Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-5031NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035 518 TOWNSHIP LINE RD., SUITE 300 BLUE BELL, PA 19422 (215)358-5100 MICHAEL KENNEDY 328 Old York Rd., New Cumberland, PA KENNEDY APPRAISALS 328 Old York Rd., New Cumberland, PA V. Plaintiff(s) WIREMOLD 60 Woodlawn Street West Hartford CT THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION, INC. 60 Woodlawn Street West Hartford CT THE WIREMOLD COMPANY 60 Woodlawn Street West Hartford CT WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION 60 Woodlawn Street West Hartford CT NOTICE TO DEFEND ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO: Q$ - 6031 0'iy it-rert, 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 (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an 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 or any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. 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. Legal Services of Cumberland County PA 32 S.1 Bedford Street Carlisle PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035 518 TOWNSHIP LINE RD., SUITE 300 BLUE BELL, PA 19422 (215) 358-5100 MICHAEL KENNEDY 328 Old York Rd., New Cumberland, PA KENNEDY APPRAISALS 328 Old York Rd., New Cumberland, PA Plaintiff(s) V. WIREMOLD 60 Woodlawn Street West Hartford CT THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION, INC. 60 Woodlawn Street West Hartford CT THE WIREMOLD COMPANY 60 Woodlawn Street West Hartford CT WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION 60 Woodlawn Street West Hartford CT COMPLAINT ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO: Plaintiffs, through undersigned counsel, hereby initiates this civil action against Defendants and, in support thereof, state as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Michael Kennedy (hereinafter "Kennedy"), is an adult individual who, at all times hereto, owned/resided at 328 Old York Rd., New Cumberland, Pennsylvania (hereinafter "subject property"). 2. Plaintiff, Kennedy Appraisals (hereinafter "Appraisals"), is a business entity with a primary place of business located at 328 Old York, Rd., New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Wiremold is a Connecticut business with its principle place of business located at 60 Woodlawn Street, West Hartford, Connecticut. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc. is a Connecticut corporation located at 60 Woodlawn Street, West Hartford, Connecticut. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant, The Wiremold Company is a Connecticut business with its principle place of business located at 60 Woodlawn Street, West Hartford Connecticut. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Wiremold International Sales Corporation is a Connecticut corporation with its principle place of business located at 60 Woodlawn Street, West Hartford Connecticut. 7. Defendants are businesses that offer for sale, distribution, and/or manufacture, inter alia, electric equipment and appliances and electrical components, including surge protectors. 8. Prior to October 22, 2006, Plaintiffs purchased a surge protector manufactured and/or distributed by Defendants. 9. On October 22, 2006, the surge protector malfunctioned, ultimately causing a fire in Plaintiffs' house that extensively damaged Plaintiffs' real and personal property. 10. As a result of the aforementioned fire, the Plaintiffs sustained substantial damage to their real and personal property, as well as additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. 11. The damages described above were directly and proximately caused by the defendants as more fully described below. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFFS VS. WIREMOLD 12. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 11, as though fully set forth herein at length. 13. Additionally, and/or alternately, Plaintiffs assert the following Count. 14. The aforementioned damages were the direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Wiremold, including negligent acts and/or omissions of such defendant, as performed by and through its agents, employees, and/or servants, more specifically described as follows: (a) failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties as a manufacturer / distributor of the surge suppressor - power strips and/or electrical components - including, but not limited to, carelessly and negligently performing the following: i. failing to properly inspect and/or test the surge protector and components thereof, ii. failing to properly recommend that the surge protector and components thereof be brought into compliance with proper standards; iii. failing to properly determine that the surge protector and components thereof were not in compliance with proper standards; iv. failing to properly ensure that the surge protector and components thereof were compliant with proper standards; and/or v. distributing and/or selling the surge protector and components thereof to Plaintiffs when Defendant knew or should have known that the surge protector and/or components thereof would be inadequate for the reasons for which purchased. (b) failing to adequately instruct its servants, employees and agents as to the proper ways to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a); (c) failing to adequately warn Plaintiffs and others of the defects resulting from the careless and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as set forth in subparagraph (a), above; (d) failing to provide, establish and/or follow proper and adequate controls so as to ensure the proper performance of the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) above; (e) failing to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) in conformity with the prevailing industry and governmental specifications and standards; and (f) violating the standards of care prescribed by statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, and/or industry customs applicable to their action. 15. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiffs sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, and the imposition of additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Wiremold, individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFFS VS. THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION. INC. 16. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 11, as though fully set forth herein at length. 17. Additionally, and/or alternately, Plaintiffs assert the following Count. 