HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-4680IL
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
717-393-9596
Court I.D. No. 80448
Attorney for Plaintiff
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
813 Wertzville Road
Enola, PA 17025
Plaintiff
vs.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS VDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
One Continental Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
6501 W. William Cannon Drive
Austin, TX 78735
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
1812 Paxton Street
Harrisburg, PA 17104-0
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
No. 09- 4680 Clvl[Tam
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
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 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
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY
BE ABLE T PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATI N ABOUT A ENCI S THAT
A R L BL R A F
OR-NO PEE.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 2
AVISO
Le han demandado en corte. Si usted quiere defenderse contra las demandas
nombradas en las paginas siguientes, tiene viente (20) dias a partir de recibir esta
demanda y notificacion para entablar personalmente o por un abogado una
comparecencia escrita y tambien para entablar con la corte en forma escrita sus
defensas y objeciones a las demandas contra usted. Sea advisado que si usted no se
defiende, el caso puede continuar sin usted y la corte puede incorporar un juicio contra
usted sin previo aviso para conseguir el dinero demandado en el pleito o para conseguir
cualquier otra demanda o alivio solicitados por el demandante. Usted puede perder
dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO
INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE ABOGADO (O NO TIENE DINERO
SUFICIENTE PARA PAGAR A UN ABOGADO), VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR
TELEFONO LA OFICINA NOMBRADA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE
CONSEGUIR ASSISTENCIA LEGAL. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROPORCIONARLE LA
INFORMACION SOME CONTRATAR
SI USTED NO TIENE DINERO SUFICIENTE PARA PAGAR A UN
ABOG A P D P R A E N R A I N
'7'?^TF'9RT
UE
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 3
PARTIES TO THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., is an adult individual residing at 813
Wertzville Road, Enola, Pennsylvania, 17025.
2. Defendant Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO
Automotive Corporation ("Continental") is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located at One Continental Drive, Auburn Hills, MI, 48326.
3. Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. ("Freescale") is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business located at 6501 W. William Cannon
Drive, Austin TX 78735.
4. Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. is an automobile dealership engaged in
the business of selling automobiles to consumers with a dealership located 6039 Carlisle
Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 and a registered office in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania at 1812 Paxton Street, Harrisburg, PA 17104-0.
SUMMARY OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION
5. On December 30, 2005, George E. Seidle, Jr. purchased a 2005 Dodge
Durango, Vehicle Identification No. 1D4HB48D25F566647 from Brenner Motors, Inc.
6. On December 2, 2007, George E. Seidle, Jr. was the registered owner of
a 2005 Dodge Durango, Vehicle Identification No. 1D4HB48D25F566647, purchased
from Brenner Motors, Inc. and manufactured by Chrysler Corporation (the
"Durango") .
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 4
.
7. At all times pertinent, Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. was engaged in
the business of marketing, advertising, selling, distributing and supplying motor
vehicles, manuals, instructions and warnings, and other literature pertaining to the
operation of motor vehicles within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including the
2005 Dodge Durango, Vehicle Identification No. 1D4HB48D25F566647, and transacts
business and derives substantial revenue from business within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and is susceptible to the jurisdiction of this court.
8. The subject 2005 Dodge Durango, Vehicle Identification No.
1D4HB48D25F566647, was sold and put into the stream of commerce by Chrysler.
9. Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. represented that the Durango and its
component parts, including the instrument cluster, was of merchantable quality and was
fit for the ordinary purposes for which purposes for such a vehicle and Plaintiff relied
on these statements when deciding to purchase the aforementioned Durango.
10. The Durango was expected by Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. to reach,
and did reach the user or consumer without substantial change to the condition in which
it was sold.
11. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Durango was
a legal cause of the damages to Plaintiff.
12. Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiff for damages caused by the
defects and inadequacies of the Durango and its component parts.
13. Because of the dangerous, defective and unsafe condition of the subject
Durango at the time it was sold and introduced into the stream of commerce by
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 5
Defendants, the subject Durango was not merchantable as the term is defined by
Pennsylvania statutes, and the subject Durango was not fit for the particular purpose for
which it was intended by its manufacturer and seller to be used.
14. Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. breached implied warranties in its
marketing and sale of the subject vehicle.
15. The Durango owned by Plaintiff was not safe or fit for its intended
purpose.
16. In April of 2006, Chrysler initiated an internal investigation into reports
of 2004 model year Durango instrument panel fires that appeared to be originating in
the cluster.
17. Investigation of these new reports indicated that the fire originated on the
left side of the instrument cluster directly behind an integrated circuit designated as
Z107. The integrated circuit controls courtesy lighting functions, switching and the
fade to off feature, in addition to several other functions, and is located on the opposite
of the cluster from the C293 capacitor.
18. As the investigation continued, a vehicle that had experienced courtesy
light malfunctions was returned to Chrysler for analysis. A number of clusters that
indicated heat stress in the area of Z107 were also reviewed by engineering and
returned to Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation for analysis.
19. At all times material to this action, Continental was in the business of
designing, testing, approving, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, licensing and
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., ]r\08-176\89545.doc 6
selling instrument clusters, including the subject Instrument Cluster installed into
George Seidle, Jr.'s Durango, for use in Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, and
elsewhere throughout the United States.
20. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO
Automotive Corporation after initial inspection of the clusters removed the Z107 chips
and returned them to Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. for de-capping and further
analysis.
21. At all times material to this action, Freescale was in the business of
designing, testing, approving, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, licensing and
selling Integrated Circuits, including the subject Integrated Circuit, designated Z107
and installed into the subject 2005 Dodge Durango, Vehicle Identification No.
1D4HB48D25F566647, for use in Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, and elsewhere
throughout the United States.
22. Freescale determined that damage in the integrated circuit was due to
electrical overload stress. The damage was evident in both the power portion and logic
portion of the Z107 device. Damage on the logic portion prevented the chip from
protecting itself from excess current flow and resulting thermal stress.
23. In parallel, Chrysler engineering tested the returned vehicle for lamp
loads, wire resistance, build variations or optional equipment that may have contributed
to higher loads on the courtesy lamp circuit.
24. Chrysler analysis showed that actual lamp loads as observed in the
Durango vehicles stressed the capability of the Z107 driver assigned to handle them.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 7
The self-diagnostics feature of the integrated circuit was found to also be improperly
implemented in the cluster software strategy at Continental/Siemens. Chrysler's further
analysis determined that an I_LIM bit, which limits in-dash rush current to the
integrated circuit and is used primarily when the chip controls relays or solenoids, was
improperly set.
25. While the investigation continued, as a precautionary measure the
courtesy lamps were removed from the existing driver for the 2007 model year
Durango and reassigned to a spare driver with four times the previous models' carrying
capability. The I_LIM bit was set to not limit in-dash rush current.
26. Chrysler's Manufacturer's Report Date for the subject instrument cluster
was March 6, 2007.
27. On March 6, 2007, DaimlerChrysler Corporation issued a safety recall
(DaimlerChrysler Recall G07) for a safety related defect in some 2004-2006 model year
Dodge Durangos, including the subject vehicle. Daimler Chrysler Corporation Recall
G07 pertained to an integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster that, under
certain operating conditions, may overheat and result in an instrument panel fire.
28. The subject vehicle, Vehicle Identification No. 1D4HB48D25F566647,
was equipped with an integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster that, under
certain operating conditions, may overheat and result in an instrument panel fire, and
that was subject to Chrysler Recall G07. The Defect Information Report for Chrysler's
Recall G07 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 8
29. The components that were the subject of Recall G07 were manufactured
and supplied by Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO
Automotive Corporation located at One Continental Drive, Auburn Hills, MI 48326
and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. located at 6501 W. William Cannon Drive, TX
78735.
30. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Campaign
Number for the recall related to the subject instrument cluster was NHTSA Campaign
Number 07V-092.
31. The instrument cluster in the subject Seidle's 2005 Dodge Durango,
Vehicle Identification No. 1D4HB48D25F566647, was included in Chrysler's Recall
G07.
32. The instrument cluster in the subject Seidle's 2005 Dodge Durango,
Vehicle Identification No. 1D4HB48D25F566647, was included in NHTSA Campaign
Number 07V092.
33. On the evening of December 1, 2007, Mr. Seidle drove the subject
Durango to get gas for the vehicle, he returned home at approximately 6:00 p.m.,
leaving the Durango parked at the rear of his home.
34. Mr. Seidle went to bed on December 2, 2007 at approximately 2:00 a.m.
and reported everything was okay at that time.
35. In the early morning hours of December 2, 2007 at approximately 3:20
a.m., Mr. Seidle was awakened by a knock at the door when his neighbor alerted him
that his Dodge Durango was on fire.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 9
36. Mr. Seidle's neighbor called 911 to report the vehicle fire.
37. By the time the West Enola Fire Company reached the Seidle home, they
reported there was heavy fire in the rear of the residence in the vehicles that were
parked outside. The fire department reported that the fire was concentrated in the
Dodge Durango but spread to the boat and Jeep Cherokee. The fire also was reported to
have spread into the residence.
38. The fire damaged or destroyed the Durango, caused damage to the Seidle
home, the contents of the home, a pontoon boat and a Jeep Cherokee owned by Mr.
Seidle's girlfriend Alison MacAdam.
39. Mr. Seidle watched as his home and personal belongings were being
burned in the fire.
40. EMS personnel arrived at the scene and put Mr. Seidle's family in the
back of ambulance to keep them warm.
41. Mr. Seidle continued to observe his home and personal belongings be
destroyed in the fire. He decided there was nothing he could do to help, so rather than
get in the way he went to the ambulance and stayed there with his fianc6 and son.
42. On April 28, 2008, Mr. Seidle received a Safety Recall Notice from
Daimler-Chrysler. The Notice stated that Chrysler "decided that a defect, which
relates to motor vehicle safety, exists in some 2004 through 2006 model year Dodge
Durango vehicles." As a result of the defect, "[u]nder certain operating conditions, an
integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster of your vehicle (VIN:
1D4HB48D25F566647) may overheat and result in an instrument panel fire." This
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 10
notice is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B." This Notice was
received after the fire that destroyed the Durango, caused damage to Mr. Seidle's
home, the contents of the home, a pontoon boat and a Jeep Cherokee owned by Mr.
