied, were not substantial causes or factors which led to the subject incident, and did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff Reed. 30. The incident and damages alleged in Plaintiff Reed's Complaint and Defendant Lee's Third Party Complaint were caused solely by the negligence of Plaintiff Reed and Defendant Lee and Plaintiff Reed's and Defendant Lee's claims are therefore barred. 31. Plaintiff Reed's and Defendant Lee's claims are barred and/or limited pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7102. 8 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 32. The subject incident and alleged damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff Reed were not caused by any negligence, carelessness or recklessness on the part of this Answering Defendant, but instead were caused solely by the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness on the part of Plaintiff Reed and/or Defendant Lee and/or some third party or parties other than Answering Defendant, over whom Answering Defendant had no control or right of control at any time. 33. Plaintiff Reed's and/or Defendant Lee's actions and/or omissions were negligent and such negligence was a superseding, intervening cause of the alleged accident which bars and/or limits all claims by Plaintiff Reed and Defendant Lee arising there from. 34. Plaintiff Reed did not suffer any injuries or damages as a result of the alleged incident referred to in Plaintiff Reed's Complaint and/or Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint. 35. Plaintiff Reed failed to mitigate any damages she allegedly sustained. 36. Plaintiff Reed's respective claims may be limited pursuant to the applicable tort option or precluded as benefits recovered elsewhere under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701, et seq. 37. Answering Defendant asserts all the defenses available under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701, et seq., as amended and avers that Plaintiff Reed's remedies are limited exclusively thereto and, therefore, the present action is barred. 38. Nothing done or omitted by Answering Defendant was the proximate cause of any damages alleged by Plaintiff Reed and/or Defendant Lee. 9 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTIM LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 39. Answering Defendant denies it is solely liable, jointly liable or liable over to Plaintiff Reed and/or Defendant Lee. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Telco Incorporated, demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff Reed and/or Defendant Lee. NEW MATTER CROSS CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 40. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-38 inclusive, of its Answer with New Matter to the Third-Party Complaint, as though the same were set forth fully herein. 41. If the averments in Plaintiff Reed's Complaint and/or Defendant Lee's Third Party Complaint are proven at the time of trial, which said averments Answering Defendant specifically denies, the Plaintiff Reed's damages and/or injuries were caused solely by the recklessness, carelessness, negligence or other culpable conduct of Defendant, Lee. Defendant Lee is alone liable to Plaintiff Reed, jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Reed or liable over to Answering Defendant on the cause of action declared in the Plaintiff Reed's Complaint and/or Defendant Lee's Third Party Complaint. 42. Answering Defendant believes, and therefore avers, in the event that a judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Reed, said judgment should be entered solely against the Defendant, Lee, and/or if said judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Reed and against the Answering Defendant, then said Answering Defendant is entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from the Defendant, Lee, by reason of its joint and several liability. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Telco Incorporated, pray that in the event a judgment in favor of Answering Defendant, that said judgment be entered solely against Defendant, Lee and/or in the event that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Reed and against Answering 10 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Defendant, that the Defendant, Lee be held jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Reed and/or liable over to Answering Defendant, Telco Incorporated, for indemnity and/or contribution, and, if any event, that judgment be entered in favor of the Answering Defendant and against Defendant Lee on all Counts and claims, including all attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the defense of this action. DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By JA 4E A. NORTH, ESQUIRE JORDAN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant, Telco, Inc. Dated: August 6, 2008 11 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 VERIFICATION The undersigned attorney hereby state that I am the Attorney for Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated, and I am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Additional Defendant, and that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that the statements are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. JO S. NAME ROW, ESQUIRE Dated: August 6, 2008 12 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that in this case complete copies of all papers in Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated's Answer with New Matter have been served upon the following person, via United States Mail, postage prepaid. Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 JO AN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Dated: August 6, 2008 13 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 ?- 0 C.Xa -' CZ .. j-.. 4:."... r7l h ?? Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I. D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 Attorney for Defendants MICHELE REED, V. Plaintiff MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TELCO INCORPORTED, Additional Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-1521 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MARTHA LEE A/K/A MARTHA ESTEPP REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TELCO INCORPORATED AND NOW, comes the Defendant Martha Lee, by and through her counsel, Jefferson J. Shipman and Johnson, Duffie, Stewart and Weidner and files the following Answer to New Matter and Cross-claim of Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated as follows: NEW MATTER 20. Ms. Lee incorporates herein by reference her Answer and Joinder Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 21. The averments contained in paragraph number 21 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 22. The averments contained in paragraph number 22 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. The Joinder Complaint was properly and timely filed in accordance with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 23. 39. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph numbers 23 through 39 are conclusion of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that any and all claims being asserted against her be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER CROSS-CLAIM PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1031.1 40. Ms. Lee incorporates herein by reference her Answer and Joinder Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length and the answers to paragraph numbers 20 through 39 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 41. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 41 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. 42. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph number 42 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that any and all claims being asserted against her be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: 4ornA n . Shipman, Esquire y I.D . No. 51785 5 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant Lee Date: August 13, 2008 VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO. 1024(c) Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the parties filing the foregoing Reply to New Matter and Cross-claim Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. i J. Shipman, Esquire for Defendant Lee Date: 81114/0 ? I 334956 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter and Cross- Claim of Additional Defendant Telco, Incorporated been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on August 13, 2008: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff Jane A. North, Esquire Jordan S. Namerow, Esquire Deasey, Mahoney & Valentini, Ltd. 1601 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2301 Attorney for Telco, Inc. , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Jgffersdfi J. ShipmAn, Esquire 0 ? ,0 G: -TI n?fi {-- fries c7 r? DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: JANE A. NORTH, ESQUIRE JORDAN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Identification No. 63728/206134 1601 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2301 215-578-9400 Attorneys for Additional Defendant, Telco, 059.23066 Inc. MICHELE REED Plaintiff, VS. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant, VS. TELCO INCORPORATED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-1521 Additional Defendant. ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TELCO INCORPORATED'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND NOW, by and through its undersigned counsel, Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated (hereinafter "Additional Defendant" or "Movant"), sets forth the following Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. On March 6, 2008, Plaintiff, Michele Reed ("Plaintiff') commenced the instant action by filing a Civil Action Compliant against Defendant, Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp ("Defendant" or "Defendant Lee") in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 2. Subsequently, on April 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint solely against Defendant Lee. A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 3. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that on April 4, 2006, Plaintiff was driving her vehicle west on PA 114 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania when she properly entered the intersection at PA 114 and US 11, which was controlled by flashing traffic lights and a flagman. At the same time, Defendant Lee, who was traveling north on US 11, pulled directly into Plaintiff's lane of travel, without regard to Plaintiff's vehicle or the flashing traffic signals or the flagman, causing a collision between Plaintiff s and Defendant Lee's vehicles. See Exhibit "B" ¶¶ 5-9. 4. The Amended Complaint further alleges that Defendant Lee failed to stop, failed to keep alert, did not maintain a proper lookout and failed to comply with various pertinent motor vehicle statutes. See Exhibit "B" ¶ 11. 5. On May 8, 2008, Defendant Lee filed an Answer to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint. A true and correct copy of the Answer and New Matter of Defendant Lee to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 6. Subsequently, on May 13, 2008, after the applicable two year statute of limitations on tort actions had expired, Defendant Lee filed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons to Join Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated. A true and correct copy of the Praecipe for Writ of Summons is attached hereto as Exhibit "D". 7. After Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated filed a Rule to File Joinder Complaint, Defendant Lee filed its Third-Party Complaint on July 21, 2008. A -2- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 true and correct copy of the Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "E". 8. Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint contends Additional Defendant is solely liable to the Plaintiff or liable over to Defendant Lee on Plaintiff's cause of action or, in the alternative, liable to Defendant Lee for contribution and/or indemnification. See Exhibit "E". 9. On August 8, 2008, Additional Defendant filed its Answer to Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint and asserted that Defendant Lee's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. A true and correct copy of Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated's Answer to the Third-Party Complaint with New Matter is attached hereto as Exhibit "F" 10. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1034 permits a party to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings after the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay the trial. See Pa. R.C.P. 1034. 1. ALL CLAIMS OF SOLE LIABILITY ASSERTED AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TELCO INCORPORATED ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 11. An action to recover damages for injury that is founded on tortious conduct is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524. 12. The party asserting the cause of action has the affirmative duty to use all reasonable diligence to determine the facts and circumstances and to commence the lawsuit within the prescribed period. See Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320, 608 A.2d 1040 (1992). 13. Pennsylvania's Superior Court noted: -3- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 z Statutes of limitations are vital to the welfare of society and are favored in the law. They are found and approved in all systems of enlightened jurisprudence. They promote repose by giving security and stability to human affairs. An important public policy lies at their foundation. They stimulate to activity and punish negligence. While time is constantly destroying the evidence of rights, they supply [the place of evidence lost or impaired by lapse of time, by raising a] presumption which renders proof unnecessary. Mere delay, extended to the limit prescribed, is itself a conclusive bar. The bane and antidote go together. Devine v. Hutt, 2004 Pa.Super. 460, 863 A.2d 1160, 1167 (citing Gravinese v. Johns- Manville Com., 324 Pa.Super. 432, 440-41, 471 A.2d 1233, 1237 (1984) (internal citations omitted)). 14. Whether the applicable statute of limitations has run on a claim is generally a question of law for the trial judge. See Farinacci v. Beaver County Industrial Development Authority, 510 Pa. 589, 511 A.2d 757 (1986). 15. Judgment as a matter of law is proper if an action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See Tohan v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 696 A.2d 1195 (Pa.Super. 1997), appeal denied, 553 Pa. 700, 718 A.2d 786 (1998); Brooks v. Ste, 431 Pa.Super. 508, 636 A.2d 1201 (1994). See also Pro Golf Mfg. v. Tribune Review Newspaper Co., 570 Pa. 242, 809 A.2d 243 (2002) (considering statute of limitation in context of motion for judgment on the pleadings). 16. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2252 any party may join as an additional defendant any person not a party to the action who may be solely liable on the underlying cause of action against the joining party or liable to or with the joining party on any cause of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence or series of -4- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 - 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 transactions or occurrences upon which the underlying cause of action against the joining party is based. See Pa. R.C.P. 2252(a). 17. However, a person may not be joined as an additional defendant on the basis that the person is solely liable on the plaintiff's cause of action, if an action by the plaintiff to enforce that sole liability against the joined party would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Oviatt v. Automated Entrance System Co., Inc., 400 Pa.Super. 493, 583 A.2d 1223 (1990). 18. Where the statute of limitations precludes a lawsuit directly against an alleged tortfeasor, the party may not be joined as an additional defendant in an action for the tort on an allegation that he is alone liable. Zachrel v. Universal Oil Products Co., 355 Pa. 324, 49 A.2d 704 (1946); Shaull v. A.S. Beck New York Shoe Co., Inc., 369 Pa. 112, 85 A.2d 698 (1952). 19. In the instant action, Defendant Lee contends Additional Defendant is solely liable to Plaintiff Reed. See Exhibit "E". 20. However, Plaintiff s cause of action arose on April 4, 2006, when the accident occurred. See Exhibit "B". 21. Defendant Lee did not file the Writ of Summons until May 12, 2008, more than a month after the statute of limitations had expired. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524. Defendant Lee's delinquency bars her claim of sole liability against Additional Defendant and extinguishes any potential right of recovery for any damages from Additional Defendant by Plaintiff. -5- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 22. Consequently, Defendant Lee failed to join Additional Defendant within the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, is precluded from pursuing the cause of action based on Additional Defendant's alleged sole liability to Plaintiff. 23. According to the clear dictates of Pennsylvania's courts, as a matter of law, Additional Defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings regarding Defendant Lee's untimely allegations of Additional Defendant's sole liability to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated, respectfully requests that its Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings be sustained and Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. II. DEFENDANT LEE'S CLAIM FOR COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN DEFENDANT LEE WAS ACTIVELY LIABLE AND WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT 24. Additional Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs I through 23 above as though the same are set forth fully herein. 25. Indemnity is a common-law equitable remedy that shifts the entire loss from one defendant to another party. Willet v. Pennsylvania Medical Catastrophe Loss Fund, 549 Pa. 613, 702 A.2d 850 (1997); Svetz v. Land Tool Co., 355 Pa.Super. 230, 513 A.2d 403 (1986). 26. The right to indemnity will only be permitted where necessary to prevent an unjust result. City of Wilkes-Barre v. Kaminski Bros., 804 A.2d 89 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). 27. The common law equitable remedy shifts the entire responsibility for damages from a party who without any fault has been required to pay because of a legal relationship to the party at fault. Id. -6- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 28. Indemnity has been defined by Pennsylvania's Courts as an obligation resting upon one party to be responsible for a loss or damage another has incurred for the former's benefit. Potts v. Dow Chemical Co., 272 Pa.Super. 323, 415 A.2d 1220 (1979). 29. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court explained: The right of indemnity rests upon a difference between the primary and the secondary liability of two person each of whom is made responsible by the law to an injured party. It is a right which inures to a person who without fault on his own part, has been compelled, by reason of some legal obligation, to pay damages occasioned by the initial negligence of another and for which he himself is only secondarily liable. Builder's Supply Co. v. McCabe, 366 Pa. 322, 77 A.2d 368 (emphasis added). 30. The liability of the indeminitor to the tort victim is often described as "primary" and the that of the indemnitee is referred to as "secondary." Alternatively, the indeminitor is called the active tortfeasor and the indemnitee the passive tortfeasor. Id. See also Builders Supply Co. v. McCabe, 366 Pa. 322, 77 A.2d 368. 31. Common law indemnity is not a fault-sharing mechanism that allows a party whose negligence was minor to recover from the tortfeasor whose negligence was dominant. Rather, indemnity is a fault-shifting mechanism that comes into play when a defendant held liable by operation of law seeks to recover from a defendant whose conduct actually caused the loss. Id.; Kaminski Bros., supra., 804 A.2d 89. 32. Consequently, there can be no indemnity between parties that allegedly bear primary responsibility for a wrong, regardless of their relative degrees of fault. Kaminski Bros., supra; Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 762 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. Pa. 1985). -7- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 33. Based on the pleadings, Defendant Lee cannot establish that Additional Defendant's actions were the primary cause of the motor vehicle accident on April 4, 2006. See Exhibits "B" and "E". 