18. The aforementioned damages were the direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., including negligent acts and/or omissions of such defendant, as performed by and through its agents, employees, and/or servants, more specifically described as follows: (a) failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties as a manufacturer / distributor of the surge suppressor - power strips and/or electrical components - including, but not limited to, carelessly and negligently performing the following: i. failing to properly inspect and/or test the surge protector and components thereof; ii. failing to properly recommend that the surge protector and components thereof be brought into compliance with proper standards; iii. failing to properly determine that the surge protector and components thereof were not in compliance with proper standards; iv. failing to properly ensure that the surge protector and components thereof were compliant with proper standards; and/or V. distributing and/or selling the surge protector and components thereof to Plaintiffs when Defendant knew or should have known that the surge protector and/or components thereof would be inadequate for the reasons for which purchased. (b) failing to adequately instruct its servants, employees and agents as to the proper ways to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a); (c) failing to adequately warn Plaintiffs and others of the defects resulting from the careless and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as set forth in subparagraph (a), above; (d) failing to provide, establish and/or follow proper and adequate controls so as to ensure the proper performance of the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) above; (e) failing to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) in conformity with the prevailing industry and governmental specifications and standards; and (f) violating the standards of care prescribed by statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, and/or industry customs applicable to their action. 19. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiffs sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, and the imposition of additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFFS VS. THE WIREMOLD COMPANY 20. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 19, as though fully set forth herein at length. 21. Additionally, and/or alternately, Plaintiffs assert the following Count. 22. The aforementioned damages were the direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, The Wiremold Company, including negligent acts and/or omissions of such defendant, as performed by and through its agents, employees, and/or servants, more specifically described as follows: (a) failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties as a manufacturer / distributor of the surge suppressor - power strips and/or electrical components - including, but not limited to, carelessly and negligently performing the following: failing to properly inspect and/or test the surge protector and components thereof; ii. failing to properly recommend that the surge protector and components thereof be brought into compliance with proper standards; iii. failing to properly determine that the surge protector and components thereof were not in compliance with proper standards; iv. failing to properly ensure that the surge protector and components thereof were compliant with proper standards; and/or v. distributing and/or selling the surge protector and components thereof to Plaintiffs when Defendant knew or should have known that the surge protector and/or components thereof would be inadequate for the reasons for which purchased. (b) failing to adequately instruct its servants, employees and agents as to the proper ways to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a); (c) failing to adequately warn Plaintiffs and others of the defects resulting from the careless and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as set forth in subparagraph (a), above; (d) failing to provide, establish and/or follow proper and adequate controls so as to ensure the proper performance of the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) above; (e) failing to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) in conformity with the prevailing industry and governmental specifications and standards; and (f) violating the standards of care prescribed by statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, and/or industry customs applicable to their action. 23. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiffs sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, and the imposition of additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant The Wiremold Company individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFFS VS. WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION 24. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 23, as though fully set forth herein at length. 25. Additionally, and/or alternately, Plaintiffs assert the following Count. 26. The aforementioned damages were the direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Wiremold International Sales Corporation including negligent acts and/or omissions of such defendant, as performed by and through its agents, employees, and/or servants, more specifically described as follows: (a) failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of its duties as a manufacturer / distributor of the surge suppressor - power strips and/or electrical components - including, but not limited to, carelessly and negligently performing the following: failing to properly inspect and/or test the surge protector and components thereof; ii. failing to properly recommend that the surge protector and components thereof be brought into compliance with proper standards; iii. failing to properly determine that the surge protector and components thereof were not in compliance with proper standards; iv. failing to properly ensure that the surge protector and components thereof were compliant with proper standards; and/or v. distributing and/or selling the surge protector and components thereof to Plaintiffs when Defendant knew or should have known that the surge protector and/or components thereof would be inadequate for the reasons for which purchased. (b) failing to adequately instruct its servants, employees and agents as to the proper ways to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a); (c) failing to adequately warn Plaintiffs and others of the defects resulting from the careless and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as set forth in subparagraph (a), above; (d) failing to provide, establish and/or follow proper and adequate controls so as to ensure the proper performance of the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) above; (e) failing to perform the tasks set forth in subparagraph (a) in conformity with the prevailing industry and governmental specifications and standards; and (f) violating the standards of care prescribed by statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes, and/or industry customs applicable to their action. 27. As a direct and proximate result of such negligence, Plaintiffs sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, and the imposition of additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant, Wiremold International Sales Corporation individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT V - BREACH OF WARRANTY PLAINTIFFS VS. WIREMOLD 28. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 as though same were fully set forth at length. 29. At the time of contracting for the sale and/or distribution of the surge protector, Defendant, Wiremold, had reason to know the particular purpose for which the surge protector would be used and knew that its skill and judgment were being relied upon to furnish a suitable product. Thus, Defendant breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as set out in the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 2-315 in that the surge protector was not fit for the particular purpose for which such products are required. 30. In addition, Defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-314 (c) in that the surge protector was not fit for the ordinary uses for which the surge protector was used. 31. In addition, Defendant breached any and all express warranties made or relating to the surge protector that became part of the basis of the bargain for sale of the product in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313. 32. Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above occurred as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of their implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 and § 2-314 (c) and as a result of Defendant's breach of their expressed warrantees in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant, Wiremold individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT VI - BREACH OF WARRANTY PLAINTIFFS VS. THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION. INC. 33. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 as though same were fully set forth at length. 34. At the time of contracting for the sale and/or distribution of the surge protector, Defendant, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., had reason to know the particular purpose to which the surge protector would be used and knew that its skill and judgment were being relied upon to furnish a suitable product. Thus, Defendant breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as set out in the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 in that the surge protector was not fit for the particular purpose for which such products are required. 35. In addition, Defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-314 (c) in that the surge protector was not fit for the ordinary uses for which the surge protector was used. 36. In addition, Defendant breached any and all express warranties made or relating to the surge protector that became part of the basis of the bargain for sale of the product in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313. 37. Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above occurred as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of their implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 and § 2-314 (c) and as a result of Defendant's breach of their expressed warrantees in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT VII - BREACH OF WARRANTY PLAINTIFFS VS. THE WIREMOLD COMPANY 38. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 37 as though same were fully set forth at length. 39. At the time of contracting for the sale and/or distribution of the surge protector, Defendant, The Wiremold Company, had reason to know the particular purpose to which the surge protector would be used and knew that its skill and judgment were being relied upon to furnish a suitable product. Thus, Defendant breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as set out in the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 in that the surge protector was not fit for the particular purpose for which such products are required. 40. In addition, Defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-314 (c) in that the surge protector was not fit for the ordinary uses for which the surge protector was used. 41. In addition, Defendant breached any and all express warranties made or relating to the surge protector that became part of the basis of the bargain for sale of the product in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313. 42. Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above occurred as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of their implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 and § 2-314 (c) and as a result of Defendant's breach of their expressed warrantees in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant, The Wiremold Company individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT VIII - BREACH OF WARRANTY PLAINTIFFS VS. WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION 43. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 42 as though same were fully set forth at length. 44. At the time of contracting for the sale and/or distribution of the surge protector, Defendant, Wiremold International Sales Corporation, had reason to know the particular purpose to which the surge protector would be used and knew that its skill and judgment were being relied upon to furnish a suitable product. Thus, Defendant breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose as set out in the Uniform Commercial Code (hereinafter "UCC") 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 in that the surge protector was not fit for the particular purpose for which such products are required. 45. In addition, Defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-314 (c) in that the surge protector was not fit for the ordinary uses for which the surge protector was used. 46. In addition, Defendant breached any and all express warranties made or relating to the surge protector that became part of the basis of the bargain for sale of the product in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313. 47. Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above occurred as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of their implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability as set out in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-315 and § 2-314 (c) and as a result of Defendant's breach of their expressed warrantees in derogation of 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2-313. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant, Wiremold International Sales Corporation individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT IX - STRICT LIABILITY PLAINTIFFS VS. WIREMOLD 48. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 47, as though the same were fully set forth at length. 49. Defendant, Wiremold, is engaged, and at all times relevant hereto was engaged, in the business of selling and distributing, inter alia, electric equipment, appliances, and electrical components, including surge protectors. 50. Defendant distributed and/or sold the subject surge protector and the components thereof in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to Plaintiffs and their property. 