Seidle's girlfriend Alison MacAdam.
43. On June 11, 2008, Mr. Seidle received another Safety Recall Notice
from Daimler-Chrysler. This notice is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit "C"
COUNTI
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc f/k/a Siemens
VDO Automotive Corporation
Negligence
44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the facts set forth in Paragraphs
1 through 43.
45. Continental designed, manufactured and/or sold the Instrument Cluster
installed into the subject 2005 Dodge Durango, Vehicle Identification No.
1 D4HB48D25F566647.
46. At all material times, Continental had a duty to design and manufacture
the Instrument Cluster so that it was not subject to an unreasonable risk of instrument
panel fire.
47. At all material times, Continental had a duty to design and manufacture
the Instrument Cluster so that it did not subject users and consumers to unreasonable
risk of injury or damages from fire.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc I I
48. Continental breached these duties in the following particulars:
a. The Instrument Cluster lacked adequate and sufficient warnings
and instructions about the risks, dangers and harms presented by
the Instrument Panel and reasonable means to reduce such risks,
dangers, and harms;
b. The Instrument Cluster circuit board capacitor was subject to
overheating and fire;
C. The wiring of the Instrument Cluster was faulty and created an
unreasonable risk of fire;
d. The design and components of the Instrument Cluster were
inappropriate for the intended use of the Instrument Cluster and
its components, creating an unreasonable risk of fire;
e. Improperly implementing the self-diagnostic feature of the
Integrated Circuit in the cluster software strategy;
f. Improperly setting the I LIM bit;
g. Failing to set the I_LIM bit to limit in-rush current;
h. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Instrument Cluster
with an integrated circuit that under certain operating conditions
may overheat and result in a fire;
i. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Instrument Cluster
that spontaneously caught on fire;
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 12
j. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Instrument Cluster
with an integrated circuit that was subject to electrical overload
stress;
k. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling the subject Instrument
Cluster with a defective integrated circuit; and
Designing, manufacturing and/or selling a defective Instrument
Cluster.
49. The subject Instrument Cluster was defective for the reasons set forth in
Defect Information Report for Chrysler's Recall G07, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A".
50. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Continental,
Plaintiff suffered personal injury, including, but not limited to, psychological damage
and emotional distress in the nature of personal anguish and stress.
51. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Continental,
Plaintiff sustained significant damage to his real and personal property, including, but
not limited to, damage to the Seidle home, vehicles, pontoon boat and personal effects.
52. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Continental,
Plaintiff suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity, both past, present and future,
for all of which damages are claimed.
53. The Plaintiff prays that the injuries and damages complained of in the
past, present and prospective were, are and will be solely to and by reason of the sole
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 13
or joint defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Instrument Cluster,
without any negligence on Plaintiff's part contributing thereto.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., demands judgment against
Defendant Continental for damages in excess of $50,000, together with interest and
costs thereon as allowed by law.
COUNT II
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc f/k/a Siemens
VDO Automotive Corporation
Strict Products Liability
54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the facts set forth in Paragraphs
1 through 53.
55. All times material to this action, Continental was in the business of
designing, testing, approving, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, licensing and
selling instrument clusters, including the subject Instrument Cluster installed into the
Seidle's Durango, for use in Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, and elsewhere
throughout the United States.
56. At the time the Instrument Cluster left the control of Continental, it was
defective and unreasonably dangerous to a person who might reasonably be expected to
use it. These defects include, but are not limited to, the conditions described in the
following paragraphs:
a. The Instrument Cluster lacked adequate and sufficient warnings
and instructions about the risks, dangers and harms presented by
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 14
the Instrument Cluster and reasonable means to reduce such risks,
dangers, and harms;
b. The Instrument Cluster circuit board capacitor was subject to
overheating and fire;
C. The wiring of the Instrument Cluster was faulty and created an
unreasonable risk of fire;
d. The design and components of the Instrument Cluster were
inappropriate for the intended use of the Instrument Cluster and
its components, creating an unreasonable risk of fire;
e. Improperly implementing the self-diagnostic feature of the
Integrated Circuit in the cluster software strategy;
f. Improperly setting the I LIM bit;
g. Failing to set the I_LIM bit to limit in-rush current;
h. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Instrument Cluster
with an integrated circuit that under certain operating conditions
may overheat and result in a fire;
i. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Instrument Cluster
that spontaneously caught on fire;
j. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Instrument Cluster
with an integrated circuit that was subject to electrical overload
stress;
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 15
k. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling the subject Instrument
Cluster with a defective integrated circuit; and
1. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling a defective Instrument
Cluster.
57. The subject Instrument Cluster installed into the subject 2005 Dodge
Durango was defective for the reasons set forth in Defect Information Report for
Chrysler's Recall G07, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
"A.
58. The Instrument Cluster was expected by Continental to reach, and did
reach, the user or consumer without substantial change to the condition in which it was
sold.
59. Plaintiff George E. Seidle, Jr., was an individual who would be
reasonably expected to use the Durango and its Instrument Cluster.
60. It was foreseeable to Continental that the Instrument Cluster could and
would be the cause of fires.
61. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Instrument
Cluster was a cause of Plaintiff's personal injuries, including, but not limited to,
psychological damage and emotional distress in the nature of personal anguish and
stress.
62. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Instrument
Cluster was a cause of damage to Plaintiff's real and personal property, including, but
not limited to, damage to the Seidle home, vehicles, pontoon boat and personal effects.
\\abbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 16
63. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Continental,
Plaintiff suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity, both past, present and future,
for all of which damages are claimed.
64. Defendant Continental is strictly liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and
damages caused by the defects and inadequacies in the design and manufacture of the
Instrument Cluster.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., demands judgment against
Defendant Continental for damages in excess of $50,000, together with interest and
costs thereon as allowed by law.
COT TNT TTT
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc
Negligence
65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the facts set forth in Paragraphs
1 through 64.
66. Freescale designed, manufactured and/or sold the Integrated Circuit,
designated as Z107 (the "Integrated Circuit") and installed into the Continental
Instrument Cluster and into the subject 2005 Dodge Durango, Vehicle Identification
No. I D41-11348132517566647.
67. At all material times, Freescale had a duty to design and manufacture the
Integrated Circuit so that it was not subject to an unreasonable risk of instrument panel
fire.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 17
68. At all material times, Freescale had a duty to design and manufacture the
Integrated Circuit so that it did not subject users and consumers to unreasonable risk of
injury or damages from fire.
69. Freescale breached these duties in the following particulars:
a. The Integrated Circuit lacked adequate and sufficient warnings
and instructions about the risks, dangers and harms presented by
the Instrument Panel and reasonable means to reduce such risks,
dangers, and harms;
b. The Integrated Circuit's board capacitor was subject to
overheating and fire;
C. The wiring of the Integrated Circuit was faulty and created an
unreasonable risk of fire;
d. The design and components of the Integrated Circuit were
inappropriate for the intended use of the Integrated Circuit and its
components, creating an unreasonable risk of fire;
e. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Integrated Circuit
that, under certain operating conditions, may overheat and result
in a fire;
f. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Integrated Circuit that
spontaneously caught on fire;
g. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Integrated Circuit that
was subject to electrical overload stress; and
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 18
h. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling a defective Integrated
Circuit.
70. The subject Integrated Circuit was defective for the reasons set forth in
Defect Information Report for Chrysler's Recall G07, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
71. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Freescale, Plaintiff
suffered personal injury, including, but not limited to, psychological damage and
emotional distress in the nature of personal anguish and stress.
72. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Freescale, Plaintiff
sustained significant damage to their real and personal property, including, but not
limited to, damage to the Seidle home, vehicles, pontoon boat and personal effects.
73. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Freescale, Plaintiff
suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity, both past, present and future, for all of
which damages are claimed.
74. The Plaintiff prays that the injuries and damages complained of in the
past, present and prospective were, are and will be solely to and by reason of the sole
or joint defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Integrated Circuit,
without any negligence on Plaintiff's part contributing thereto.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., demands judgment against
Defendant Freescale for damages in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs
thereon as allowed by law.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 19
COT TNT TV
George E. Seidle, Jr. v Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
Strict Products Liability
75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the facts set forth in Paragraphs
1 through 74.
76. At all times material to this action, Freescale was in the business of
designing, testing, approving, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, licensing and
selling Integrated Circuits, including the subject Integrated Circuit, designated Z107
and installed into the subject 2005 Dodge Durango, Vehicle Identification No.
1D4HB48D25F566647, for use in Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, and elsewhere
throughout the United States.
77. At the time the Integrated Circuit left the control of Freescale, it was
defective and unreasonably dangerous to a person who might reasonably be expected to
use it. These defects include, but are not limited to, the conditions described in the
following paragraphs:
a. The Integrated Circuit lacked adequate and sufficient warnings
and instructions about the risks, dangers and harms presented by
the Instrument Panel and reasonable means to reduce such risks,
dangers, and harms;
b. The Integrated Circuit's board capacitor was subject to
overheating and fire;
C. The wiring of the Integrated Circuit was faulty and created an
unreasonable risk of fire;
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 20
d. The design and components of the Integrated Circuit were
inappropriate for the intended use of the Integrated Circuit and its
components, creating an unreasonable risk of fire;
e. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Integrated Circuit
that, under certain operating conditions, may overheat and result
in a fire;
f. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Integrated Circuit that
spontaneously caught on fire;
g. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling an Integrated Circuit that
was subject to electrical overload stress; and
h. Designing, manufacturing and/or selling a defective Integrated
Circuit.
78. The subject Integrated Circuit installed into the subject 2005 Dodge
Durango was defective for the reasons set forth in Defect Information Report for
Chrysler's Recall G07, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
«A.»
79. The Integrated Circuit was expected by Freescale to reach, and did
reach, the user or consumer without substantial change to the condition in which it was
sold.
80. Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., was an individual who would be
reasonably expected to use the Durango and the Integrated Circuit.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E.,Jr\08-176\89545.doc 21
81. It was foreseeable to Freescale that the Integrated Circuit could and
would be the cause of fires.
82. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Integrated
Circuit was a cause of Plaintiff's personal injuries, including, but not limited to,
psychological damage and emotional distress in the nature of personal anguish and
stress.
83. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Integrated
Circuit was a cause of damage to Plaintiff's real and personal property, including, but
not limited to, damage to the Seidle home, vehicles, pontoon boat and personal effects.
84. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Freescale, Plaintiff
suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity, both past, present and future, for all of
which damages are claimed.
85. Defendant Freescale is strictly liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and
damages caused by the defects and inadequacies in the design and manufacture of the
Integrated Circuit.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., demands judgment against
Defendant Freescale for damages in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs
thereon as allowed by law.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 22
COUNT V
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Brenner Motors, Inc
Negligence
86. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the facts set forth in Paragraphs
I through 85.
87. At all material times, Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. had a duty to
distribute and sell the Durango so that it was not subject to an unreasonable risk of
instrument panel fire.
88. At all material times, Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. had a duty to
distribute and sell the Durango so that it did not subject users and consumers to
unreasonable risk of injury or damages from fire.
89. Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. breached these duties in the following
particulars:
a. Selling the Durango that lacked adequate and sufficient warnings
and instructions about the risks, dangers and harms presented by
the Durango and reasonable means to reduce such risks, dangers,
and harms;
b. Selling the Durango that burst into flames while parked at the
rear of the Seidle home;
C. Selling the Durango with an instrument cluster circuit board
capacitor that was subject to overheating and fire;
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 23
d. Selling the Durango with the wiring in the instrument panel that
was faulty and created an unreasonable risk of fire;
e. Selling the Durango with the design and components of the
Durango's dashboard and instrument panel were inappropriate for
the intended use of the Durango and its components, creating an
unreasonable risk of fire;
f. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango with an
integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster that under
certain operating conditions may overheat and result in a fire;
g. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango in which
self-diagnostic feature of the Integrated Circuit in the cluster
software strategy was improperly implemented;
h. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango in which
I_LIM bit was improperly set;
Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango in which
the I_LIM bit failed to limit in-rush current;
j. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango that
spontaneously caught on fire;
k. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango with an
integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster that was subject
to electrical overload stress;
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 24
1. Distributing and/or selling the subject Durango with a defective
integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster;
in. Distributing and/or selling the subject 2005 Dodge Durango with
a defective instrument cluster;
n. Failing to timely advise Mr. Seidle of Chrysler's recall G07;
o. Failure to timely advise Mr. Seidle of the recall relating to the
instrument cluster in Mr. Seidle's 2005 Dodge Durango;
P. Failing to properly notify consumers, including Mr. Seidle of
Chrysler's recall G07;
q. Failing to perform the G07 recall repairs on the Seidle Durango;
and
r. Failing to replace the instrument cluster in the subject Durango.
90. The subject 2005 Dodge Durango was defective for the reasons set forth
in Defect Information Report for Chrysler's Recall G07, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
91. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Brenner
Motors, Inc., Plaintiff suffered personal injury, including, but not limited to,
psychological damage and emotional distress in the nature of personal anguish and
stress.
92. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Brenner
Motors, Inc., Plaintiff sustained significant damage to his real and personal property,
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 25
including, but not limited to, damage to the Seidle home, vehicles, pontoon boat and
personal effects.
93. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Brenner
Motors, Inc., Plaintiff suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity, both past,
present and future, for all of which damages are claimed.
94. The Plaintiff prays that the injuries and damages complained of in the
past, present and prospective were, are, and will be solely to and by reason of the sole
or joint defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Durango, without any
negligence on Plaintiff's part contributing thereto.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., demands judgment against
Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. for damages in excess of $50,000, together with
interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
COT TNT VI
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Brenner Motors, Inc.
Strict Products Liability
95. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the facts set forth in Paragraphs
1 through 94.
96. All times material to this action, Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. was in
the business of marketing, distributing, licensing and selling motor vehicles, including
the Durango, for use in Pennsylvania, Cumberland County, and elsewhere throughout
the United States.
97. At the time the Durango left the control of Defendant Brenner Motors,
Inc., it was defective and unreasonably dangerous to a person who might reasonably be
\\abbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 26
expected to use it. These defects include, but are not limited to, the conditions
described in the following paragraphs:
a. The Durango lacked adequate and sufficient warnings and
instructions about the risks, dangers and harms presented by the
Durango and reasonable means to reduce such risks, dangers, and
harms;
b. The Durango burst into flames while parked at the rear of the
Seidle home;
C. The Durango's instrument cluster circuit board capacitor was
subject to overheating and fire;
d. The wiring of the Durango's instrument panel was faulty and
created an unreasonable risk of fire;
e. The design and components of the Durango's dashboard and
instrument panel were inappropriate for the intended use of the
Durango and its components, creating an unreasonable risk of
fire;
f. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango with an
integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster that under
certain operating conditions may overheat and result in a fire;
g. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango in which
self-diagnostic feature of the Integrated Circuit in the cluster
software strategy was improperly implemented;
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 27
h. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango in which
I_LIM bit was improperly set;
i. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango in which
the I_LIM bit failed to limit in-rush current;
j. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango that
spontaneously caught on fire;
k. Distributing and/or selling the subject Dodge Durango with an
integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster that was subject
to electrical overload stress;
1. Distributing and/or selling the subject Durango with a defective
integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster;
M. Distributing and/or selling the subject 2005 Dodge Durango with
a defective instrument cluster; and
n. Strict Liability under §402A (Restatement of Torts 2') for selling
and introducing a defective Dodge Durango as outlined above.
