Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-2202RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC FOUR Falls Corporate Center, Suite 405 300 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO. 08 -o12 2 Civi( ( ofr+? MERCER INSURANCE GROUP : as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., 100 Mercer Drive JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Lock Haven, PA 17445 Plaintiffs V. SPANGLER'S MILL, INC. d/b/a EWING ROOFING 1425 Spanglers Mill Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING 110 Diller Road Fairview, PA 16415 Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 NOTICE 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. Belford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Randall Esquire P x 999 sburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7648 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES : 1300 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP as subrogee of MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES 100 Mercer Drive Lock Haven, PA 17445 Plaintiffs V. SPANGLER'S MILL, INC. d/b/a EWING ROOFING 1425 Spanglers Mill Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING 110 Diller Road Fairview, PA 16415 Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs Mountain View Road Associates and Mercer Insurance Group, as subrogee of Mountain View Road Associates and file this Complaint against the Defendants Spangler's Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing and Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing. 1. The Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates is a Pennsylvania partnership with a principal place of business located at 1300 Market Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, 17043 and is engaged in the business of owning and operating residential apartments. 2. Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and maintains a principal place of business located at 100 Mercer Drive, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745. At all times relevant hereto, Mercer Insurance Group was engaged in the business of providing property and other lines of insurance to residents and companies within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant Spangler's Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing Co. (hereinafter "Ewing Roofing") is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business located at 1425 Spanglers Mill Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011, and at all times relevant hereto operated a roofing business. 4. Defendant Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing (hereinafter "Defendant Payne") is a Pennsylvania resident who, at all times relevant hereto, resided at 110 Diller Road, Fairview Township, York County, Pennsylvania 17070 and was engaged in the roofing business. 5. Prior to and on November 6, 2006, Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates was the owner of real property, including a residential apartment complex known as Mountain View Village located with an address at Mountain View Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Included in the Mountain View Village was an 18 unit apartment building on Elk Court, Hampden Township, Pennsylvania (hereinafter "the apartment building") 7. Property Management, Inc. contracted with the owner of the Mountain View Village apartment complex to manage the apartment complex for the owner. In its role as manager of the Mountain View Village apartment complex, Property Management, Inc. had contracted with Defendant Ewing Roofing for roofing repair work on the apartment building. 2 9. Plaintiffs are informed and therefore aver that Defendant Terry Payne d/b/a Terry Payne Roofing entered into an agreement with Defendant Ewing Roofing to do repair work on the apartment building that Defendant Ewing Roofing had contracted for with Property Management, Inc. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendant Terry Payne, individually and doing business as Terry Payne's Roofing was an agent, servant, employee and/or contractor for Defendant Ewing Roofing. 11. At all times material hereto, the individuals doing the roofing work on the apartment building were agents, servants, employees of Defendant Ewing Roofing and these individuals carrying out the roofing work were under the control of Defendant Ewing Roofing and/or Defendant Ewing Roofing had the right to control the aforesaid individuals. 12. At all times material hereto, the individuals doing the roofing work on the apartment building were agents, servants, employees of Defendant Terry Payne, individually and doing business as Terry Payne's roofing and these individuals carrying out the roofing work were under the control of Defendant Payne and/or Defendant Payne had the right to control the aforesaid individuals. 13. On November 6, 2006, while the roofing work was being done on the apartment building by the Defendants, the building caught on fire. 14. The roofers noticed the fire at or around 12:15 p.m. 15. The fire originated outside at or near a small bush and the rear wall of the 18 unit apartment building. 16. At or around the time of the fire, the workers doing the roofing work for the Defendants were smoking on the roof and on the site. 17. Numerous cigarette butts were found in the mulch and in the bushes and bush clippings behind the apartment building in the area right below where the roofers were working and smoking on November 6, 2006 and where the fire originated. 18. Careless disposal of lighted smoking materials by the roofers who were the agents, servants, employees of the Defendants ignited mulch and/or hedge or brush clippings which fire then traveled up the vinyl siding of the building to the roof overhang and burned the roof, then spreading into the building. 19. Other reasonable causes for the fire originating at the lower exterior wall of the apartment building were excluded. 20. The apartment building sustained major property loss due to fire, smoke and water damage. 21. Damages include relevant reconstruction costs, cleaning expenses, utilities, rental income loss, rent credits and personnel and other related costs totaling $716,383.55. 22. On or about June 21, 2006, Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group issued an insurance policy to Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates for the period June 21, 2006 to June 21, 2007 insuring Mountain View Road Associates for losses sustained at the above-referenced apartment complex and subject apartment building, including, but not limited to, property loss. 23. Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group made payments to its insured under the above- referenced policy in the amount of the loss less the $2,500 deductible and as subrogee of its insured now seeks recovery from the Defendants. 24. Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates seeks its uninsured losses including its deductible. 4 COUNTI Plaintiffs v Spanglers Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing 25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 26. Defendant Ewing Roofing owed a duty to the Plaintiffs to conduct the roofing repairs in a safe and workmanlike manner. 27. At all times during the performance of the work, the Defendants Ewing Roofing and its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors had a duty to perform the work safely and in accordance with standards of care recognized and ordinarily employed by reasonably prudent roofers. 28. The above-referenced fire was caused by and resulted from the negligent, reckless and careless acts and/or omissions of Defendant Ewing Roofing, its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors acting within the scope of their authority and course of their employment which acts and/or omissions consisted of: a. causing a fire to start which burned the apartment building being worked on; b. allowing unextinguished smoking materials to come into contact with combustible materials at or around the apartment building; C. failing to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; d. failing to properly extinguish their cigarette butts and/or smoking materials; throwing and/or rolling cigarette butts and smoking materials off the roof of the apartment building; f. smoking on the roof of the apartment building; g, failing to take necessary precautions to avoid having unextinguished smoking materials come into contact with combustible materials; h. disposing of cigarette buts and smoking materials in an area containing combustible materials; i. failing to realize that their careless smoking practices were exposing the apartment building to an unreasonable risk of harm; failing to promptly notice that their careless disposal of cigarette butts and smoking materials had caused ignition of combustible material on the ground behind the apartment building; k. failing to promptly and properly extinguish the fire before it could damage the apartment building; 1. failing to provide adequate training for its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors in proper and safe practices in regard to smoking on the job site; M. failing to select or retain competent agents, servants, employees and/or contractors who would conduct the roofing work in a safe manner; n. failing to properly supervise their personnel in regard to careless smoking on the job site; o. failing to advise their personnel to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; p. failing to advise their personnel not to smoke on the roof or job site; q. failing to comply with any applicable government regulations in regard to smoking on the job site; and 6 r. failing to conduct themselves with the degree of skill and care customarily brought to such work by competent, skilled roofers. 29. The negligent, careless and reckless conduct on behalf of Defendant Ewing Roofing directly and proximately caused the fire and the spread of the fire causing damage to the apartment building causing Plaintiffs' damages including cost of reconstruction, cleaning costs, utilities, rental income loss, rent credits, personnel and other incidental and consequential damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Mountain View Road Associates and Mercer Insurance Group demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Spangler's Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing co.. in an amount in excess of Cumberland County arbitration limits, together with interest, delay damages and such other costs or damages as may be properly awarded by the Court. COUNT II Plaintiffs v Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing 30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 31. Defendant Payne owed a duty to the Plaintiffs to conduct the roofing repairs in a safe and workmanlike manner. 32. At all times during the performance of the work, Defendant Payne and his agents, servants, employees and/or contractors had a duty to perform the work safely and in accordance with standards of care recognized and ordinarily employed by reasonably prudent roofers. 33. The above-referenced fire was caused by and resulted from the negligent, reckless and careless acts and/or omissions of Defendant Payne, his agents, servants, employees and/or contractors acting within the scope of their authority and course of their employment which acts and/or omissions consisted of- 7 a. causing a fire to start which burned the apartment building being worked on; b. allowing unextinguished smoking materials to come into contact with combustible materials at or around the apartment building; C. failing to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; d. failing to properly extinguish their cigarette butts and/or smoking materials; throwing and/or rolling cigarette butts and smoking materials off the roof of the apartment building; f. smoking on the roof of the apartment building; g. failing to take necessary precautions to avoid having unextinguished smoking materials come into contact with combustible material; h. disposing of cigarette butts and smoking materials in an area containing combustible materials; i. failing to realize that their careless smoking practices were exposing the apartment building to an unreasonable risk of harm; j. failing to promptly notice that their careless disposal of cigarette butts and smoking materials had caused ignition of combustible material on the ground behind the apartment building; k. failing to promptly and properly extinguish the fire before it could damage the apartment building; 1. failing to provide adequate training for his agents, servants, employees and/or contractors in proper and safe practices in regard to smoking on the job site; m. failing to select or retain competent agents, servants, employees and/or contractors who would conduct the roofing work in a safe manner; 8 n. failing to properly supervise his personnel in regard to careless smoking on the job site; o. failing to advise his personnel to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; P. failing to advise his personnel not to smoke on the roof or on the job site; q. failing to comply with any applicable government regulations in regard to smoking on the job site; and failing to conduct themselves with the degree of skill and care customarily brought to such work by competent, skilled roofers. 