51. Defendant knew or should have known that the subject surge protector and the components thereof would reach the Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the condition in which sold. 52. The surge protector and components thereof did reach Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the condition in which sold. 53. The aforementioned defects consisted of: (a) design defects; (b) manufacturing defects; (c) component defects; (d) failure to warn of the design, manufacturing, and/or component defects; and/or (e) failure to properly instruct as to the appropriate operating procedures for safe use of the surge protector and its components. 54. For these reasons, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for their damages under Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the Restatement (3d) of Torts, and the applicable case law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defects, Plaintiffs sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, along with the imposition of additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in his favor and against Defendant Wiremold individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT X - STRICT LIABILITY PLAINTIFFS VS. THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION. INC. 56. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 55, as though the same were fully set forth at length. 57. Defendant, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., is engaged, and at all times relevant hereto was engaged, in the business of selling and distributing, inter alia, electric equipment, appliances, and electrical components, including surge protectors. 58. Defendant distributed and/or sold the subject surge protector and the components thereof in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to Plaintiffs and their property. 59. Defendant knew or should have known that the subject surge protector and the components thereof would reach the Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the condition in which sold. 60. The surge protector and components thereof did reach Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the condition in which sold. 61. The aforementioned defects consisted of: (a) design defects; (b) manufacturing defects; (c) component defects; (d) failure to warn of the design, manufacturing, and/or component defects; and/or (e) failure to properly instruct as to the appropriate operating procedures for safe use of the surge protector and its components. 62. For these reasons, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for their damages under Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the Restatement (3d) of Torts, and the applicable case law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 63. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defects, Plaintiffs sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, along with the imposition of additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demands judgment in their favor and against Defendant The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT XI - STRICT LIABILITY PLAINTIFFS VS. THE WIREMOLD COMPANY 64. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 63, as though the same were fully set forth at length. 65. Defendant, The Wiremold Company, is engaged, and at all times relevant hereto was engaged, in the business of selling and distributing, inter alia, electric equipment and appliances, electrical components, including surge protectors. 66. Defendant distributed and/or sold the subject surge protector and the components thereof in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to Plaintiffs and their property. 67. Defendant knew or should have known that the subject surge protector and the components thereof would reach the Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the condition in which sold. 68. The surge protector and components thereof did reach Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the condition in which sold. 69. The aforementioned defects consisted of (a) design defects; (b) manufacturing defects; (c) component defects; (d) failure to warn of the design, manufacturing, and/or component defects; and/or (e) failure to properly instruct as to the appropriate operating procedures for safe use of the surge protector and its components. 70. For these reasons, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for their damages under Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the Restatement (3d) of Torts, and the applicable case law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 71. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defects, Plaintiffs sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, along with the imposition of additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant The Wiremold Company individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT XII - STRICT LIABILITY PLAINTIFFS VS. WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION 72. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 71, as though the same were fully set forth at length. 73. Defendant, Wiremold International Sales Corporation, is engaged, and at all times relevant hereto was engaged, in the business of selling and distributing, inter alia, electric equipment, appliances, and electrical components, including surge protectors. 74. Defendant distributed and/or sold the subject surge protector and the components thereof in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous to Plaintiffs and their property. 75. Defendant knew or should have known that the subject surge protector and the components thereof would reach the Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the condition in which sold. 76. The surge protector and components thereof did reach Plaintiffs' property without substantial change from the condition in which sold. 77. The aforementioned defects consisted of. (a) design defects; (b) manufacturing defects; (c) component defects; (d) failure to warn of the design, manufacturing, and/or component defects; and/or (e) failure to properly instruct as to the appropriate operating procedures for safe use of the surge protector and its components. 78. For these reasons, Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiffs for their damages under Section 402A of the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the Restatement (3d) of Torts, and the applicable case law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 79. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned defects, Plaintiffs sustained and incurred damage to their real and personal property, along with the imposition of additional expenses, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendant Wiremold International Sales Corporation., individually and/or jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus interest, costs of suit, reasonable attorney fees, delay damages, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. NELSON EVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: RICEkRD J. BOYD, JR., S UIRE ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Dated: July 18, 2008 VERIFICATION I, Francis Guillemette, hereby state that I am a duly authorized representative of Erie Insurance Group, the real party in interest, and that the facts contained in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Fr cis Guillemette Dated: August 19 2008 G? 7l 7 ??? " sf i n MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTN] BY: ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 55513 10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET SUITE 302 DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901 (267) 880-3696 Our File No.: 491-82451 EY, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S), Wiremold, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., The Wiremold Company, Wiremold International Sales Corporation MICHAEL KENNEDY and KENNEDY APPRAISALS V. WIREMOLD and THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION, INC. and THE WIREMOLD COMPANY and WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION NO. 08-5031 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (12 JURORS) TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendants Wiremold, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., The Wiremold Company, Wiremold International Sales Corporation in the above-captioned matter. Defendant by and through their undersigned attorneys hereby demands a trial by jury of twelve in the above-referenced matter. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. By: lizabeth A. H Attorney for Defendants, Wiremold, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., The Wiremold Company, Wiremold International Sales Corporation {DY043018J } ?' ? ? ~ct c, ? ?, ?1 § : ?, ? .tea ?: ? -?[? ? ? ? ?, -- - ..? x I" -r? ,> .. •zy rr. ;? .,.. '„` TO: ALL COUNSEL YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT _MAT W ENTERED AGAINST YOU. ATTO Y OR DEFENDANTS MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNI BY: ELIZABETH A. HUNTER, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 55513 10 SOUTH CLINTON STREET SUITE 302 DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901 (267) 880-3696 ?Y, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S), Wiremold, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., The Wiremold Company, Wiremold International Sales Corporation Our File No.: 491-82451 MICHAEL KENNEDY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and CUMBERLAND COUNTY KENNEDY APPRAISALS CIVIL DIVISION V. NO. 08-5031 WIREMOLD JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (12 JURORS) And THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION, INC. And THE WIREMOLD COMPANY And WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendants Wiremold, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., The Wiremold Company, Wiremold International Sales Corporation, collectively herein referenced as "Wiremold" by counsel Elizabeth A. Hunter Answers Plaintiff's Complaint with the following. (DY042960.I ) 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at Trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at Trial. 3. Admit. 4. Admit. 5. Admit. 6. Admit. 7. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at Trial. 9. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at Trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at Trial. {DY042960. 1) 11. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, however, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof at Trial. COUNTI 12. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 13. No response required. 14. Denied. Answering Defendants, Wiremold deny they were negligent, careless and/or reckless, either in general, or by any of the means specified in sub-paragraphs (a) through (f) of this paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisals' Complaint. To the contrary, Answering Defendant Wiremold acted reasonably and with due care at all times and their conduct neither caused nor contributed to injury or loss, if any, to the Plaintiff(s) Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisal. The remaining averments of this paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Apprasials' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and they are therefore deemed denied. 15. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. COUNT II 16. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. { DY042960.1 } 17. No response required. 18. Denied. Answering Defendants, Wiremold, deny they were negligent, careless and/or reckless, either in general, or by any of the means specified in sub-paragraphs (a) through (f) of this paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisals' Complaint. To the contrary, Answering Defendant Wiremold acted reasonably and with due care at all times and their conduct neither caused nor contributed to injury or loss, if any, to the Plaintiff(s) Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisal. The remaining averments of this paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Apprasials' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and they are therefore deemed denied. 19. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT III 20. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 21. No response required. 22. Denied. Answering Defendants, Wiremold, deny they were negligent, careless and/or reckless, either in general, or by any of the means specified in sub-paragraphs (a) through (f) of this paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisals' Complaint. To the contrary, Answering Defendant Wiremold acted reasonably and with due care at all times and {DY042960.1 } their conduct neither caused nor contributed to injury or loss, if any, to the Plaintiff(s) Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisal. The remaining averments of this paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Apprasials' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and they are therefore deemed denied. 23. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT IV 24. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 25. No response required. 26. Denied. Answering Defendants, Wiremold, deny they were negligent, careless and/or reckless, either in general, or by any of the means specified in sub-paragraphs (a) through (f) of this paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisals' Complaint. To the contrary, Answering Defendant Wiremold acted reasonably and with due care at all times and their conduct neither caused nor contributed to injury or loss, if any, to the Plaintiff(s) Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Appraisal. The remaining averments of this paragraph of Plaintiff's Michael Kennedy and Kennedy Apprasials' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure and they are therefore deemed denied. {DY042960.1 } 27. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT V 28. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 29. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 30. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 31. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 32. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT VI 33. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. {DY042960.1 } 34. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 35. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 36. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 37. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT VII 38. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 39. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 40. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 41. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 42. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. { DY042960.11 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT VIII 43. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 44. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 45. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 46. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 47. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT IX 48. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 49. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. {DY042960.I } 50. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 51. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 52. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 53. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 54. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 55. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT X 56. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 57. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 58. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. {DY042960.1 } 59. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 60. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 61. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 62. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 63. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT XI 64. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 65. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 66. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 67. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. {DY042960.1 } 68. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 69. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 70. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 71. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. COUNT XII 72. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference it answers to all previous allegations in all previous counts as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 73. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 74. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 75. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 76. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. {DY042960.1 } 77. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 78. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 79. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant(s), Wiremold, hereby demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. NEW MATTER 80. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 81. Plaintiffs' Complaint may have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 82. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of an expressed or implied contract. 83. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of the Doctrine of Res Judicata and/or Collateral Estoppel. 84. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of improper of service of process. 85. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because of the Doctrine of Superseding and/or Intervening Cause. 86. Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks damages which they are not entitled to recover. 87. There is no expressed or implied contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and Answering Defendants covering the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs. {DY042960.1 } 88. The product was substantially altered, damaged, modified and/or otherwise changed in condition. 89. The product was misused in an abnormal and unforeseeable manner. 90. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of statutory and/or common law. 91. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of the Doctrine of Accord and Satisfaction. 92. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred because of the Doctrine of Waiver and/or Estoppel. 93. The court may lack jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit. 94. Plaintiffs' claims were caused by a person or persons whom Answering Defendants could not nor had a duty to control. 95. The losses and/or damages complained of in Plaintiffs' Complaint, if proven at trial, resulted from the acts and/or omissions of persons, parties or other entities over whom Answering Defendants had no legal responsibility and/or control. 96. All claims of breach of warranty are barred by failure to give notice of such claims within a reasonable time after the alleged breach was discovered or should have been discovered. 97. No product marketed, distributed, sold and/or supplied by Answering Defendants is unreasonably dangerous and/or unsafe. 98. Answering Defendants breached no duty or warranty, either expressed or implied, to Plaintiffs. 99. Answering Defendants made no warranty, either expressed or implied, to Plaintiffs. 100. Answering Defendants gave all the warnings that the law requires to those individuals to whom it was required to give such warnings. {DY042960. l } 101. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk to the extent it is determined by the finder of fact that Plaintiff, through his actions, assumed the risk of the injuries and damages complained of. 102. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by Plaintiff's failure to mitigate his damages. 103. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent it is held that Answering Defendants is Plaintiffs' statutory employer. 104. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part since the dangers and/or risks of which Plaintiffs' complains herein were open and obvious. 105. Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred by Plaintiffs' failure to give timely notice to Answering Defendants of any alleged defect or failure to conform to implied or express warranties. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Wiremold, hereby demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against all other parties plus interests, costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Dated: 0 0 Respectfully submitted, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. By: Elizabeth A. Hunter { DY042960.1 } 09/22/2008 15:53 8602311812 WIREMOLD PAGE 02102 YEMPICATION I verify under penalty of perjury that the averments of fact made in the foregoing documents are true and correct based upon my personal knowledge, information or belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of 1S PA.