98. The subject 2005 Dodge Durango was defective for the reasons set forth
in Defect Information Report for Chrysler's Recall G07, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "A."
99. The Durango was expected by Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. to reach,
and did reach, the user or consumer without substantial change to the condition in
which it was sold.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 28
100. Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., was an adult individual who would be
reasonably expected to use the Durango.
101. It was foreseeable to Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. that the Durango
could and would be the cause of fires.
102. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Durango was
a cause of Plaintiff's personal injuries, including, but not limited to, psychological
damage and emotional distress in the nature of personal anguish and stress.
103. The defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the Durango was
a cause of damage to Plaintiff's real and personal property, including, but not limited
to, damage to the Seidle home, vehicles, pontoon boat and personal effects.
104. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Brenner
Motors, Inc., Plaintiff suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity, both past,
present and future, for all of which damages are claimed.
105. Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. is strictly liable to Plaintiff for the
injuries and damages caused by the defects and inadequacies in the design and
manufacture of the Durango.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., demands judgment against
Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. for damages in excess of $50,000, together with
interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 29
COT TNT VTT
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Brenner Motors, Inc
Breach of Warranty
106. Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein the facts set forth in Paragraphs
1 through 105.
107. Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. knew, or had reason to know, the
particular purposes for which the Durango and its components were required and were
to be used, in that purchasers and users such as George E. Seidle, Jr. would rely on
Defendant Brenner Motors Inc.'s skill or judgment in placing the vehicle into the
stream of commerce and furnishing goods suitable for such purposes and uses.
108. The Durango and its components were not fit for the particular purposes
for which they were intended and for which they were used.
109. The Durango did not conform to the warranties, affirmations, and
representations made by Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc.
110. The defective condition of the Durango constitutes a breach by
Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. of its express and/or implied warranties, rendering
Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. liable for injuries and damages sustained by George E.
Seidle, Jr. caused by defects and inadequacies in the design and manufacture of the
Durango.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 30
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., demands judgment against
Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. for damages in excess of $50,000, together with
interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
Respectfully
ATLEE, Vlf OOWRT, LLP
Dated: --111 ? By:
da
I - Jackson, `Esquire
rney for Plaintiff
8 orth Queen Street
.0. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
(717) 393-9596
I.D. No. 80448
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\89545.doc 31
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Dated:
{
George E. idle, Jr.
Print me Here
lk
?-- xhibl,t
f\-
DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT FOR DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION RECALL G07
Page 1
Submission date: March 6, 2007
Identifying classification of vehicles potentially affected:
Make Model Model Year Inclusive Dates of Volume
Manufacture
Dodge Durango 2004-2006 4/03/03 through 328,424
6/30/06 (estimated)
Estimated percentage containing defect: 100%
Description of defect:
Under certain operating conditions, an integrated circuit located in the instrument cluster may
overheat and result in an instrument panel fire.
The name, address and telephone number of the supplier who manufactured the subject
components:
Siemens / VDO
100 Electronics Blvd.
Huntsville, Alabama 35824
(256) 464-2236
The following chronology of principal events occurred between April of 2006 and
February of 2007 and led to the determination of a defect:
• In April of 2006, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCC) initiated an internal investigation into a
small number of reports of 2004 model year Durango (HB) instrument panel (IP) fires that
appeared to be originating in the cluster.
• In May of 2006, NHTSA opened recall query RQ06-006 to investigate allegations of IP fires in
2004 model year HB vehicles. NHTSA opened the RQ to attempt to determine if six reports they
had received were related to prior DCC recall C43 involving a cracked capacitor (designated as
0293) in the cluster circuit board.
• Investigation of these new reports indicated that the fire originated on the left side of the cluster
directly behind an integrated circuit (IC) designated as Z 107. This IC circuit controls courtesy
lighting functions, switching and the fade-to-off feature, in addition to several other functions,
and is located on the opposite side of the cluster from the C293 capacitor.
• NHTSA upgraded R006-006 to engineering analysis EA06-015 in August of 2006.
• As the investigation continued, a vehicle that had experienced courtesy light malfunctions was
returned to DCC for analysis. A number of clusters that indicated heat stress in the area of
Z 107 were also reviewed by engineering and returned to Siemens / VDO (formerly Huntsville)
for analysis.
DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT FOR DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION RECALL G07
Page 2
• Siemens, after initial inspection of the clusters, removed the Z017 chips and returned them to
Freescale (formerly Motorola) in Toulouse, France, for de-capping and further analysis.
• Freescale determined that damage in the IC was due to electrical overload stress (EOS). The
damage was evident in both the power portion and logic portion of the Z 107 device. Damage on
the logic portion prevented the chip from protecting itself from excess current flow and resulting
thermal stress.
• In parallel, DCC Engineering tested the returned vehicle for lamp loads, wire resistance, build
variations, or optional equipment that may have contributed to higher loads on the courtesy
lamp circuit.