34. The negligent, careless and reckless conduct on behalf of Defendant Payne directly and proximately caused the fire and the spread of the fire causing damage to the apartment building causing Plaintiffs' damages including cost of reconstruction, cleaning costs, utilities, rental income loss, rent credits, personnel and other incidental and consequential damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Mountain View Road Associates and Mercer Insurance Group demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing in an amount in excess of the Cumberland County arbitration limits, together with interest, delay damages and such other costs or damages as may be properly awarded by the Court. COUNT III Plaintiffs v. Suangler's Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing Breach of Contract 35. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 36. On September 28, 2006, Property Management, Inc. entered into a contract with Defendant Ewing Roofing for roofing work on the apartment building. 9 37. As owner of the apartment building, Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates was a third party beneficiary of the contract for roofing work between Property Management, Inc. and Defendant Ewing Roofing; Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group is the Subrogee of Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates. 38. Pursuant to the agreement for roofing work, Defendant Ewing Roofing was responsible to conduct the work under the contract in a safe and workmanlike manner and not to destroy the work done. 39. The above-referenced apartment building fire and the resulting damage to and destruction of Plaintiffs property were caused by and resulted from a breach of contract by Defendant Ewing Roofing through its agents, servants, employees, and/or contractors. Defendants Ewing Roofing's breach of the aforesaid contract was caused by the following: a. causing a fire to start which burned the apartment building being worked on; b. allowing unextinguished smoking materials to come into contact with combustible materials at or around the apartment building; failing to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; d. failing to properly extinguish their cigarette butts and/or smoking materials; throwing and/or rolling cigarette butts and smoking materials off the roof of the apartment building; f. smoking on the roof of the apartment building; g. failing to take necessary precautions to avoid having unextinguished smoking materials come into contact with combustible material; h. disposing of cigarette butts and smoking materials in an area containing combustible materials; 10 failing to realize that their careless smoking practices were exposing the apartment building to an unreasonable risk of harm; failing to promptly notice that their careless disposal of cigarette butts and smoking materials had caused ignition of combustible material on the ground behind the apartment building; k. failing to promptly and properly extinguish the fire before it could damage the apartment building; 1. failing to provide adequate training for its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors in proper and safe practices in regard to smoking on the job site; M. failing to select or retain competent agents, servants, employees and/or contractors who would conduct the roofing work in a safe manner; n. failing to properly supervise their personnel in regard to careless smoking on the job site; o. failing to advise their personnel to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; P. failing to advise their personnel not to smoke on the roof or job site; q. failing to comply with any applicable government regulations in regard to smoking on their job site; and r. failing to conduct themselves with the degree of skill and care customarily brought to such work by competent, skilled roofers. 40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Ewing Roofing's breach of the aforesaid contract, Defendant Ewing Roofing directly and proximately caused the fire and spread of the fire causing damage to Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates property and causing Plaintiffs 11 to incur damages including cost of reconstruction, cleaning costs, utilities, rental income loss, rent credits, personnel and other incidental and consequential damages. 41. Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group stands in the place of subrogee for Mountain View Road Associates for insurance payments made to Mountain View Road Associates in regard to the property loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Mountain View Road Associates and Mercer Insurance Group demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Spangler's Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing in an amount in excess of the Cumberland County arbitration limits together with interest, delay damages and such other damages or costs as may be properly awarded by the Court. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: dall G. Gale, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 26149 Corey J. Adamson, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 204508 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7648 Date: 3 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 VERIFYC.A.TIaQN I, ? Ir) 1 , state that I am the authorized representative 'for the Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group, and that the facts contained in the Complaint are true and correct to the hest of my lulowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: i ?i?/lam o' 551417- t S Tom` `! ? ` ?r J `) ,4c-'L\,(- t ,rAL ` VERIFICATION I, ?ARk J. StcP?6uS , state that I am the authorized representative for the V. P. - k6PC'R-1Ci AO,RC nEVY, °uc, Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates and that the facts contained in the Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: A-ada 13 n C ^' o Sty d r - > ? -? .? ? a rn CtA i; ., 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. : and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. ; Plaintiffs, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' SROOFING Defendants. NO. 08-2202 CIVIL DIVISON - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, SID #: 92919 Mary Klatt, Esquire Attorney ID #: 207664 Marcello & Kivisto, LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road Third Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 O: (717) 240-4686 F: (717) 258-4686 1 i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' SROOFING Defendants. NO. 08-2202 CIVIL DIVISON - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing Entry of Appearance in the within action was served upon the following by enclosing the same in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid and depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class Mail, in Carlisle, PA on the 29th day of April, 2008. Randall G. Gale 305 North Front Street, 6t' Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Attorney for Plaintiffs Timothy McMahon Marshall Dennehey 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing Maryatt squire rr, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. : NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, V. CIVIL DIVISON - LAW SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' SROOFING Defendants. NOTICE 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 import 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 YOU LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUED FEE OR NO FEES. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.: NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISON - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA LE HAN DEMANDO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tien viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presenter una apariencia excrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defenses o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que 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 ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, BAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONE A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. : and NO. 08-2202 MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING Defendants. CIVIL DIVISON - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT TERRY PAYNE'S. individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM 1. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 1; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 2; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Admitted upon information and belief. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 5; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial 6. Admitted upon information and belief. 7. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 7; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 8; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendant entered into an agreement with Defendant Ewing Roofing to do repair work on the apartment building. It is denied that any formal contract existed between Answering Defendant and Defendant Ewing Roofing for said repair work. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the existence of any contract between Defendant Ewing Roofing and Property Management, Inc., to do repair work on the apartment building; hence those averments are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendant was a roofing contractor, who entered into an agreement with Defendant Ewing Roofing to do repair work on the apartment building. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Ewing Roofing. 11. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the averments are specifically denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that the individuals referred to in this paragraph were agents, servants, and/or employees of Answering Defendant and proof is demanded at time of trial. It is further specifically denied that said individuals were under the control of Answering Defendant and/or that Answering Defendant had the right to control said individuals. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that there was a fire at the apartment building on November 6, 2006. It is denied that the fire was the result of or caused by the roofing work or the actions of Answering Defendant. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the individuals performing the roofing work noticed the fire. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the time that the individuals noticed the fire; hence the allegations regarding time are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). Proof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 16; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 17. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 17 are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments are specifically denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. The averments of this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e) and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). Proof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 20; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 21. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 21; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 22. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 22; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 23; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 24; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNTI PLAINTIFFS v. SPANGLERS MILL, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING 25. Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Answer herein and makes them a part hereof as if set forth in full. 26. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 27. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 28. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, the averments are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, the averments are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT II PLAINTIFFS v. TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING 30. Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Answer herein and makes them a part hereof as if set forth in full. 31. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant breached any duty owed to Plaintiffs and/or failed to perform the roofing repairs in a safe and workmanlike manner. 32. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant breached any duty owed to Plaintiffs. It is further denied that the acts of the individuals performing the roofing work caused or contributed to the fire. It is further denied that Answering Defendant control the individuals performing the roofing work. It is further denied that any act or failure to act on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to the accident. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant is liable for the acts, omissions or negligence of the individuals performing the repair work. All allegations of agency, servitude or employment are specifically denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant is liable for the acts, omissions or negligence of the individuals performing the repair work. It is further denied that the acts of the individuals performing the roofing work caused or contributed to the fire. All allegations of agency, servitude or employment are specifically denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as follows: (a) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (b) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (c) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (d) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (e) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (f) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (g) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (h) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (i) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 0) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. (k) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (1) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, all allegations of agency, servitude or employment are specifically denied. It is further denied that Answering Defendant breached any duty he owed. (m) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). The averments are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, all allegations of agency, servitude or employment are specifically denied. (n) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant had any personnel performing repair work on the apartment building. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (o) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant had any personnel performing repair work on the apartment building. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (p) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant had any personnel performing repair work on the apartment building. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (q) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (r) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 34. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT III PLAINTIFFS v. SPANGLERS MILL, INC., individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING BREACH OF CONTRACT 35. Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Answer herein and makes them a part hereof as if set forth in full. 36. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 36; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 37. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 37; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 38. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 38; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 39. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 40. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 41. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 37; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs. NEW MATTER 42. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims may be barred or reduced by release or waiver pending discovery. 43. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims are due to the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of a party and/or individual other than Answering Defendant. 44. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the statute of limitations. 45. Answering Defendant is not responsible for any harm allegedly caused by acts or omissions of third parties for whom it is not responsible and over whom it has no control. 46. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims may be precluded for failure to state a cause of action. 47. The fire was not caused by or contributed to by the acts or omissions of Answering Defendant. 48. The fire was not caused by or contributed to by the acts or omissions of the individuals performing the roofing work. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor. CROSS-CLAIM TERRY PAYNE v. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING 47. Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as if set forth in full without admitting the truth thereof. 48. If Plaintiffs sustained the damages as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, said damages being herein strictly denied, then said damages were caused by acts, omissions or negligence of Co-Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, to which reference is made hereto without adoption or omission. 49. Co-Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing is solely liable to the Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, should Answering Defendant be found liable to Plaintiffs, liability being herein strictly denied, then Co-Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing is jointly and severally liable with Answering Defendant and is liable over to Answering Defendant by way of contribution and/or indemnification. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment against Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing in an amount not in excess of mandatory arbitration limits. In the alternative, Answering Defendant requests this Honorable Court hold Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing solely liable to Plaintiffs, liable over to Answering Defendant for indemnification, or jointly or severally liable to Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, 1-? O-i#- Sonya o (PA No. 92919) Mary Kl A No. 207664) Marcello & Kivisto, LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road Third Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 (717)240-4686 U4/SU/EUUb WED 11:t)U FAX /172584686 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.: NO. 08-2202 and : MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISON - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, : V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Terry Payne, hereby verify that the averments made in the attached Answer are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief based upon the information available. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. By: leju1b/Ulb Dated: -5- - / -- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING Defendants. CIVIL DIVISON - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing Answer in the within action was served upon the following by enclosing the same in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid and depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class Mail, in Carlisle, PA on the 6th day of May, 2008. Randall G. Gale 305 North Front Street, 6 h Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Attorney for Plaintiffs Timothy McMahon Marshall Dennehey 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing Mary Kla , Esquire r-3 (D G c?'*s f 1 +. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISON - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. V. 08 - of a oa SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' SROOFING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. RONALD B. BLUSTE PRAECIPE TO ISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons to Join RONALD B. BLUSTE, 6 Roseglen Road Duncannon, PA 17020, as an Additional Defendant in this case. Respectfully submitted: Sonya Ki s , Esquire Attorney I 92919 Mary Klatt, Esquire Attorney ID # 207664 Marcello & Kivisto, LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road Third Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 O: (717) 240-4686 F: (717) 258-4686 V _` CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISON - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. RONALD B. BLUSTE WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF-PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND. TO: Ronald B. Bluste 6 Roseglen Road Duncannon, PA 17020 You are notified that Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing, has joined you as an additional defendant in this action, which you are required to defend. Date 08?08 Seal of Court (Name of Prothonotary (Clerk)) By (Deputy) ra rn s co K c SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-02202 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC VS SPANGLER'S MILL INC ET AL 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'TL DEFEND. to wit: but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of PERRY serve the within COMPLAINT JOINING ADDL On May 14th , 2008 , this o attached return from PERRY Sheriff's Costs: So a Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 ice was in receipt of the Surcharge 10.00 c? R./whom s Kline Dep Perry County 38.15 Sybrif of Cumberland County .00 7 5. 15 ? 05/14/2008 MARCELLO & KIVISTO Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of County, Pennsylvania, to A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Rhodes Development Group Inc -VS- Spangler Mills Inc vs. Ronald B. Bluste Now, May 9, 2008 hereby deputize the Sheriff of No. 08-2202 civil I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do 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. Affidavit of Service Now, May 12, within upon 2008 , at 2:00 o'clock P Writ to Join Additional Defendant Thank you. M. served the Ronald B. Bluste at 6 Roseqlen Rd Duncannon, PA 17020(Wheatfield Twn) by handing to Ronald B. Bluste, Defendant Writ to Join a True & Attested copy of the originalAddditienal De f and made known to Him the contents thereof. So answers, Aaron Richards G-yCA, Deput keriff of Perry County, PA COSTS Sworn and subscribed before SERVICE $ me this /,,?f /1 day of , 20 D MILEAGE r AFFIDAVIT L 0 cY ? M E F. FLIVINGER, Notary Publ $ Bloomfield Boro. Perry County CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' SROOFING V. RONALD B. BLUSTE CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights import 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 YOU LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUED FEE OR NO FEES. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISION - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' SROOFING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. RONALD B. BLUSTE NOTICIA LE HAN DEMANDO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tien viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presenter una apariencia excrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defenses o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de tomara medidas y puede entrar una order contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que 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 ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, BAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONE A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO'PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISION - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. V.. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RONALD B. BLUSTE DEFENDANT TERRY PAYNE'S, INDIVIDUALLY AND DAB/A TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, JOINDER COMPLAINT DIRECTED TOWARD ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT RONALD B. BLUSTE AND NOW comes the Defendant Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing, by and through his attorneys, Marcello & Kivisto, LLC, and sets forth the following: 1. Terry Payne is an adult individual residing at 110 Diller Road, New Cumberland, PA 17070, who does business as Terry Payne's Roofing. (Terry Payne individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing will be referred to hereinafter as "Terry Payne"). 2. Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste is an adult individual residing at 6 Rose Glen Road, Duncannon, PA 17020. 3. On or about April 7, 2008, Plaintiffs Rhodes Development Group and Mercer Insurance Group filed a Complaint against Defendants, Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing and Terry Payne individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing, seeking property damage stemming from a fire, which occurred on or about November 6, 2006, at the Mountain View Village Apartments. (A copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and made a part hereof by reference without admission or adoption.) 4. Defendant Terry Payne filed his Answer, New Matter, and Cross-Claim to Plaintiff's Complaint on or about May 7, 2008. (A copy of Defendant's Answer with New Matter and Cross-Claim to Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "2" and made a part hereof by reference as though set forth in full.) 5. On May 8, 2007, Defendant Terry Payne had the Prothonotary of Cumberland County issue a Writ of Summons to Join Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste to the instant action. (A copy of the Writ is attached hereto as Exhibit "Y and made part hereof by reference as though set forth in full.) 6. On May 12, 2008, Terry Payne perfected service to join Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste, via deputized Sheriff's service, as evidenced by the attached Sheriff's Return of Service Form. (A copy of the Sheriff's Return regarding Defendant Terry Payne's Writ to Join Additional Defendant is attached hereto as Exhibit "4" and made part hereof by reference as though set forth in full.) 7. In Plaintiffs' Complaint, it is alleged that on November 6, 2006, a fire occurred at the Mountain View Village Apartments, an apartment complex owned by Mountain View Road Associates and insured by Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group. 8. Plaintiffs' Complaint also alleges that said fire occurred at the time roofing work was being performed on the Mountain View Village Apartments. 9. Plaintiffs' Complaint further alleges that said fire was a result of the negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of the roofers carrying out the work at the apartment complex. 10. Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste was performing roofing work on the Mountain View Apartment Complex on November 6, 2006, at the time the fired occurred. COUNT I--INDEMNIFICATION Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a, Terry Payne's Roofing v. Ronald Bluste 11. Defendant Terry Payne incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 thru 10 of this Complaint as if set forth in full here. 12. Plaintiffs have filed suit against Defendant Terry Payne for damages arising out of this fire. 13. Plaintffs seek damages in excess of the Cumberland County arbitration limits. 