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. ark M nski Dated: I fl-41V- Q Re: Kennedy {13X042960.1 } CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire, the undersigned hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following, by first class mail, postage prepaid on S? , 2008. Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire Newson Levine De Luca & Horst, LLC 518 Township Line Rd., Suite 300 Blue Bell, PA 19422 MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN & COURTNEY, P.C. BY: Elizabeth A. unter, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, Wiremold, The Wiremold Foundation, Inc., The Wiremold Company, Wiremold International Sales Corporation {DY042960.I } ?-? .; ? _-? fm ?' .??. ,r _.? s i ,_, ?, , .. ? ??.s OCT' 14 2000 G JOSHUA S. JUMPER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW MELISSA J. SMITH, NO. 2008-5013 Defendant IN CUSTODY COURT ORDER AND NOW, this _day of October, 2008, upon consideration of the attached Custody Conciliation RepoF.Etdered and directed as follows: 1. The father, Joshua S. Jumper, shall enjoy legal and physical custody of Colton S. Jumper, born July 6, 2000. 2. The mother, Melissa J. Smith, shall enjoy periods of visitation with the minor child at such times and under such circumstances as agreed to by the Father. 3. In the event the Mother desires to modify this Order, Mother may petition the Court to have the case again scheduled with the Custody Conciliator for a conference. 4. Counsel for the Father shall serve a copy of this Order and the accompanying Custody Conciliation Report on the Mother by mailing it to her at her last known address and by making all other reasonable efforts to serve her if he can determine her whereabouts. cc: Michael A. Scherer, Esquire *N RV TT-1P ('nl TR'r 'Ano 0 1 :9 wv 91 130 soot j 7 JOSHUA S. JUMPER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW MELISSA J. SMITH, NO. 2008-5013 Defendant IN CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915.3-8(b), the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: The pertinent information pertaining to the child who is the subject of this litigation is as follows: Colton S. Jumper, born July 6, 2000 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on October 9, 2008, with the following individuals in attendance: the father, Joshua S. Jumper, with his counsel, Michael A. Scherer, Esquire. Attorney Scherer related that he was unable to serve the Defendant mother with notice of the Conciliation Conference and that he believes she is attempting to avoid service. Attorney Scherer suggests Mother is just basically in hiding. Father has custody of the minor child and has had custody since July of 2008 with no contact from the Mother since that time. 3. The Conciliator recommends an Order in the form as attached. Date: October f T , 2008 Z??L Hubert X. G' oy, Esquire Custody C nciliator NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035 518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BLUE BELL, PA 19422 (215) 358-5122 MICHAEL KENNEDY KENNEDY APPRAISALS Plaintiff(s) V. WIREMOLD IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-5031 THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION, INC. THE WIREMOLD COMPANY WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFS TO THE NEW MATTER OF WIREMOLD DEFENDANTS 80-105. Denied. These allegations all contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor in accordance with their complaint. NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC M, /,4"4 /? 'r, / . a j VIZ BY: RICHARD J. V9YD, JR., S ATTORNEYS OR PLAINTIFFS Dated: November 4. 2008 • VERIFICATION I, RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., do hereby state that I am counsel for Plaintiffs in the within action, and as such do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer of Plaintiffs to the New Matter of Wiremold Defendants are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. RICHARD J. BVYD, JR. Dated: November 4, 2008 ?J NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035 518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300 BLUE BELL, PA 19422 (215) 358-5122 MICHAEL KENNEDY KENNEDY APPRAISALS Plaintiff(s) V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-5031 WIREMOLD THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION, INC. THE WIREMOLD COMPANY WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Answer of Plaintiffs to the New Matter of Wiremold Defendants was served on November 4, 2008, upon counsel listed below by United States Mail, postage prepaid. Elizabeth A. Hunter, Esquire Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C. 10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302 Doylestown, PA 18901 NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: "4ixi 10A1, Z RICHARD J. OlniD, JR., S ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Dated: November 4, 2008 C= ?7 t:r CIO .- ??,.:.. ly w:f "i i 7 ? 4 NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035 518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300 BLUE BELL, PA 19422 (215) 358-5122 MICHAEL KENNEDY KENNEDY APPRAISALS Plaintiff(s) V. WIREMOLD THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION, INC. THE WIREMOLD COMPANY WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION Defendant(s) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-5031 PRAECIPE TO MARK SETTLED, DISCONTINUED AND ENDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly have the dockets reflect that the above-captioned case has been settled, discontinued and ended. NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: I'Li A X') AICHARD J Y , JR., ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FO PLAINTIFFS Dated: December 23, 2009 NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: RICHARD J. BOYD, JR., ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 84035 518 TOWNSHIP LINE ROAD, SUITE 300 BLUE BELL, PA 19422 (215) 358-5122 MICHAEL KENNEDY KENNEDY APPRAISALS Plaintiff(s) V. WIREMOLD THE WIREMOLD FOUNDATION, INC. THE WIREMOLD COMPANY WIREMOLD INTERNATIONAL SALES CORPORATION ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-5031 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard J. Boyd, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End was served on December 23, 2009, upon counsel listed below by United States Mail, postage prepaid. Patrick Lamb, Esquire Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien & Courtney, P.C. 10 South Clinton Street, Suite 302 Doylestown, PA 18901 Kevin J. Ruane, Esquire Law Offices of William J. Ferren & Associates 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: A & I ICHARD J. D, A., ESQUIRE TTORNEYS OR PLAINTIFFS Dated: December 23, 2009 TH:: x 2009 DEC 2 9