• Analysis showed that actual lamp loads as observed in the HB vehicles stressed the capability of
the Z 107 driver assigned to handle them. The self diagnostics feature of the IC was found to
also be improperly implemented in the cluster software strategy at Huntsville / Siemens.
• Further analysis determined that an I_LIM bit, which limits in-rush current to the IC and is used
primarily when the chip controls relays or solenoids, was improperly set.
• While the investigation continued, as a precautionary measure the courtesy lamps were
removed from the existing driver for the 2007 model year HB and reassigned to a spare driver
with four times the current carrying capability. The I_LIM bit was set to not limit in-rush current.
• At the time of the EA response in November of 2006, the company was aware of 37 customer
complaints that may be related to this issue, including 13 minor property damage claims. There
were no reports of death or injury.
• Subsequent to the EA response, DCC has become aware of an additional 24 customer
complaints that may be related to this issue.
• This information was presented to the Vehicle Regulations Committee on February 27, 2007,
who decided to conduct a safety recall.
Statement of measures to be taken to correct defect:
DCC will inspect the cluster for damage and replace it if necessary. If the cluster shows no
evidence of damage, it will be re-flashed to prevent the potential for this condition. In addition,
all vehicles will receive a modification that directs the interior lighting to a portion of the
integrated circuit with additional current carrying capacity. DCC expects to begin national
notification to both dealers and to owners in April of 2007.
DCC has a long-standing policy and practice of reimbursing owners who have incurred the cost of
repairing a problem that subsequently becomes the subject of a field action. To ensure consistency,
DCC, as part of the owner letter, will request that customers send original receipt and/or other
adequate proof of payment to the company for confirmation of the expense.
L_.._ X
1J
DAIMLERCHRYSLEX
SAFETY RECALL G07 - TEST AND REPROGRAM INSTRUMENT CLUSTER
Dear GEORGE E SEIDLE
This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation has decided that a defect, which relates to motor vehicle safety, exists in some
2004 through 2006 model year Dodge Durango vehicles.
The problem is... Under certain operating conditions, an integrated circuit located in the instrument
cluster of your vehicle (VIN: 1D4HB48D25F566647 ) may overheat and result in an
instrument panel fire.
What your dealer DaimlerChrysler will repair your vehicle free of charge (parts and labor). To do
will do... this, your dealer will modify the instrument cluster wiring, test the instrument cluster
and replace it if necessary. Instrument clusters that do not require replacement will be
reprogrammed. The work will take about 1 %2 hours to complete. However, additional
time maybe necessary depending on service schedules.
What you must Simply contact your dealer right away to schedule a service appointment. Remember
do to ensure your to bring this letter with you to your dealer.
safety...
Ifyou need help... If you have questions or concerns which your dealer is unable to resolve, please contact
DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403.
Please help us update our records, by filling out the attached prepaid postcard, if any of the conditions listed
on the card apply to you or your vehicle.
If you have already experienced this condition and have paid to have it repaired, you may send your original
receipts and/or other adequate proof of payment to the following address for reimbursement: DaimlerChrysler
P.O. Box 4639 Oak Ridge, TN 37831; Attention: Reimbursement.
If your dealer fails or is unable to remedy this defect without charge and within a reasonable time, you may
submit _a written complaint to" the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, S. W., Washington, DC 20590, or call the toll-free Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236
(TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to http://www.safercar.gov.
We're sorry for any inconvenience, but we are sincerely concerned about your safety. Thank you for your
attention to this important matter.
Customer Services Field Operations
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Notification Code G07
Note to lessors receiving this recall: Federal regulation requires that you forward this recall notice to the lessee within 10 days.
CHRYSLER
CIMS 482-00-85
PO Box 218008
Auburn Hills MI USA 48321-8008
Address Service Requested
IMPORTANT!
SAFETY RECALL NOTICE
PRESORTED
STANDARD
U.S. POSTAGE
P A I D
PERMIT #265E
DETROIT, MI
0775x4
5F566647 G07
GEORGE E SEIDLE
813 WERTLVILLE RD
ENOLA, PA 17025-1834
L??IIL?JII????J?IJ?I???JII??I??JLJ?J???II??II?J?IJ
I 0077544/#30789 / G07
I
0
v
(
n
.
w
0
,v
w
co
0
..v
VIN (Last8 Characters of Vehicle Ndtification Code
Identification Number)
5F56 6647
0 Y.i
?
-
7
G ,
This service was previously performed on my vehicle (check one if i;
i applicab%):
i ? My vehicle was inspected and found to be ok.
Q My vehicle was repaired.
This vehicle was (check one if applicable): s
O scrapped O stolen O exported
This vehicle was sold to (check one if applicable):
Q A dealer, or someone whose name and address is unknown.
..O:Someone other than a dealer (type or print the new owner's
i; name and address below).
--Date of sale:
Updated name and address (type or print the new owner's name
and address or your new name and/or address if it has changed):
Owner's title (check one if applicable):
? Mr. O Miss O Mr. & Mrs. ? Dr.
? Mrs. O Ms. O Rev. ? Business
First Name MI
Last Name
Street Address
City i
State Zip Code
Email Address
4
.
r
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY.