34. Moreover, based on the facts as alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the Third-Party Complaint, Defendant Lee cannot meet her burden of proving that the accident and Plaintiff's alleged damages were not caused by the actions of Defendant Lee. 35. To the contrary, the pleadings support the conclusion that Plaintiff s damages, if any, were caused exclusively by Defendant Lee's negligence and failure to comply with the applicable traffic laws. 36. Any attempt by Defendant Lee to pursue a claim of indemnification against Additional Defendant, when its liability is at most secondary to Defendant Lee's, is fatally flawed and must fail based on the unequivocal statements by Pennsylvania's Courts. 37. Absent any basis in the law, Defendant Lee should be precluded from pursuing her claim for indemnification against Additional Defendant. 38. As a matter of law, Additional Defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings regarding Defendant Lee's claim for indemnification. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated, respectfully requests -8- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 that its Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings be sustained and Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, DEASEY, MAHONE & VALENTINI, LTD. B (,-;J E A. NO TH, ESQUIRE JORDAN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Telco Incorporated Date: t k "Z O% -9- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: JANE A. NORTH, ESQUIRE JORDAN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Identification No. 63728/206134 1601 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2301 215-578-9400 Attorneys for Additional Defendant, Telco, 059.23066 Inc. MICHELE REED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP NO. 08-1521 Defendant, vs. TELCO INCORPORATED Additional Defendant. ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TELCO INCORPORATED'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated (hereinafter "Additional Defendant" or "Movant"), by and through its attorneys, Deasey, Mahoney & Valentini, Ltd., hereby submits this Memorandum of Law in further support of its Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. 1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 6, 2008, Plaintiff, Michele Reed ("Plaintiff') commenced the instant action by filing a Civil Action Compliant against Defendant, Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp ("Defendant" or "Defendant Lee") in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Subsequently, on April 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint solely against Defendant Lee. A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Plaintiff s Amended Complaint alleges that on April 4, 2006, Plaintiff was driving her vehicle west on PA 114 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania when she properly entered the intersection at PA 114 and US 11, which was controlled by flashing traffic lights and a flagman. At the same time, Defendant Lee, who was traveling north on US 11, pulled directly into Plaintiffs lane of travel, without regard to Plaintiff s vehicle or the flashing traffic signals or the flagman, causing a collision between Plaintiff s and Defendant Lee's vehicles. See Exhibit "B" ¶¶ 5-9. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Lee failed to stop, failed to keep alert, did not maintain a proper lookout and failed to comply with various pertinent motor vehicle statutes. See Exhibit "B" ¶ 11. On May 8, 2008, Defendant Lee filed an Answer to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint. A true and correct copy of the Answer and New Matter of Defendant Lee to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Subsequently, on May 13, 2008, after the applicable two year statute of limitations on tort actions had expired, Defendant Lee filed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons to Join Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated. A true and correct copy of the Praecipe for Writ of Summons is attached hereto as Exhibit "D". After Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated filed a Rule to File Joinder Complaint, Defendant Lee filed its Third-Party Complaint on July 21, 2008. A true and correct copy of the Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "E". Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint contends Additional Defendant is solely liable to the Plaintiff or liable over to Defendant Lee on Plaintiffs cause of -2- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 action or, in the alternative, liable to Defendant Lee for contribution and/or indemnification. See Exhibit "E". On August 8, 2008, Additional Defendant filed its Answer to Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint and asserted that Defendant Lee's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. A true and correct copy of Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated's Answer to the Third-Party Complaint with New Matter is attached hereto as Exhibit "F". Additional Defendant now files this Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant its Motion for the reasons set forth below. II. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED Should Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint be dismissed with prejudice against Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated when the claims of sole liability to Plaintiff are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and procedural rules related to joinder of additional parties? SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES. 2. Should Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint be dismissed with prejudice against Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated when Defendant Lee's active liability negates the claim for indemnification as a matter of law? SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Standard of Review The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that after the relevant pleadings are closed, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. See Pa. R.C.P. 1034 (a). A court should grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings where the -3- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 pleadings demonstrate that no genuine issue of fact exists, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fowkes v. Shoemaker, 443 Pa. Super. 343, 346, 661 A.2d 877, 878 (1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 609, 674 A.2d 1072 (1996). A court may grant judgment on the pleadings where the movant's right to succeed is "so free from doubt that the trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise." Id. See also Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. English, 541 Pa. 424, 429, 664 A.2d 84, 86 (1995). A court must confine its consideration to the pleadings and accept as true all well-pleaded statements of fact, admissions, and any documents properly attached to the pleadings presented by the party against whom the motion is filed. See Fowkes, 443 Pa.Super. at 346, 661 A.2d at 878 (citing McAllister v. Millville Mutual Ins. Co., 433 Pa.Super. 330, 640 A.2d 1283, appeal denied, 539 Pa. 653, 651 A.2d 540 (1994)). Similarly, the court may not consider superfluous allegations contained in a brief or memorandum of law that is filed in opposition to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Patton v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 360 Pa.Super. 1, 519 A.2d 959 (1986), appeal denied, 531 A.2d 431 (1987). B. Defendant Lee's Claim for Sole Liability on the Part of Additional Defendant Must be Dismissed as a Matter of Law as Due to the Failure to Comply With the Applicable Statute of Limitations In her Third-Party Complaint, Defendant Lee alleges that Additional Defendant is solely liable to Plaintiff for damages caused by the April 4, 2006 motor vehicle accident. However, Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint fails to adhere to the applicable statute of limitations and neglects compliance with the rules of civil procedure. Consequently, Defendant Lee's cause of action against Additional Defendant for sole liability on Plaintiff s claims must fail as a matter of law. -4- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 An action to recover damages for injury that is founded on tortious conduct is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524. The party asserting the cause of action has the affirmative duty to use all reasonable diligence to determine the facts and circumstances and to commence the lawsuit within the prescribed period. See Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320, 608 A.2d 1040 (1992). Pennsylvania's Superior Court noted: Statutes of limitations are vital to the welfare of society and are favored in the law. They are found and approved in all systems of enlightened jurisprudence. They promote repose by giving security and stability to human affairs. An important public policy lies at their foundation. They stimulate to activity and punish negligence. While time is constantly destroying the evidence of rights, they supply [the place of evidence lost or impaired by lapse of time, by raising a] presumption which renders proof unnecessary. Mere delay, extended to the limit prescribed, is itself a conclusive bar. The bane and antidote go together. Devine v. Hutt, 2004 Pa.Super. 460, 863 A.2d 1160, 1167 (citing Gravinese v. Johns- Manville Corp., 324 Pa.Super. 432, 440-41, 471 A.2d 1233, 1237 (1984) (internal citations omitted)). Whether the applicable statute of limitations has run on a claim is generally a question of law for the trial judge. See Farinacci v. Beaver County Industrial Development Authority, 510 Pa. 589, 511 A.2d 757 (1986). Judgment as a matter of law is proper if an action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See Tohan v. Owens-Coming Fiberglass Corp., 696 A.2d 1195 (Pa.Super. 1997), appeal denied, 553 Pa. 700, 718 A.2d 786 (1998); Brooks v. Sagovia, 431 Pa.Super. 508, 636 A.2d 1201 (1994). See also Pro Golf Mfg. v. Tribune Review Newspaper Co., 570 Pa. 242, 809 -5- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 A.2d 243 (2002) (considering statute of limitation in context of motion for judgment on the pleadings). Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2252 any party may join as an additional defendant any person not a party to the action who may be solely liable on the underlying cause of action against the joining party or liable to or with the joining party on any cause of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences upon which the underlying cause of action against the joining party is based. See Pa. R.C.P. 2252(a). However, a person may not be joined as an additional defendant on the basis that the person is solely liable on the plaintiff s cause of action, if an action by the plaintiff to enforce that sole liability against the joined party would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Oviatt v. Automated Entrance System Co., Inc., 400 Pa.Super. 493, 583 A.2d 1223 (1990). Where the statute of limitations precludes a lawsuit directly against an alleged tortfeasor, the party may not be joined as an additional defendant in an action for the tort on an allegation that he is alone liable. Zachrel v. Universal Oil Products Co., 355 Pa. 324, 49 A.2d 704 (1946); Shaull v. A.S. Beck New York Shoe Co.. Inc., 369 Pa. 112, 85 A.2d 698 (1952). In the instant action, Defendant Lee contends Additional Defendant is solely liable to Plaintiff Reed. See Exhibit "E". However, Plaintiffs cause of action arose on April 4, 2006, when the accident occurred. See Exhibit B". Defendant Lee did not file the Writ of Summons until May 12, 2008, more than a month after the statute of limitations had expired. See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524. Defendant Lee's delinquency bars her claim of sole liability against Additional Defendant and extinguishes any potential right of recovery for any damages from Additional Defendant by Plaintiff. -6- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Consequently, Defendant Lee failed to join Additional Defendant within the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, is precluded from pursuing the cause of action based on Additional Defendant's alleged sole liability to Plaintiff. According to the clear dictates of Pennsylvania's courts, as a matter of law, Additional Defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings regarding Defendant Lee's untimely allegations of Additional Defendant's sole liability to Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant Lee's claim of sole liability against Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated, is legally deficient and must be dismissed with prejudice. C. Defendant Lee's Claim for Common Law Indemnification Fails as a Matter of Law Because Defendant Lee was Actively Liable and the Sole Cause of the Automobile Accident Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint contains a cause of action based on a common law indemnification against Additional Defendant. However, Defendant Lee's claim ignores the fact that her actions and omissions were the only cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries. As a result, Defendant Lee is precluded from pursuing a claim for indemnification against Additional Defendant when she was actively liable and was the direct cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries. Indemnity is a common-law equitable remedy that shifts the entire loss from one defendant to another party. Willet v. Pennsylvania Medical Catastrophe Loss Fund, 549 Pa. 613, 702 A.2d 850 (1997); Svetz v. Land Tool Co., 355 Pa.Super. 230, 513 A.2d 403 (1986). The right to indemnity will only be permitted where necessary to prevent an unjust result. City of Wilkes-Barre v. Kaminski Bros., 804 A.2d 89 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). The common law equitable remedy shifts the entire responsibility for damages -7- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 from a party who without any fault has been required to pay because of a legal relationship to the party at fault. Id. Indemnity has been defined by Pennsylvania's Courts as an obligation resting upon one party to be responsible for a loss or damage another has incurred for the former's benefit. Potts v. Dow Chemical Co., 272 Pa.Super. 323, 415 A.2d 1220 (1979). Pennsylvania's Supreme Court explained: The right of indemnity rests upon a difference between the primary and the secondary liability of two person each of whom is made responsible by the law to an injured party. It is a right which inures to a person who without fault on his own part, has been compelled, by reason of some legal obligation, to pay damages occasioned by the initial negligence of another and for which he himself is only secondarily liable. Builder's Supply Co. v. McCabe, 366 Pa. 322, 77 A.2d 368 (emphasis added). The liability of the indeminitor to the tort victim is often described as "primary" and the that of the indemnitee is referred to as "secondary." Alternatively, the indeminitor is called the active tortfeasor and the indemnitee the passive tortfeasor. Id. See also Builders Supply Co. v. McCabe, 366 Pa. 322, 77 A.2d 368. Common law indemnity is not a fault-sharing mechanism that allows a party whose negligence was minor to recover from the tortfeasor whose negligence was dominant. Rather, indemnity is a fault-shifting mechanism that comes into play when a defendant held liable by operation of law seeks to recover from a defendant whose conduct actually caused the loss. Id.; Kaminski Bros., supra., 804 A.2d 89. Consequently, there can be no indemnity between parties that allegedly bear primary -8- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 responsibility for a wrong, regardless of their relative degrees of fault. Kaminski Bros. supra; Philadelphia Elec. Co. v. Hercules Inc., 762 F.2d 303 (3d Cir. Pa. 1985). Based on the pleadings, Defendant Lee cannot establish that Additional Defendant's actions were the primary cause of the motor vehicle accident on April 4, 2006. See Exhibits "B" and "E". Moreover, based on the facts as alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the Third-Party Complaint, Defendant Lee cannot meet her burden of proving that the accident and Plaintiff's alleged damages were not caused by the actions of Defendant Lee. To the contrary, the pleadings support the conclusion that Plaintiff's damages, if any, were caused exclusively by Defendant Lee's negligence and failure to comply with the applicable traffic laws. Any attempt by Defendant Lee to pursue a claim of indemnification against Additional Defendant, when its liability is at most secondary to Defendant Lee's, is fatally flawed and must fail based on the unequivocal statements by Pennsylvania's Courts. Absent any basis in the law, Defendant Lee should be precluded from pursuing her claim for indemnification against Additional Defendant. As a matter of law, Additional Defendant is entitled to judgment on the pleadings regarding Defendant Lee's claim for indemnification. IV. REQUESTED RELIEF Based on the foregoing, Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated, respectfully requests its Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings be granted and Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. In the alternative, Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated, respectfully request this Honorable Court strike -9- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Defendant Lee's causes of action based on sole liability to Plaintiff and common law indemnification. Respectfully submitted, DEASEX, MAHON & VALENTINI, LTD. By: JAN A. NOR. , ESQUIRE JORDAN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Date: '7 ''6 Attorneys for Telco Incorporated l \' -10- DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Robert F. Claraval, Esq. 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHELE REED, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2008 CV CV V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant CIVIL ACTION -LAW COMPLAINT Parties 1. The Plaintiff Michele Reed resides at 47 Edgewood Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055. 2. The Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp resides at 142 East Main Street, Apartment C, Blain, Pennsylvania, 17006. Background 3. On April 4, 2006 at approximately 11:20 a.m. Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving her 1999 Chevrolet. 4. On that same date the Defendant Martha Lee was driving a 2005 Hyundai Elantra owned by Darryl A. Higley. 5. Plaintiff Michele Reed was traveling west on PA 114 and was properly entering the intersection at Route 114 and US 11 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At that same time the Defendant Martha Lee was traveling north on US 11 and was approaching the intersection at PA 114. 7. The intersection on that date was controlled by flashing traffic lights and a flagman. 8. Without regard to the PlaintiffMichele Reed's vehicle which was lawfully proceeding through the intersection of Route 114 and US 11, or the flashing traffic signals or the flagman, the Defendant Martha Lee pulled directly into Michele Reed's lane of travel. 9. Defendant Martha Lee's vehicle struck the driver's side of Michele Reed's car, causing it to travel into a concrete barrier on the east side of Route 114. 10. The force of the impact caused serious injury to Plaintiff Michele Reed. -1- Negligence 11. The collision and all of the hereinafter mentioned injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff Michele Reed are the direct result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as more particularly described below. (a) In failing to stop her vehicle before causing a collision with the vehicle Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (b) In failing to keep alert and to maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles, more specifically, the Plaintiff Michele Reed's vehicle. (c) In failing to keep adequate and proper control over her vehicle to avoid contact with the automobile which the Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (d) In operating her vehicle with careless disregard for the rights or safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically 75 Pa.C.S. §3714 "Careless Driving." (e) In operating her vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway specifically including Michele Reed in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3736. -2- (f) In failing to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3112. (g) In violating 75 Pa.C.S. §3324, failure to yield when entering a roadway. Damages 12. The force and impact of the collision as caused by the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee caused serious and permanent injury to the Plaintiff Michele Reed for which she has received extensive medical care. 13. The Plaintiff Michele Reed suffered the following injuries as a result of the negligence of the Defendant: (a) Closed head injury; (b) Concussion; (c) Post-concussive syndrome; (d) Chronic headache; (e) Cervical injury; (f) Lumbar injury; (g) Fibromyalgia -3- (h) A greater susceptibility to cervical and lumbar injury; (i) Limitation in range of motion of cervical and lumbar spine; and 0) Possible aggravation of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. 14. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as described herein, the Plaintiff Michele Reed has suffered and will continue to suffer mental and physical pain, great difficulty in carrying out and engaging in life's activities, a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, humiliation and embarrassment. 15. Plaintiff Michele Reed has and may in the future sustain a loss of earnings and an impairment to her earning capacity. 16. Plaintiff Michele Reed has been forced to expend sums of money for medical services, medication, therapy and related expenses in the past and will be required to continue to do so in the future. 17. All of Plaintiff Michele Reed's injuries as herein described are continuing and will continue into the foreseeable future, as will the treatment costs thereof. 18. The negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee has resulted in the general deterioration of Plaintiff Michele Reed's well-being. -4- WHEREFORE, the PlaintiffMichele Reed demands judgment against the Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, together with delay damages if applicable and costs of suit. CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL Date: S By: ROBERT F. CUARAVAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. #19222 Date: ?) s log Attorneys for Plaintiff By: ? h / j . fim/t--" Ok/ roaVV4 MAR ANN KENNEDY CLAkAVFJ- 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4763 Supreme Court I.D. #87347 -5- Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION The language of the foregoing document is that of counsel and not necessarily my own; however, I have read the foregoing document and to the extent that it is based upon information that I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief; to the extent that the content of the foregoing document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I understand that any false statements herein are made subjectto the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. k& e ht 1, MICHELE REED 30°la PC's' Robert F. Claraval, Esq. 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiffs MICHELE REED, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1521 V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW AMENDED COMPLAINT Parties 1. The Plaintiff Michele Reed resides at 47 Edgewood Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17055. 2. The Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp resides at 142 East Main Street, Apartment C, Blain, Pennsylvania, 17006. Background 3. On April 4, 2006 at approximately 11:20 a.m. PlaintiffMichele Reed was driving her 1999 Chevrolet. 4. On that same date the Defendant Martha Lee was driving a 2005 Hyundai Elantra owned by Darryl A. Higley. 5. Plaintiff Michele Reed was traveling west on PA 114 and was properly entering the intersection at Route 114 and US 11 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At that same time the Defendant Martha Lee was traveling north on US 11 and was approaching the intersection at PA 114. 7. The intersection on that date was controlled by flashing traffic lights and a flagman. 8. Without regard to the PlaintiffMichele Reed's vehicle which was lawfully proceeding through the intersection of Route 114 and US 11, or the flashing traffic signals or the flagman, the Defendant Martha Lee pulled directly into Michele Reed's lane of travel. 9. Defendant Martha Lee's vehicle struck the driver's side of Michele Reed's car. Ms. Reed then drove to the curb on the east side of Route 114. 10. The force of the impact caused serious injury to Plaintiff Michele Reed. -1- Negligence 11. The collision and all of the hereinafter mentioned injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff Michele Reed are the direct result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as more particularly described below. (a) In failing to stop her vehicle before causing a collision with the vehicle Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (b) In failing to keep alert and to maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles, more specifically, the Plaintiff Michele Reed's vehicle. (c) In failing to keep adequate and proper control over her vehicle to avoid contact with the automobile which the Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving. (d) In operating her vehicle with careless disregard for the rights or safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically 75 Pa.C.S. §3714 "Careless Driving." (e) In operating her vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway specifically including Michele Reed in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3736. -2- (f) In failing to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S. §3112. (g) In violating 75 Pa.C.S. §3324, failure to yield when entering a roadway. Damages 12. The force and impact of the collision as caused by the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee caused serious and permanent injury to the Plaintiff Michele Reed for which she has received extensive medical care. 13. The Plaintiff Michele Reed suffered the following injuries as a result of the negligence of the Defendant: (a) Closed head injury; (b) Concussion; (c) Post-concussive syndrome; (d) Chronic headache; (e) Cervical injury; (f) Lumbar injury; (g) Fibromyalgia -3- (h) A greater susceptibility to cervical and lumbar injury; (i) Limitation in range of motion of cervical and lumbar spine; and 0) Possible aggravation of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. 14. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee as described herein, the Plaintiff Michele Reed has suffered and will continue to suffer mental and physical pain, great difficulty in carrying out and engaging in life's activities, a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, humiliation and embarrassment. 15. Plaintiff Michele Reed has and may in the future sustain a loss of earnings and an impairment to her earning capacity. 16. Plaintiff Michele Reed has been forced to expend sums of money for medical services, medication, therapy and related expenses in the past and will be required to continue to do so in the future. 17. All of Plaintiff Michele Reed's injuries as herein described are continuing and will continue into the foreseeable future, as will the treatment costs thereof. 18. The negligence of the Defendant Martha Lee has resulted in the general deterioration of Plaintiff Michele Reed's well-being. -4- WHEREFORE, the PlaintiffMichele Reed demands judgment against the Defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, together with delay damages if applicable and costs of suit. Date: - 3 0? Date: ?-3 ?-U CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL B4RROBERR4TT. L ARAVAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Vloor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. # 19222 By: -5- Attorneys for Plaintiff Harrisburg, FA 171 U 1 (717) 233-4763 Supreme Court I.D. #87347 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Robert F. Claraval, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state that I am the attorney for the Plaintiffs in this action and that the information contained in the foregoing document is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subjectto the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. MICHELE REED, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-1521 V. MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date: yh?-3k8 CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL By DENISE I. WILLIAMS Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner Attorney for Defendants By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: j s@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp, by and through her counsel, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, and Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3, Admitted only that on April 4, 2006 at approximately 11:20 a.m. Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving a 1999 Chevrolet. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted only that Plaintiff Michele Reed was traveling west on Pa. 114 entering the intersection at Route 114 and U.S. 11 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Admitted that Defendant Mrs. Lee was traveling north on U.S. 11 and was properly and legally entering the intersection at Route U.S. 11 and Route 114 in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the intersection' on the date in question was controlled by a flashing traffic light. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 7 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial 8. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 8 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee was negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiffs alleged cause of action and further, that the 'Reed vehicle failed to yield and pulled directly into Mrs. Lee's lane of travel. 9. Denied as stated. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 10, relating to Plaintiffs alleged injuries, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 11 and each and every subparagraph a. through g. is a conclusion of law and fact to which no response is response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph 11 and each and every subparagraph a. through g. is specifically denied. a. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee was negligent in allegedly failing to stop her vehicle before allegedly causing a collision with the vehicle Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving; b. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee failed to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles, more specifically, the Plaintiff Michele Reeds vehicle; C. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee failed to keep adequate and proper control over the vehicle so as to avoid contact with the automobile which the Plaintiff Michele Reed was driving; d. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee operated her vehicle with careless disregard for the rights of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3714 "Careless Driving"; e. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee operated her vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway, specifically, including Michele Reed allegedly in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3736; f. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee failed to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3112; and g. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Lee violated 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3324, and failure to yield when entering a roadway. 12. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 12 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way of'further response, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 12 relating to Plaintiffs alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 13 relating to Plaintiffs alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 14 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 14 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 15 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 16 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Lee is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 17 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 18 are in part conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER By way of additional answer and reply, the Defendant interposes the following New Matter defenses: 19. That the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law and by the Limited Tort Option. 20. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 21. That the Plaintiff herself was contributorily negligent in the following: a. Failing to drive at a safe speed; b. Failing to yield; C. Failing to comply with traffic control devices; d. Failing to comply with directions of traffic control officers and/or flagmen; e. Failing to stop her vehicle before causing a collision; f. Failing to keep alert and maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles; g. Failing to keep adequate and proper control of her vehicle so as to avoid contact with the Defendant's vehicle; h. Operating her vehicle in careless disregard for the rights and safety of others in violation of the Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3714, "Careless Driving"; i. Operating her vehicle in a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others lawfully on the roadway, specifically including Defendant, in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3736; j. In failing to stop at a properly posted traffic control signal in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3112; and k. In violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. §3324 involving failure to yield when entering a roadway. 22. That if it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of the Answering Defendant, which is denied, then in that event any such negligence was not a substantial factor nor factual cause of the Plaintiff's harm. 23. That the Plaintiffs alleged harm may have been pre-existing the date of this accident. 24. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may have been caused in whole or in part by the negligence of third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Martha Lee, a/k/a Martha Estepp, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER J erson J. Shipman, Esquire I. D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant Date: May 7, 2008 330618 VERIFICATION I, Martha Lee, have read the foregoing Answer, hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. ?artha(Lee DATE: 330629 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on May 7, 2008: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 40Jerson J. Shi n, squire : 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant N_ O ? l.. ? .S - > iD ao r (;7 "x ! w Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 Attorney for Defendant MICHELE REED, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO: 08-1521 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V, TELCO INCORPORATED 1224 Cross Keys Road Reading, PA 19605-9505 Additional Defendant PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT Kindly issue a Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action against the following Additional Defendant advising that Defendant, Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp, has joined them as an Additional Defendant in the above action and that they will be required to defend: Telco Incorporated 1224 Cross Keys Road Berks County Reading, PA 19605-9503 Date : May 12, 2008 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER /7 , J erdori J. Shipman, Esquire 1.13. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorneys for Defendant Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant: Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp MICHELE REED, V. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORTED, 1224 Cross Keys Road Reading, PA 19605-9505 Additional Defendant NO. 08-1521 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant Martha Lee, by and through her attorneys Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner and files this Third-Party Joinder Complaint against Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated as follows: 1. Additional Defendant herein is Telco Incorporated, 1224 Cross Keys Road, Reading, Berks County, PA 19605-9503. 2. This matter involves an automobile accident that allegedly occurred on April 4, 2006, at the intersection of Route 114 and U.S. 11 in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("the intersection") 3. The Defendant incorporates by reference the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 4. The Defendant also incorporates herein her Answer and New Matter attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 5. It is believed that, at the time of the alleged accident, the traffic control signals were flashing red for Route 114 and yellow for U.S. Route 11. 6. It is believed and therefore averred that the traffic signals were undergoing maintenance by Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated. 7. _ It is believed and therefore averred that an employee or agent of Telco Incorporated caused the traffic signals to be inoperational and/or flashing. 8. Defendant Martha Lee was traveling eastbound on U.S. 11 when she noticed that the traffic signals pertaining to her lane of travel were flashing yellow. 9. Ms. Lee did not notice or observe any flagmen or individuals directing traffic at the intersection as she approached. 10. However, it is believed and therefore averred that despite the flashing yellow and red signals directing traffic, an employee or agent of Telco Incorporated began directing traffic at the intersection. 11. The employee or agent of Telco Incorporated was inconspicuously directing traffic in the intersection despite the fact that the signals were still set to yellow and red flashing lights. 12. As Ms. Lee approached the intersection she proceeded with caution through the intersection observing the yellow flashing signal light. 13. However, Ms. Lee did not observe anyone directing traffic in the intersection. 14. As Ms. Lee proceeded through the intersection, she made contact with a vehicle operated by Plaintiff Michele Reed which was proceeding west on Route 114. 15. Plaintiffhas alleged injuries as a result of the accident as set forth in her Complaint. 16. Employees or agents of Telco Incorporated, for which Telco Incorporated is vicariously liable, were controlling traffic flow at the intersection at the time of the accident, either through the flashing signal lights or personal direction. 17. The accident between Plaintiff and Defendant occurred only because Telco Incorporated negligently controlled and/or directed the flow of traffic at the intersection. 18. The negligence of Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated includes: (a) Failing to safely direct traffic through the intersection in a conspicuous and organized manner; (b) Failing to set the traffic signals at the intersection in a safe manner; (c) Failing to use signs, flags, or other conspicuous notices on the ground to alert drivers of traffic direction in the intersection in addition to, or in place of, the flashing signal lights; (d) Inattentiveness to existing traffic conditions including the approaching vehicles; (e) Carelessness in the control of traffic flow in the intersection; (f) failure to provide a safe means of passage through the intersection for the Defendant and Plaintiff; and (g) Otherwise creating and permitting a dangerous condition of traffic flow and direction at the intersection. 19. The Plaintiffs injuries are the proximate result of the negligence of the Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated and their agents or employees. WHEREFORE, the Defendant Martha Lee avers that the Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated is solely liable to the Plaintiff Michele Reed or liable over to the Defendant on the Plaintiffs claims or, in the alternative, liable to the Defendant for contribution and/or indemnification. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Jefforsdn' J. Shipman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant Lee Date: July 18, 2008 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAIN T YOU. Jo . Namerow, Esquire DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: JANE A. NORTH, ESQUIRE JORDAN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Identification No. 63728/206134 1601 Market Street Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2301 215-578-9400 Attorneys for Additional Defendant, Telco, Inc. 059.23066 MICHELE REED Plaintiff, VS. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant, VS. TELCO INCORPORATED Additional COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY C C= on CIVIL ACTION - LAW M- n N0.08-1521 C 51< CO Y -v ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TELCO INCORPORATED'S ANSWER TO THE THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, by and through its undersigned counsel, Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated (hereinafter "Answering Defendant"), sets forth the following Answer with New Matter to the Third Party Complaint filed by Martha Lee &Wa Martha Estepp: 1. Upon information and belief, admitted. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering 2 DEASEX MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 - 1601 MARKET STREET - PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it or its employees or its agents were negligent in any way or that any such conduct on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to any injury, damage and/or loss to the Plaintiff Reed, the existence of which is denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering 3 DEASEX MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, the same are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the 4 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 - 1601 MARKET STREET - PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied in part, admitted in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff Reed alleges she sustained injuries. The remainder of the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies that the alleged injuries, if truthful, are causally related to the incident set forth in Plaintiff Reed's Complaint. Moreover, all averments of causation are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it or its employees or its agents were negligent in any way or that any such conduct on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to any injury, damage and/or loss to the Plaintiff Reed, the existence of which is denied. To the extent that these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph, and accordingly, said averments are 5 DEASEX MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 specifically denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency are specifically denied. 17. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it was negligent in any manner at any time material hereto. To the extent that any of these allegations are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency and causation are specifically denied. 18(a-g). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph, including each and every one of its sub-parts, are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it was negligent and/or careless in any way or that any such conduct on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to any injury, damage and/or loss to the Plaintiff Reed, the existence of which is denied. To the extent that any of these allegations, including the allegations in the sub-parts, are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency and causation are specifically denied. 6 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 19. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Accordingly, said allegations are specifically denied. Furthermore, Answering Defendant specifically denies it was negligent in any manner at any time material hereto or that any such conduct on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to any injury, damage and/or loss to the Plaintiff Reed, the existence of which is denied. To the extent that any of these allegations, including the allegations in the sub-parts, are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. Accordingly, said averments are specifically denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all averments of agency and causation are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Telco Incorporated demands judgment in it favor and against Plaintiff Reed and/or Co-Defendant Lee. NEW MATTER 20. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-19 of their Answer to the Third Party Complaint as though the same were set forth fully herein. 21. The Third Party Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 22. Plaintiff Reed's and Defendant Lee's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (a) The alleged motor vehicle accident which is the subject of Plaintiff Reed's occurred on April 4, 2006. (b) Plaintiff Reed served her Complaint on Defendant Lee on March 17, 2008. (c) On April 25, 2008, Plaintiff Reed filed an Amended Complaint with the Court. DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 (d) The applicable statute of limitations to recover damages for personal injury or property damage arising from alleged negligent or intentional conduct is two years in Pennsylvania. (e) Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2253(a)(1) dictates that a Joinder Complaint must be filed sixty days after the service upon the original defendant of the initial pleading of the plaintiff or any amendment thereof. (f) Defendant Lee failed to comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure by not filing her Third-Party Complaint against Answering Defendant until July 18, 2008, well after the time allotted by the applicable rules. 23. Defendant Lee's claims are barred by the Doctrine of Latches. 24. At all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendant acted in a reasonable and proper manner. 25. Answering Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff Reed or Defendant Lee at any time material hereto. 26. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. 27. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Additional Defendant. 28. Service was improperly made upon Additional Defendant. 29. Any acts and/or omissions on the part of this Answering Defendant which are alleged to constitute negligence, all of which are specifically denied, were not substantial causes or factors which led to the subject incident, and did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff Reed. 30. The incident and damages alleged in Plaintiff Reed's Complaint and Defendant Lee's Third Party Complaint were caused solely by the negligence of Plaintiff Reed and Defendant Lee and Plaintiff Reed's and Defendant Lee's claims are therefore barred. 31. Plaintiff Reed's and Defendant Lee's claims are barred and/or limited pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7102. DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 32. The subject incident and alleged damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff Reed were not caused by any negligence, carelessness or recklessness on the part of this Answering Defendant, but instead were caused solely by the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness on the part of Plaintiff Reed and/or Defendant Lee and/or some third party or parties other than Answering Defendant, over whom Answering Defendant had no control or right of control at any time. 33. Plaintiff Reed's and/or Defendant Lee's actions and/or omissions were negligent and such negligence was a superseding, intervening cause of the alleged accident which bars and/or limits all claims by Plaintiff Reed and Defendant Lee arising there from. 34. Plaintiff Reed did not suffer any injuries or damages as a result of the alleged incident referred to in Plaintiff Reed's Complaint and/or Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint. 35. Plaintiff Reed failed to mitigate any damages she allegedly sustained. 36. Plaintiff Reed's respective claims may be limited pursuant to the applicable tort option or precluded as benefits recovered elsewhere under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701, et seq. 37. Answering Defendant asserts all the defenses available under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1701, et seq., as amended and avers that Plaintiff Reed's remedies are limited exclusively thereto and, therefore, the present action is barred. 38. Nothing done or omitted by Answering Defendant was the proximate cause of any damages alleged by Plaintiff Reed and/or Defendant Lee. 9 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 - 1601 MARKET STREET - PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 39. Answering Defendant denies it is solely liable, jointly liable or liable over to Plaintiff Reed and/or Defendant Lee. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Telco Incorporated, demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff Reed and/or Defendant Lee. NEW MATTER CROSS CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 40. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-38 inclusive, of its Answer with New Matter to the Third-Party Complaint, as though the same were set forth fully herein. 41. If the averments in Plaintiff Reed's Complaint and/or Defendant Lee's Third Party Complaint are proven at the time of trial, which said averments Answering Defendant specifically denies, the Plaintiff Reed's damages and/or injuries were caused solely by the recklessness, carelessness, negligence or other culpable conduct of Defendant, Lee. Defendant Lee is alone liable to Plaintiff Reed, jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Reed or liable over to Answering Defendant on the cause of action declared in the Plaintiff Reed's Complaint and/or Defendant Lee's Third Party Complaint. 42. Answering Defendant believes, and therefore avers, in the event that a judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Reed, said judgment should be entered solely against the Defendant, Lee, and/or if said judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Reed and against the Answering Defendant, then said Answering Defendant is entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from the Defendant, Lee, by reason of its joint and several liability. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Telco Incorporated, pray that in the event a judgment in favor of Answering Defendant, that said judgment be entered solely against Defendant, Lee and/or in the event that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Reed and against Answering 10 DEASEX MAHONEY & VALENTINL LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Defendant, that the Defendant, Lee be held jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff Reed and/or liable over to Answering Defendant, Telco Incorporated, for indemnity and/or contribution, and, if any event, that judgment be entered in favor of the Answering Defendant and against Defendant Lee on all Counts and claims, including all attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the defense of this action. DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By JA'A A. NORTH, ESQUIRE JORDAN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant, Telco, Inc. Dated: August 6, 2008 11 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 VERIFICATION The undersigned attorney hereby state that I am the Attorney for Additional Defendant, Telco Incorporated, and I am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Additional Defendant, and that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that the statements are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. JO S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Dated: August 6, 2008 12 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that in this case complete copies of all papers in Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated's Answer with New Matter have been served upon the following person, via United States Mail, postage prepaid. Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2°d Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire JoHNsoN, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 JO AN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Dated: August 6, 2008 13 DEASEX MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET - PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that in this case complete copies of all papers in Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings have been served upon the following person(s), via United States Mail, postage prepaid. Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 AN S. N MEROW, ESQUIRE Dated: 11 T 0% DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 j DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: JANE A. NORTH, ESQUIRE JORDAN S. NAMEROW, ESQUIRE Identification No. 63728/206134 1601 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-578-9400 Attorney for Additional Defendant, Telco, Inc. 059.23066 MICHELE REED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff,: CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP NO. 08-1521 Defendant, ; VS. TELCO INCORPORATED Additional ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance as co-counsel on behalf of Additional Defendant, Telco, Inc., in the above-captioned matter. Dated: November 6, 2008 DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. By: AN S. A EROW, ESQUIRE DEASEY, MAHONEY & VALENTINI, LTD. SUITE 3400 • 1601 MARKET STREET • PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2301 Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant: I.D. No. 51785 Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 MICHELE REED, V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, V. Plaintiff Defendant TELCO INCORPORTED, Additional Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-1521 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT LEE'S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TELCO INCORPORATED'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 1. Admitted. 2. Denied. To the contrary, the caption on Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is identical to that of Plaintiffs original Complaint. 3. Admitted. It is admitted only that this paragraph reasonably paraphrases the allegations within Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 4. Admitted. It is admitted only that this paragraph reasonably paraphrases the allegations within Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,'PENNSYLVANIA 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part. It is admitted only that Defendant Lee filed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons to Join Additional Defendant. As to the balance of the paragraph, it states conclusions of law to which no response is required. 7. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Additional Defendant, Telco, filed a Rule to File Joinder Complaint. It is further admitted only that Defendant Lee subsequently filed her Third-Party Complaint. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. It is admitted that the cited rule speaks for itself. I. ALL CLAIMS OF SOLE LIABILITY ASSERTED AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TELCO INCORPORATED ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 11.-18. It is admitted only that these paragraphs cite case law and a rule of civil procedure, the texts of which speak for themselves. To the extent these paragraphs make allegations or averments, said allegations or averments are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 19. It is admitted only that one of the allegations in Defendant Lee's Third- Party Complaint is that Additional Defendant is solely liable to Plaintiff Reed. 20. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 2 21. It is admitted only that Defendant Lee filed the Writ of Summons on May 12, 2008. As to the balance of the paragraph, it states conclusions of law to which no response is required. 22.-23. These paragraphs state conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Martha Lee respectfully requests that your Honorable Court deny Additional Defendant Telco, Incorporated's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. II. DEFENDANT LEE'S CLAIM FOR COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION FAILS AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN DEFENDANT LEE WAS ACTIVELY LIABLE AND WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT 24. The answers to paragraphs 1 though 23 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. 25.-31 It is admitted only that these paragraphs cite caselaw, the texts of which speak for themselves. To the extent these paragraphs make allegations or averments, said allegations or averments are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 31-35. These paragraphs state conclusions of law to which no response is required. 36. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. By way of further response, Defendant Lee's Third-Party Complaint seeks 3 contribution or indemnification, in the alternative, and contribution is expressly governed by the Contribution Among Tort-feasors Act. 37.-38. These paragraphs state conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Martha Lee respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court deny Additional Defendant Telco Incorporated's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: uire 4orneyAD. on J. Shipmanjsq? I.No.5 17301 Mar ket Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant Lee Date: November 19, 2008 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Additional Defendant's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on November 19, 2008: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorney for Plaintiff Jane A. North, Esquire Jordan S. Namerow, Esquire Deasey, Mahoney & Valentini, Ltd. 1601 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2301 Attorney for Telco, Inc. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Jer!r6K J. Shipm6n, Esquire 710 v? '-c PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) MICHELE REED, Plaintiff V. MARTHA LEE a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP, Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant No. 1521 , 2008 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Additional Defendant m 1 o'Incorporated's Motion for Partial-Judgment on the Pleadings 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Robert F. Claraval, 500 N. Third St., Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Plaintiffs) (Name and Address) Jefferson T. Shipman, -101 Market st _ , T moYne PA 17043 (Defendant) (b) for defendants: Jane A. North, 1601 Market St., Suite 3400, Phila, PA 19103 (Add'l Defendant) (Name and Address) 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4 Arni iment r..ni,rtnafp- Robert F Claraval, Esq Print your name Plaintiff Date: 09 Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. J:Y 9- PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) MICHELLE REED vs. MARTHA LEE A/K/A MARTHA ESTEPP VS. TELCO INCORPORATED 08-1521 No. Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Additional Defendant Telco, Inc.'s Notion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire (Name and Address) Claraval & Claraval, 500 N. Third Street, 2nd Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101 (b) for defendants: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire (Attorney for Defendant, Martha Lee) (Name and Address) Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & We idner, 301 Market 301 St., Lemoyne, PA 17043 Jordan S. Namerow, Esquire (Attorney for Addl. Def. Telco Incorporated) easey, Mahoney & Valentin, Ltd., 1601 Market St., Ste. 3400, Philadelphia, PA 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: Date: Print your name Telco Incorporated Attorney for Additional Defendant INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. Jordan S. Namerow, Esquire w LP u? -rim CIS f+?' 1 MICHELLE REED, PLAINTIFF V. MARTHA LEE A/K/A MARTHA ESTEPP, DEFENDANT V. TELCO INCORPORATED, ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 08-1521 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TELCO INCORPORATED FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND EBERT, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this &*-, _day of March, 2009, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Judgment on the pleadings is entered in favor of Telco Incorporated, additional defendant, against defendant Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp, on defendant's claim that additional defendant is solely liable to plaintiff. (2) The motion of additional defendant Telco Incorporated for additional relief in the form of a partial judgment on the pleadings against defendant, Martha Lee a/k/a Martha Estepp, IS DENIED. By,the Court, k! Edgar B. Bayley, J. C.1 Fes, x co f? cy N .0 Robert F. Claraval, Esquire For Plaintiff Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire For Defendant Jordan S. Namerow, Esquire For Additional Defendant :sal MICHELE REED, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARTHA LEE, a/k/a MARTHA ESTEPP Defendant V. TELCO INCORPORATED, Additional Defendant NO. 08-1521 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above captioned action settled and discontinued. CLARAVAL & CLARAVAL Date: l 3 0 ROBERT F\.F-LARAVAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd?j Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. #19222 Attorneys for Plaintiff FILED-U.FFOE OF THE' PROTHO!,,iOTARY 2009 NOV 25 Pty 3: 54 Pr c,?E ar ?,n