14. If Plaintiffs sustained the damages as alleged in their Complaint, said damages being herein strictly denied, then said damages were due solely to the actions, statements, or omissions of Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste and were not due to any actions, statements, or omissions of Defendant Terry Payne. 15. Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste is solely liable to Plaintiffs, or in the alternative, should Defendant Terry Payne be found liable to Plaintiffs, liability being herein strictly denied, then Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste is jointly and severally liable with Defendant Terry Payne and is liable over to Defendant Terry Payne by way of contribution and/or indemnification. WHEREFORE, Defendant Terry Payne respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against the Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste. tmm Vik a Ki to (PA No. 92919) Sony Mary Kla PA No. 207664) Marcello & Kivisto, LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road Third Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 (717)240-4686 r ` Y CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. NO. 09-2202 and , MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISION -LAW subroRee of RHODES DE'VE OPMBNI GROUP, M. V. SPANGLBR MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNB, individta311y and d/b/a TBR12Y PAYNE'SSLWFING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. RONALD B. BLUM VE F C ATYON I, Terry Payne, hereby verify that the averments made in the attached Joinder Complaint are UU6 and oonvot to the best of My information, knowledge and belief based upon the information available. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 P&C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: e ,.. . 'tip. 90/90 aid Sd?JQ21S?13Wd32i71 LTSSLELLTL 1-1:60 800Z/Z0/90 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. CIVIL DIVISION - LAW V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' SROOFING V. RONALD B. BLUSTE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing Joinder Complaint in the within action was served upon the following by enclosing the same in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid and depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class Mail, in Carlisle, PA on the 2°d day of June, 2008. Timothy McMahon Marshall Dennehey 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing Randall G. Gale 305 North Front Street, 6d` Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald B. Bluste 6 Roseglen Road Duncannon, PA 17020 Pro Se RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. : FOUR Falls Corporate Center, Suite 405 300 Conshohocken State Road West Conshohocken, PA 19428 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP : as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., 100 Mercer Drive Lock Haven, PA 17445 Plaintiffs V. SPANGLER' S MILL, INC. d/b/a EWING ROOFING 1425 Spanglers Mill Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING 110 Diller Road Fairview, PA 16415 Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO. CR - aoZDa 0,1 vi l Terk JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ...Pl 4551' 6.? 711 rl co .n m",3. OP FROM REWRt) :S? T i?'i %t8f9d, 3 3 t unto 0 a hash nd ihi $0 d Mid COW at CHl ii61. Pa. i Irk- NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 NOTICE 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. Belford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone (717) 249-3166 THOMAS. THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By' - - - Randall G. Gale, Esquire Corey J. Adamson, Esquire P.O. Box 999 Harrisbura, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7648 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES : 1300 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP as subrogee of MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES 100 Mercer Drive Lock Haven, PA 1744 Plaintiffs V. SPANGLER'S MILL, INC. d/b/a EWING ROOFING 1425 Spanglers Mill Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING 110 Diller Road Fairview, PA 1641 Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs Mountain View Road Associates and Mercer Insurance Group, as subrogee of Mountain View Road Associates and file this Complaint against the Defendants Spangler's Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing and Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing. The Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates is a Pennsylvania partnership with a principal place of business located at 1300 Market Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, 17043 and is engaged in the business of owning and operating residential apartments. ?. Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and maintains a principal place of business located at 100 Mercer Drive, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania 17745. At all times relevant hereto, Mercer Insurance Group was engaged in the business of providing property and other lines of insurance to residents and companies within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant Spangler's Mill. Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing Co. (hereinafter "Ewing Roofing") is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business located at 1425 Spanglers Mill Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. and at all times relevant hereto operated a roofing business. 4. Defendant Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing (hereinafter "Defendant Payne") is a Pennsylvania resident who, at all times relevant hereto, resided at 110 Diller Road, Fairview Township, York County, Pennsylvania 17070 and was engaged in the roofing business. 5. Prior to and on November 6, 2006, Plaintiff Mountain View- Road Associates was the owner of real property, including a residential apartment complex known as Mountain View Village located with an address at Mountain View Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Included in the Mountain View Village was an 18 unit apartment building on Elk Court, Hampden Township, Pennsylvania (hereinafter "the apartment building"). 7. Property Management, Inc. contracted with the owner of the Mountain View Village apartment complex to manage the apartment.complex for the owner. 8. In its role as manager of the Mountain View Village apartment complex, Property Management, Inc. had contracted with Defendant Ewing Roofing for roofing repair work on the apartment building. 9. Plaintiffs are informed and therefore aver that Defendant Terry Payne d/b/a Terry Payne Roofing entered into an agreement with Defendant Ewing Roofing to do repair work on the apartment building that Defendant Ewing; Roofing had contracted for with Property Management, Inc. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendant Terry Payne, individually and doing business as Terry Payne's Roofing was an agent, servant, employee and/or contractor for Defendant Ewing Roofing. H. At all times material hereto, the individuals doing the roofing work on the apartment building were agents, servants, employees of Defendant Ewing Roofing and these individuals carrying out the roofing work were under the control of Defendant Ewing Roofing and/or Defendant Ewing Roofing had the right to control the aforesaid individuals. 12. At all times material hereto, the individuals doing the roofing work on the apartment building were agents, servants, employees of Defendant Terry Payne, individually and doing business as Terry Payne's roofing and these individuals carrying out the roofing work were under the control of Defendant Payne and/or Defendant Payne had the right to control the aforesaid individuals. 13. On November 6, 2006, while the roofing work was being done on the apartment building by the Defendants. the building caught on fire. 14. The roofers noticed the fire at or around 12:1 p.m. 15. The fire originated outside at or near a small bush and the rear wall of the 18 unit apartment building. 16. At or around the time of the fire, the workers doing the roofing work for the Defendants were smoking on the roof and on the site. 3 17. Numerous cigarette butts were found in the mulch and in the bushes and bush clippings behind the apartment building in the area right below where the roofers were working and smoking on November 6, 2006 and where the fire originated. 18. Careless disposal of lighted smoking materials by the roofers who were the agents, servants, employees of the Defendants ignited mulch and/or hedge or brush clippings which fire then traveled up the vinyl siding of the building to the roof overhang and burned the roof, then spreading into the building. 19. Other reasonable causes for the fire originating at the lower exterior wall of the apartment building were excluded. 20. The apartment building sustained major property loss due to fire, smoke and water damage. 21. Damages include relevant reconstruction costs, cleaning expenses, utilities, rental income loss, rent credits and personnel and other related costs totaling $716,383.55. 22. On or about June 211 2006, Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group issued an insurance policy to Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates for the period June 21, 2006 to June 21, 2007 insuring Mountain View Road Associates for losses sustained at the above-referenced apartment complex and subject apartment building, including, but not limited to, property loss. 23. Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group made payments to its insured under the above- referenced policy in the amount of the loss less the $2,500 deductible and as subrogee of its insured . now seeks recovery from the Defendants. 24. Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates seeks its uninsured losses including its deductible. 4 COUNTI Plaintiffs v. Spanglers Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing 25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 26. Defendant Ewing Roofing owed a duty to the Plaintiffs to conduct the roofing repairs in a safe and workmanlike manner. 27. At all times during the performance of the work, the Defendants Ewing Roofing and its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors had a duty to perform the work safely and in accordance with standards of care recognized and ordinarily employed by reasonably prudent roofers. 28. The above-referenced fire was caused by and resulted from the negligent, reckless and careless acts and/or omissions of Defendant Ewing Roofing, its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors acting within the scope of their authority and course of their employment which acts and/or omissions consisted of: a. causing a fire to start which burned the apartment building being worked on; b. allowing unextin,uished smoking materials to come into contact with combustible materials at or around the apartment building; failing to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; I failing to properly extinguish their cigarette butts and/or smoking materials; throwing and/or rolling cigarette butts and smoking, materials off the roof of the apartment building; smoking on the roof of the apartment building; failino to take necessary precautions to avoid having unextinguished smoking materials come into contact with combustible materials; h. disposing of cigarette buts and smoking materials in an area containing combustible materials; i. failing to realize that their careless smoking practices were exposing the apartment building to an unreasonable risk of harm; j. failing to promptly notice that their careless disposal of cigarette butts and smoking materials had caused ignition of combustible material on the ground behind the apartment building; k. failing to promptly and properly extinguish the fire before it could damage the apartment building; 1. failing to provide adequate training for its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors in proper and safe practices in regard to smoking on the job site; M. failing to select or retain competent agents, servants, employees and/or contractors who would conduct the roofing work in a safe manner; n. failing to properly supervise their personnel in regard to careless smoking on the job site; o. failing to advise their personnel to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; P. failing to advise their personnel not to smoke on the roof or job site; q. failing to comply with any applicable government regulations in regard to smoking on the job site; and 6 failing to conduct themselves with the degree of skill and care customarily brought to such work by competent, skilled roofers. 29. The negligent. careless and reckless conduct on behalf of Defendant Ewing Roofing directly and proximately caused the fire and the spread of the fire causing, damage to the apartment building causing Plaintiffs' damages including= cost of reconstruction, cleaning costs, utilities, rental income loss, rent credits, personnel and other incidental and consequential damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Mountain View Road Associates and Mercer- Insurance Group demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Spangler's Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing co.. in an amount in excess of Cumberland County arbitration limits, together with interest, delay dama(yes and such other costs or damages as may be properly awarded by the Court. COUNT II Plaintiffs v. Terrv Pavne, individually and d/b/a Terrv Pavne's Roofin: 30. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 31. Defendant Payne owed a duty to the Plaintiffs to conduct the roofing repairs in a safe and workmanlike manner. 32. At all times during the performance of the work, Defendant Payne and his agents, servants, employees and/or contractors had a duty to perform the work safely and in accordance with standards of care recognized and ordinarily employed by reasonably prudent roofers. 33. The above-referenced fire was caused by and resulted from the negligent. reckless and careless acts and/or omissions of Defendant Payne, his agents, servants, employees and/or contractors acting within the scope of their authority and course of their employment which acts and/or omissions consisted of- 7 a. causing a fire to start which burned the apartment building being worked on, b. allowing unextinguished smoking materials to come into contact with combustible materials at or around the apartment building; C. failing to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; d. failing to properly extinguish their cigarette butts and/or smoking materials; throwing and/or rolling cigarette butts and smoking materials off the roof of the apartment building; f. smoking on the roof of the apartment building, CF. failing to take necessary precautions to avoid having unextinguished smoking materials come into contact with combustible material; h. disposing of cigarette butts and smoking materials in an area containing combustible materials; failing to realize that their careless smoking practices were exposing the apartment building to an unreasonable risk of harm; failing to promptly notice that their careless disposal of cigarette butts and smoking materials had caused ignition of combustible material on the ground behind the apartment building; k. failing to promptly and properly extinguish the fire before it could damage the apartment building; failing to provide adequate training for his agents, servants, employees and/or contractors in proper and safe practices in regard to smoking on the job site; M. failing to select or retain competent agents. servants, employees and/or contractors who would conduct the roofing work in a safe manner; n. failing= to properly supervise his personnel in regard to careless smoking on the job site, o. failing to advise his personnel to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials: p. failing to advise his personnel not to smoke on the roof or on the job site; q. failing to comply with any applicable government regulations in regard to smoking on the job site; and failing to conduct themselves with the degree of skill and care customarily brou(yht to such work by competent, skilled roofers. 34. The negligent. careless and reckless conduct on behalf of Defendant Payne directly and proximately caused the fire and the spread of the fire causing dama^e to the apartment building causing Plaintiffs' damages including cost of reconstruction, cleaning costs, utilities, rental income loss, rent credits, personnel and other incidental and consequential damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Mountain View Road Associates and Mercer Insurance Group demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne"s Roofing in an amount in excess of the Cumberland County arbitration limits, together with interest, delay damages and such other costs or damages as may be properly awarded by the Court. COUNT III Plaintiffs v. Spangler's Mill. Inc. d/b/a Ewin` Roofing Breach of Contract 35. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 36. On September 28, 2006, Property Management. Inc. entered into a contract with Defendant Ewin; Roofing for roofing work on the apartment building. 9 37. As owner of the apartment building, Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates was a third party beneficiary of the contract for roofing work between Property Management, Inc. and Defendant Ewing Roofing; Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group is the Subrogee of Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates. 38. Pursuant to the agreement for roofing work, Defendant Ewing Roofing was responsible to conduct the work under the contract in a safe and workmanlike manner and not to destroy the work done. 39. The above-referenced apartment building fire and the resulting damage to and destruction of Plaintiff s property were caused by and resulted from a breach of contract by Defendant Ewing Roofing through its agents, servants, employees, and/or contractors. Defendants Ewing Roofing's breach of the aforesaid contract was caused by the following: a. causing a fire to start which burned the apartment building being worked on; b. allowing unextinguished smoking materials to come into contact with combustible materials at or around the apartment building; failing to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; d. failing to properly extinguish their cigarette butts and/or smoking materials; e. throwing and/or rolling cigarette butts and smoking materials off the roof of the apartment building; f. smoking on the roof of the apartment building; g failing to take necessary precautions to avoid having unextinguished smoking materials come into contact with combustible material; h. disposing of cigarette butts and smoking materials in an area containing combustible materials; 10 failing to realize that their careless smoking practices were exposing the apartment building to an unreasonable risk of harm; failing to promptly notice that their careless disposal of cigarette butts and smoking materials had caused ignition of combustible material on the ground r behind the apartment building; k. failing to promptly and properly extinguish the fire before it could damage the apartment building; 1. failing to provide adequate training for its agents, servants, employees and/or contractors in proper and safe practices in regard to smoking on the job site; M. failing to select or retain competent agents, servants, employees and/or contractors who would conduct the roofing work in a safe manner; n. failing to properly supervise their personnel in regard to careless smoking, on the job site; o. failing to advise their personnel to properly dispose of their cigarette butts and smoking materials; p. failing to advise their personnel not to smoke on the roof or job site; q. failing to comply with any applicable government regulations in regard to smoking on their job site; and failing to conduct themselves with the degree of skill and care customarily brought to such work by competent, skilled roofers. 40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Ewing Roofing's breach of the aforesaid contract, Defendant Ewing Roofing directly and proximately caused the fire and spread of the fire causing damage to Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates property and causing Plaintiffs to incur damages including cost of reconstruction, cleaning costs, utilities, rental income loss, rent credits, personnel and other incidental and consequential damages. 41. Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group stands in the place of subrogee for Mountain View Road Associates for insurance payments made to Mountain View Road Associates in regard to the property loss. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Mountain View Road Associates and Mercer Insurance Group demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Spangler's Mill, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing in an amount in excess of the Cumberland County arbitration limits together with interest, delay dama-es and such other damages or costs as may be properly awarded by the Court. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: kR dall G. Gale, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 26149 Corey J. Adamson, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 204508 305 North Front Street, 6`" Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 _ (717) 255-7648 Date: cS ` Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 VERIFICATION __ . )n)4- -'f t n? , state that I am the aUthorized representative 'For the Plaintiff Mercer Insurance Group; and that the facts contained in the Complaint are true and correct to the hest of my knowledge, in formation and bel..ief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to ttnsworn fals.i'f cation to authorities. Date: i /ice/o 047 551}17.1 VERIFICATION I, AyzA state that I am the authorized representative for the U-?S?cGcr•.c?M?uR?cr?u?, _uc. Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates and that the facts contained in the Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: I? I u? 13 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.: NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISON - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights import 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 YOU LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUED FEE OR NO FEES. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.: NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISON - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. : Plaintiffs, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a : EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA LE HAN DEMANDO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tien viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presenter una apariencia excrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defenses o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de tomara medidas y puede entrar una order contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que 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 ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, BAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONE A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.: NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISON - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT TERRY PAYNE'S, individually and d/b/a TERRY' PAYNE'S ROOFING. ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM 1. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 1; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 2; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Admitted upon information and belief. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 5; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial 6. Admitted upon information and belief. 7. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 7; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 8; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendant entered into an agreement with Defendant Ewing Roofing to do repair work on the apartment building. It is denied that any formal contract existed between Answering Defendant and Defendant Ewing Roofing for said repair work. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the existence of any contract between Defendant Ewing Roofing and Property Management, Inc., to do repair work on the apartment building; hence those averments are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendant was a roofing contractor, who entered into an agreement with Defendant Ewing Roofing to do repair work on the apartment building. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was an agent, servant, or employee of Defendant Ewing Roofing. 11. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the averments are specifically denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that the individuals referred to in this paragraph were agents, servants, and/or employees of Answering Defendant and proof is demanded at time of trial. It is further specifically denied that said individuals were under the control of Answering Defendant and/or that Answering Defendant had the right to control said individuals. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that there was a fire at the apartment building on November 6, 2006. It is denied that the fire was the result of or caused by the roofing work or the actions of Answering Defendant. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the individuals performing the roofing work noticed the fire. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the time that the individuals noticed the fire; hence the allegations regarding time are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). Proof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 16; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 17. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 17 are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments are specifically denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. The averments of this paragraph are further denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e) and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). Proof is demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 20; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 21. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 21; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 22. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 22; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 23; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 24; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I PLAINTIFFS v. SPANGLERS MILL, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING 25. Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Answer herein and makes them a part hereof as if set forth in full. 26. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 27. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 28. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, the averments are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, the averments are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT II PLAINTIFFS v. TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING 30. Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Answer herein and makes them a part hereof as if set forth in full. 31. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant breached any duty owed to Plaintiffs and/or failed to perform the roofing repairs in a safe and workmanlike manner. 32. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant breached any duty owed to Plaintiffs. It is further denied that the acts of the individuals performing the roofing work caused or contributed to the fire. It is further denied that Answering Defendant control the individuals performing the roofing work. It is further denied that any act or failure to act on the part of Answering Defendant caused or contributed to the accident. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant is liable for the acts, omissions or negligence of the individuals performing the repair work. All allegations of agency, servitude or employment are specifically denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant is liable for the acts, omissions or negligence of the individuals performing the repair work. It is further denied that the acts of the individuals performing the roofing work caused or contributed to the fire. All allegations of agency, servitude or employment are specifically denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as follows: (a) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (b) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (c) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (d) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (e) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (f) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (g) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (h) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (i) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 0) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. (k) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (1) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, all allegations of agency, servitude or employment are specifically denied. It is further denied that Answering Defendant breached any duty he owed. (m) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). The averments are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, all allegations of agency, servitude or employment are specifically denied. I (n) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant had any personnel performing repair work on the apartment building. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (o) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant had any personnel performing repair work on the apartment building. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (p) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant had any personnel performing repair work on the apartment building. Further, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (q) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. (r) Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 34. Denied. The averments of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT III PLAINTIFFS v. SPANGLERS MILL, INC., individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING BREACH OF CONTRACT 35. Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Answer herein and makes them a part hereof as if set forth in full. 36. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 36; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 37. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 37; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 38. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 38; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. 39. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 40. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. The averments of this paragraph are further denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, the averments are specifically denied and denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e); proof is demanded at the time of trial. 41. The averments of this paragraph are directed at an individual other than Answering Defendant; hence no responsive pleading is required from Answering Defendant. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, Answering Defendant is without information or belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 37; hence they are denied and proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs. NEW MATTER 42. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims may be barred or reduced by release or waiver pending discovery. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.: NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as CIVIL DIVISON - LAW subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, Terry Payne, hereby verify that the averments made in the attached Answer are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief based upon the information available. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. By: Dated: -. -- l -" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Plaintiffs, V. CIVIL DIVISON - LAW SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'SROOFING Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing Answer in the within action was served upon the following by enclosing the same in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid and depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class Mail, in Carlisle, PA on the 6th day of May, 2008. Randall G. Gale 305 North Front Street, 6t' Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Attorney for Plaintiffs Timothy McMahon Marshall Dennehey 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing 'Aaw va- Mary Kla , Esquire CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. NO. 08-2202 and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, as subrogee of RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. CIVIL DIVISON - LAW V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING V. RONALD B. BLUSTE D8- '2010, Civil -Ier'M JURY TRIAL DEMANDED cn- ? o WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT S' -c3 v ± --< rn? co COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND. rn -? z N 7 C TO: Ronald B. Bluste 6 Roseglen Road Duncannon, PA 17020 You are notified that Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing, has joined you as an additional defendant in this action, which you are required to defend. Date ?08?08 Seal of Court (Name of Prothonotary (Clerk)) By (Deputy) IWE COPY FROM RECORD By Tes MOM w , i e U1#0 sat m hang d tt%O lW d said at Ca dwc a. ?` ..? CASE NO: 2008-02202 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC VS SPANGLER'S MILL INC ET AL 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'TL DEFEND. to wit: BLUSTE RONALD B but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of PERRY in his bailiwick. He therefore serve the within COMPLAINT JOINING ADDL County, Pennsylvania, to On May 14th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PERRY Sheriff's Costs: So Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 _ Surcharge 10.00 R. Dep Perry County 3 8 .15 .00 75.15 05/14/2008 MARCELLO & KIVISTO nom s xi1ne if of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania . Rhodes Development Group Inc -VS- Spangler Mills Inc _ VS. Ronald B. Bluste No. 08-2202 civil Now, May 9, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Perry deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. County to execute this Writ, this Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, within May 12 , , 20 0 8 , at 2:00 o'clock P M. served the Writ to Join Additional Defendant upon Ronald B. Bluste at 6 Roseglen Rd Duncannon, PA 17020(Wheatfield Twp) by handing to Ronald B. Bluste, Defendant Writ to Join a True & Attested copy of the original ditignal Deg. and made known to Him the contents thereof. So answers, Aaron Richards Deput9ieriff of Perry County, PA Sworn and subscribed before me this //1 day of - Aaa_ V "ET F. RMNW, Notary E3loortow SM. " ft COSTS SERVICE $ 200L MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT . ...a (°? i ?».,. P i (,,.td 1- _... ..,q.h .. r .; RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-2202 V. CIVIL TERM SPANGLER'S MILL, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING and TERRY PAYNE, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING Defendants DEFENDANT SPANGLER'S MILL, INC., DB/A EWING ROOFING'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT TERRY PAYNE, DB/A TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING'S CROSS CLAIM 47. Answering Defendant incorporates its Answer with New Matter Cross Claim to Plaintiffs Complaint as if fully set forth at length herein. 48. Denied. The averments set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, said averments are denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 49. Denied. The averments set forth in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, said averments are denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant Spangler's Mill, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Defendant Teary Payne, d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing together as this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, DATE: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COL & GOGGIN BY: l /Ijn TIMO Y J. cMAHON, ESQUIRE D I.D. No. 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 Attorney for Defendant, Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing -+ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sarah A. Doerfler, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this day of June, 2008, I served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Randall G. Gale, Esquire Corey J. Adamson, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street, 6th Floor PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Sonya Kivisto, Esquire Marcello & Kivisto, LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road 3rd Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 Attorney for Defendant Terry Payne, Individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing Sarah A. Doerfler osiaoa108.0 N -Ti '- t .?i Randall G. Gale, Esquire Attorney I.D. #26149 Corey J. Adamson, Esquire Attorney I.D. #204508 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 717-255-7639 cadamson@tthlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.,: and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/s/o : RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. : Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-2202 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. SPANGLER' S MILL, INC. d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING, Defendants V. RONALD B. BLUSTE Additional Defendant PLAINTIFFS MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES AND MERCER INSURANCE GROUP'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF TERRY PAYNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND DB/A TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Mountain View Road Associates', and Mercer Insurance Group, as subrogee of Mountain View Road Associates, and file this Response to the Through mistake of the Plaintiffs, the Complaint initiating the instant matter was filed with a Notice to Plead that contained an incorrect caption, which identified Rhodes Development Group, Inc. as a Plaintiff, rather than Mountain View Road Associates. However, the Complaint itself was correctly captioned with Mountain View Road Associates as a named Plaintiff, and the body of the same contains the substantive claims of Plaintiff Mountain View Road Associates. Plaintiffs will be seeking the agreement of all counsel to amend/correct the caption and will be filing an appropriate motion to correct the caption. As the docket currently exists, the caption is reflected as Rhodes Development as a Plaintiff, due to that party being listed on the Notice to Defend. New Matter of Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing, stating and averring as follows: 42. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 43. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 44. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 45. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 46. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 47. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 48. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 2 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs Mountain View Road Associates and Mercer Insurance Group demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing. CROSS CLAIM TERRY PAYNE v. SPANGLER MILLS, INC. 47 [sic]. The averments if this paragraph are directed to a party other than Plaintiffs, and thus no response is required. 48. [sic] The averments if this paragraph are directed to a party other than Plaintiffs, and thus no response is required. 49. The averments if this paragraph are directed to a party other than Plaintiffs, and thus no response is required. Respectfully submitted, & HAFER, Date: & - /J - e) " By: 3 Rand e, Esquire A rn I.D. No. 26149 C J. Adamson, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 204508 305 North Front Street, 6t' Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7648 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sherry Hauenstein, a secretary for the law firm of Thomas, Thomas and Hafer, LLP do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following by enclosing a true and correct copy in envelopes addressed as follows, postage prepaid, and depositing same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on the /a day of June, 2008. Timothy McMahon, Esq. Marshall Dennehy 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing Mary Klatt, Esq. Marcello & Kivisto, LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road Third Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 Attorney for Defendant Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing Ronald B. Bluste 6 Rose Glen Road Duncannon, PA 17020 Sherry u4 ? ? O r: ? -n ?? f ??r .._ ?. rr7r,.?. - ` l. ? ?t t _ _ -? `=-j ?= r C7 ?'C? W ?? ? W ? JENNIFER LONG, Plaintiff V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 07-7296 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO.: 08-1537 Civil Term V. CIVIL ACTION -LAW SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, Defendants RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. : and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP Plaintiffs V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING and TERRY PAYNE, d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-2202 ? CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing, by and through its counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin hereby files a Motion to Consolidate the matter docketed in the above captioned cases into the original suit docketed at Docket Number 07-7296 and in support thereof avers as follows. 1. Plaintiff, Jennifer Long, filed a Complaint against Defendants Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing, Terry Payne and Ronald B. Bluste at Docket Number 07-7296 on or about December 3, 2007. 2. Plaintiffs Phillip and Andrea Alleman filed a Complaint against Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing and Terry Payne, d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing at Docket Number 08-1537 on or about March 6, 2008. 3. Defendant, Terry Payne, d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing, filed a Joinder Complaint directed to Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste at Docket Number 08-1537 on or about May 9, 2008. 4. Plaintiff Rhodes Development Group filed a Complaint against Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing and Terry Payne, d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing at Docket Number 08-2202 on or about March 31, 2008. 5. Defendant Spangler Mills, d/b/a Ewing Roofing requests consolidation of the above referenced lawsuits in order to simplify future pleadings, discovery and trial. 6. Richard H. Wix, counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Long, concurs with this motion. 7. Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., counsel for Plaintiffs Phillip and Andrea Alleman, concurs with this motion. 8. Randall G. Gale, counsel for Plaintiff Rhodes Development Group (Mountain View Road Associates), concurs with this motion. 9. Sonya Kivisto, counsel for Defendant Terry Payne, d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing, concurs with this motion. 10. Ronald B. Bluste is proceeding pro se and an attempt to contact Mr. Bluste was made and he neither expressed his concurrence or lack of concurrence to this motion. 11. All three of the foregoing lawsuits arise out of a fire loss which occurred on November 6, 2006 at an apartment building in Mountain View Village, Hampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, resulting in alleged property damage to the plaintiffs. 12. Consolidation of matters involving common questions of law in fact which arise from the same transaction or occurrence may be consolidated, by the Court, upon motion of any party, in order to avoid a necessary cost or delay. Pa. R.C.P. 213 13. As all of the foregoing lawsuits involve common questions of law in fact, consolidation is in the interest of judicial economy by avoiding unnecessary costs and/or delays for this Honorable Court to consolidated the foregoing matters to the case filed at 07-7296. WHEREFORE, Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant its Motion to Consolidate and order the consolidation of the foregoing actions into that lawsuit docketed at Cumberland County No. 07-7296 with all prior and subsequent pleadings consolidated to that action to reflect the same docket number. Respectfully submitted, DATE: ( q 01 BY: ON, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 52918 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 Attorney for Defendant, Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing t ?,, DENNEHEY, WARNER, & GOGGIN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sarah A. Doerfler, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this day of July, 2008, I served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Randall G. Gale, Esquire Corey J. Adamson, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street, 6th Floor PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Attorney for Plaintiff Rhodes Development Group Sonya Kivisto, Esquire Marcello & Kivisto, LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road 3rd Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 Attorney for Defendant Terry Payne, Individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing Richard H. Wix, Esquire Wix, Wenger & Weidner 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 Attorney for Plaintiff Jennifer Long Ronald B. Bluste 6 Roseglen Road Duncannon, PA 17020 Pro Se Defendant osiaoazzz.v i Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. Tucker Arensberg, P.C. 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Attorney for Plaintiffs Phillip and Andrea Alleman Sarah A. Doerfler r? ,?) ?--} ? t 1 ?? ?-1?`? ??` ??..ti `:? rt °.? < . ... c.? •..? _. c JENNIFER LONG, Plaintiff V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 07-7296 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO.: 08-1537 Civil Term V. CIVIL ACTION -LAW SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, Defendants RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. : and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiffs V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING and TERRY PAYNE, d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-2202 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants AMENDED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing, by and through its counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin hereby files a Motion to Consolidate the 4 matter docketed in the above captioned cases into the original suit docketed at Docket Number 07-7296 and in support thereof avers as follows. 1. Plaintiff, Jennifer Long, filed a Complaint against Defendants Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing, Terry Payne and Ronald B. Bluste at Docket Number 07-7296 on or about December 3, 2007. 2. Plaintiffs Phillip and Andrea Alleman filed a Complaint against Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing and Terry Payne, d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing at Docket Number 08-1537 on or about March 6, 2008. 3. Defendant, Terry Payne, d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing, filed a Joinder Complaint directed to Additional Defendant Ronald B. Bluste at Docket Number 08-1537 on or about May 9, 2008. 4. Plaintiff Rhodes Development Group filed a Complaint against Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing and Terry Payne, d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing at Docket Number 08-2202 on or about March 31, 2008. 5. Defendant Spangler Mills, d/b/a Ewing Roofing requests consolidation of the above referenced lawsuits in order to simplify future pleadings, discovery and trial. 6. Richard H. Wix, counsel for Plaintiff Jennifer Long, concurs with this motion. 7. Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., counsel for Plaintiffs Phillip and Andrea Alleman, concurs with this motion. 8. Randall G. Gale, counsel for Plaintiff Rhodes Development Group (Mountain View Road Associates), concurs with this motion. 9. Sonya Kivisto, counsel for Defendant Terry Payne, d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing, concurs with this motion. 10. Ronald B. Bluste is proceeding pro se and an attempt to contact Mr. Bluste was made and he neither expressed his concurrence or lack of concurrence to this motion. 11. All three of the foregoing lawsuits arise out of a fire loss which occurred on November 6, 2006 at an apartment building in Mountain View Village, Hampton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, resulting in alleged property damage to the plaintiffs. 12. Consolidation of matters involving common questions of law in fact which arise from the same transaction or occurrence may be consolidated, by the Court, upon motion of any party, in order to avoid a necessary cost or delay. Pa. R.C.P. 213. 13. As all of the foregoing lawsuits involve common questions of law in fact, consolidation is in the interest of judicial economy by avoiding unnecessary costs and/or delays for this Honorable Court to consolidated the foregoing matters to the case filed at 07-7296. 14. No judge has had any involvement in this matter to date. WHEREFORE, Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant its Motion to Consolidate and order the consolidation of the foregoing actions into that lawsuit docketed at Cumberland County No. 07-7296 with all prior and subsequent pleadings consolidated to that action to reflect the same docket number. Respectfully submitted, DATE: I II oq MARS AT I COLE AN A BY: TIMO'TRY J.1 I.D. No. 52918 DENNEHEY, WARNER, GOGGIN ON, ESQUIRE 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3505 Attorney for Defendant, Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sarah A. Doerfler, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this day of July, 2008, I served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, as follows: Randall G. Gale, Esquire Corey J. Adamson, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street, 6th Floor PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Attorney for Plaintiff Rhodes Development Group Sonya Kivisto, Esquire Marcello & Kivisto, LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road 3rd Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 Attorney for Defendant Terry Payne, Individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing Richard H. Wix, Esquire Wix, Wenger & Weidner 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109-3099 Attorney for Plaintiff Jennifer Long Ronald B. Bluste 6 Roseglen Road Duncannon, PA 17020 Pro Se Defendant Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. Tucker Arensberg, P.C. 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Attorney for Plaintiffs Phillip and Andrea Alleman Sarah A. Doerfler osiaoa222.0 ^' f - --t ?t c.7 . AIA JENNIFER LONG, Plaintiff V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE, Defendants PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN, Plaintiffs V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, OW1727(1/ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 07-7296 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 08-1537 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. : and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP V. Plaintiffs SPANGLER'S MILL, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING and TERRY PAYNE, d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-2202 ? CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW this day o , 2008, upon consideration of Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc., d/b/a Ewing Roofing's Motion to Consolidate it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is granted and the matters currently pending at Docket Numbers 08-2202 and 08-1537 are consolidated into Docket Number 07-7296 for all purposes of litigation. 5 JENNIFER LONG, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 07-7296 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually NO. 08-1537 and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE's ROOFING, CIVIL DIVISION - LAW V. RONALD B. BLUSTE. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and CUMBERLAND COUNTY MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/s/o MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES NO. 08-2202 V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a CIVIL DIVISION - LAW EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE's ROOFING V. RONALD B. BLUSTE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS PURUSANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendants certify that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas with a copy of the subpoenas attached thereto was mailed or delivered to Plaintiff's counsel at least twenty days prior to the day on which the subpoenas were sought to be served; 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoenas, are attached to this Certificate; 3. No objection to the subpoena has been received, and 4. The subpoenas which will be served are identical to the subpoenas which are attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas. Date: October 27, 2008 MARCELLO & KIVISTO, LLC By: Sonya , Istb, Esquire 1200 Vy'a ut Bottom Road Third Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)240-4686 Attorneys for Defendants JENNIFER LONG, v. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B, BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 07-7296 CIVIL DIVISION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, V. RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-1537 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MUUNIAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/s/o MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING: V. RONALD B. BLUSTE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-2202 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 TO: Counsel and Parties of Record Defendant intends to serve subpoenas identical to the ones attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoenas. If no objection is made, the subpoenas may be served. Date: September 18, 2008 MARCELLO & O, LLC By: So a -sto, Esquire Mary t, Esquire 1200 Walnut Bottom Road Third Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 (717)2404686 Attorney for Defendant Payne JENNIFER LONG, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 07-7296 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL, DEMANDED rnI -IF Ai_,1,-tMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING; v. RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-1537 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED iv1UUiN 1 AIN v1Lw ROAD ASSOCIATES and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/s/o MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING : V. RONALD B. BLUSTE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-2202 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hampden Township Fire Department 295 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records, notes, memoranda, reports, including origin and cause reports, photographs, your complete investigation file and/or investigation materials, correspondence, writings and all other documents and materials relating to any and all fire incident(s) at the Mountain View Village Apartment Complex, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, PA, including but not limited to the fire of November 6, 2006 at: Marcello & Kivisto LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road Third Floor. Suite 331, Carlisle PA 17015. 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: Mary Klatt, Esquire ADDRESS: 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor, Suite 331, Carlisle, PA 17015 TELEPHONE: (717)240-4686 SUPREME COURT ID#: 207664 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Terry Payne BY THE COURT: DATE:- t4 APr Se 1 of e Court thonotary/Clerk, Civil Di2sion Deputy JENNIFER LONG, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 07-7296 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, v. RONALD B. BLUSTE. MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/sto MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING: v. RONALD B. BLUSTE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-1537 CIVIL DIVISION -- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-2202 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: John Bruetsch, Cumberland County Department of Public Safety One Courthouse Square Carlisle PA 17013 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records, notes, memoranda, reports, photographs, your complete investigation file and/or investigation materials, correspondence, writings and all other documents and materials relating to any and all fire incident(s) at the Mountain View Village Apartment Complex, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, PA, including but not limited to the fire of November 6, 2006 at: Marcello & Vivisto, LLC, 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor, Suite 331, Carlisle, PA 17015. 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: Mary Klatt, Esquire ADDRESS: 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor, Suite 331, Carlisle, PA 17015 TELEPHONE: (717)240-4686 SUPREME COURT ID#: 207664 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Terry Payne DATE:akg Sea of the Court BY THE COURT: s - lam- • " i0K6 r thonotary/Clerk, Civil I)Jvision Deputy JENNIFER LONG, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 07-7296 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING, V. RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-1537 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/s/o MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING : v. RONALD B. BLUSTE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-2202 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: RestoreCore, 2322 North 7`h Street Harrisburg PA 17110 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records, notes, memoranda, invoices, reports and/or service reports/repairs, _invoices, photographs, investigation materials, correspondence, claims, writings and all other documents and materials relating to any and all fire incident(s) at the Mountain View Village Apartment Complex, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, PA, including but not limited to the fire of November 6, 2006 at: Marcello_ & Kivisto, LLC, 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor, Suite 331, Carlisle, PA 17015 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: Mary Klatt, Esquire ADDRESS: 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor, Suite 331, Carlisle, PA 17015 TELEPHONE: (717)240-4686 SUPREME COURT ID#: 207664 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Terry Payne BY THE COURT: DATE: 9 0?3 4rs Seal oft Court thonotary/Clerk, Civil D(Jision Deputy JENNIFER LONG, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 07-7296 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN . V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, v. RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-1537 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL, DEMANDED MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/s/o MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-2202 V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a CIVIL DIVISION - LAW EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING : V' RONALD B. BLUSTE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hampden Township Police Department, 230 South Sporting Hill Road Mechanicsburg PA 17050 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records, notes, memoranda, reports, including origin and cause reports photographs, your complete investigation file and/or investigation materials, correspondence, writings and all other documents and materials relating to any and all fire incident(s) at the Mountain View Village Apartment Complex, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, PA, including but not limited to the fire of November 6, 2006 at: Marcello & Kivisto, LLC, 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor, Suite 331, Carlisle. PA 17015. 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: Mary Klatt, Esquire ADDRESS: 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor, Suite 331, Carlisle, PA 17015 TELEPHONE: (717)2404686 SUPREME COURT ID#: 207664 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Terry Payne BY THE COURT: DATE: !04-310'q OutjLt- 0 r Sea of the Court PP of ary/Clerk, Civi ivision Deputy JENNIFER LONG, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 07-7296 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL, DEMANDED PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, V. RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-1537 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/s/o MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING: v. RONALD B. BLUSTE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-2202 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Pennsylvania State Police 1800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg PA 17110 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all notes, memoranda, records, reports, including origin and cause reports, photographs, your complete investigative report. Me, and/or materials, correspondence, writings and all other documents and materials relating to any and all fire incident(s) at the Mountain View Village Apartment Complex, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, PA, including but not limited to the fire of November 6, 2006 Incident # H2-1617076 at: Marcello & Kivisto LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road Third Floor Suite 331, Carlisle PA 170.15. 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: Mary Klatt, Esquire ADDRESS: 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor, Suite 331, Carlisle, PA 17015 TELEPHONE: (717)240-4686 SUPREME COURT ID#: 207664 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Terry Payne BY THE COURT: DATE: 0 _ /s/ " K.. " 'p? Sea of he Court P othonotary/Clerk, Civil ivision Deputy JENNIFER LONG, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE. PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, V. RONALD B. BLUSTE. MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/s/o MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING : v. RONALD B. BLUSTE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 07-7296 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL. DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-1537 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-2202 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: American Red Cross of the Susquehanna Valley, 1804 North 6 h Street, P.O. Box 5740, Harrisburg, PA 17110-0740 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records, notes, memoranda, reports, photographs, files, investigation materials correspondence, writings, invoices, and all other documents and materials relating to the any and all fire incident(s) at the Mountain View Village Apartment Complex, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, PA, including but not limited to the fire of November 6, 2006 at: Marcello & Kivisto, LLC, 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor. Suite 331. Carlisle, PA 17015. 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: Mary Klatt, Esquire ADDRESS: 1200 Walnut Bottom Road, Third Floor, Suite 331, Carlisle, PA 17015 TELEPHONE: (717)240-4686 SUPREME COURT ID#: 207664 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Terry Payne BY THE COURT: DATE: 6n ID2 S a Sea oft the Court thonotary/Clerk, Civil ' ision Deputy JENNIFER LONG, V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, TERRY PAYNE and RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 07-7296 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PHILLIP ALLEMAN and ANDREA ALLEMAN V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., Individually and d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE'S ROOFING, V. RONALD B. BLUSTE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-1537 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP, a/s/o MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATES V. SPANGLER MILLS, INC., d/b/a EWING ROOFING, and TERRY PAYNE, Individually and d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING : v. RONALD B. BLUSTE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 08-2202 CIVIL DIVISION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite was served upon the following by enclosing the same in an envelope addressed as follows, postage prepaid and depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class Mail, in Carlisle, PA on the 27th day of October, 2008. Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. Tucker Arensberg, P.C. 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Timothy McMahon Marshall Dennehey 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Richard H. Wix Wix, Wenger & Weidner 4705 Duke Street Harrisburg, PA 17109 Randall G. Gale 305 North Front Street, 6`h Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 Ronald B. Bluste 6 Roseglen Road Duncannon; PA 17020 ebecc finer, Paralegal " C`7 `. .prs C7) ?J ?7 iw RHODES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. and MERCER INSURANCE GROUP Plaintiffs V. SPANGLER'S MILL, INC, d/b/a EWING ROOFING and TERRY TERRY PAYNE d/b/a TERRY PAYNE' S ROOFING, Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO.: 08-2202;"M;:0 ? wr- r\3 CIVIL TERM C- -??y JURY TRIAL DEMANDED + PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above captioned matter as Settled, Discontinued and Ended. THOMAS, T MAS & HAFER, LLP By: / I U wilYd- Date: Randall G. Gale, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 26149 Corey J. Adamson, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 204508 305 North Front Street, 6th Floor P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7648 Attorneys for Plaintiff IV CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Randall G. Gale, Esquire, Thomas, Thomas and Hafer, LLP do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following by enclosing a true and correct copy in envelopes addressed as follows, postage prepaid, and depositing same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Christopher M. Reeser, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant Spangler Mills, Inc. d/b/a Ewing Roofing Sonya Kivisto, Esquire Marcello & Kivisto, LLC 1200 Walnut Bottom Road Third Floor, Suite 331 Carlisle, PA 17015 Attorney for Defendant Terry Payne, individually and d/b/a Terry Payne's Roofing r Date By: Randa G Mile, Esquire Attorne umber: 26149 P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 717-255-7648; rgale(a)-tthlaw.com