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 9941 DETROIT, MI
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
RECALL ADMINISTRATION 482-00-85
PO BOX 218008
AUBURN HILLS MI 48321-9959
?r
`i 1
x f
C
5 -
DAIMLERCHRYSLER
SAFETY RECALL G07 - TEST AND REPROGRAM INSTRUMENT CLUSTER
Dear GEORGE E SEIDLE
This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation has decided that a defect, which relates to motor vehicle safety, exists in some
2004 through 2006 model year Dodge Durango vehicles.
The problem is... Under certain operating conditions, an integrated circuit located in the instrument
cluster of your vehicle (VIN: 1D4HB48D25F566647 ) may overheat and result in an
instrument panel fire.
What your dealer DaimlerChrysler will repair your vehicle free of charge (parts and labor). To do
will do... this, your dealer will modify the instrument cluster wiring, test the instrument cluster
and replace it if necessary. Instrument clusters that do not require replacement will be
reprogrammed. The work will take about 1'/z hours to complete. However, additional
time may be necessary depending on service schedules.
What you must Simply contact your dealer right away to schedule a service appointment. Remember
do to ensure your to bring this letter with you to your dealer.
safety...
ffjrau-need help.:. --If you have questions or concerns which your dealer is unable to resolve,_ple-ase contact
DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403.
Please help us update our records, by filling out the attached prepaid postcard, if any of the conditions listed
on the card apply to you or your vehicle.
If you have already experienced this condition and have paid to have it repaired, you may send your original
receipts and/or other adequate proof of payment to the following address for reimbursement: DaimlerChrysler
P.O. Box 4639 Oak Ridge, TN 37831, Attention: Reimbursement.
If your dealer fails or is unable to remedy this defect without charge and within a reasonable time, you may
submit a written complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, or call the toll-free Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236
(TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to http://www.safercar.gov.
We're sorry for any inconvenience, but we are sincerely concerned about your safety. Thank you for your
attention to this important matter.
Customer Services Field Operations
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Notification Code G07
Note to lessors recawng this recall: Federal regulation requires that you forward this recall notice to the lessee within 10 days.
- t t t i 1
CHRYS?-Ef2
CIMS 482-00-85
PO Box 218008
Aubum Hills MI USA 48321-8008
Address Service Requested
IMPORTANT!
SAFETY RECALL NOTICE
075M
SF566647 G07 -
GEORGE E SEIDLE..
813 WERMILLE RD
ENOLA, PA 17025-1834
Pi
PRESORTED
STANDARD
U.S. POSTAGE
P A 1 D
PERMIT #2655
DETROIT, MI
• ? 1
0
0
4
Cil
CO
CA)
.. 'r
CA) {
V
t
1
{
VIN (Last 8 Characters of Vd ide Notification Code F
Identification Number)
'
L-F566647 MOO7 i
This service was previously performed on my vehicle (check one ff
applicable):
? My vehicle was inspected and found to be ok
My vehicle was repaired.
This vehicle was (check one ff applicable): 3
scrapped
O stolen ? exported
This vehicle was sold to (check one ff applicable): ;
O A dealer, or someone whose name and address is unknown. b
0
Someone other than a
dealer pype or print the new owner's
)
na
me and address 1
Date of sale:
Updated name and address (type or print the new owners name {
arid address or your new name and/or address ff it has change* k
Owner's title (check one ff applicable): i
? Mr. ? Miss D Mr. & Mrs. O Dr.
? Mrs- O Ms. ? Rev. O Business
First Name MI
Last Name
Street Address
City
i
State Zip Code
Email Arlrlrfm
•
GEORGE E SEIDLE
813 WERTZNULE RD
ENOLA, PA 17025-1834
19111111111111 list IIII1111 I of 11111 11111111111 11111111111111 111
0075933/#31271 / G07
NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
IF MAILED
IN THE
UNITED STATES
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST-CLASS MAIL PERMIT N0.9941 DETROIT, M!
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
RECALL ADMINISTRATION 482-00-86
PO BOX 218008
AUBURN HILLS MI 48321-gM
0
Al EL E.
210 9 ".! 14 A,' iII:J4
418.5o Pn ATN
v.*- oR a7
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
717-393-9596
Court 1. D. No. 80448
Attorney for Plaintiff
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
vs.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS VDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
No. 09-4689 ZA/ 0
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
Defendants
PROOF OF SERVICE
Attached is a photocopy of the Return Receipt Card for service of the
Complaint on the following Defendants:
1. Defendant, Continental Automotive Systems, US, Inc. has been served,
a copy of the Return Receipt Card is attached as Exhibit "A".
2. Defendant, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., was served on July 23, 2009,
a copy of the Return Receipt Card is attached as Exhibit "B".
Respectfully
ATLEE, HAjj?VBROqKf4AR-T LLP
Dated: ZA-77 0 By:
J?/ D. Jackson, Esquire
tt rney for Plaintiff
8 rth Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
(717) 393-9596
1. D. No. 80448
?? r I
A
¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Signature
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
X C3 Agent
¦ Print your name and address on the reverse ? Addressee
so that we can return the card to you.
¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, e)
B. by (Arr a C. Date of Delivery
or on the front if space permits. r
?.
1
.
Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 17 ? Yes
If YES, enter livery address below: ? No
/
1
t, O.? 1 f?Qdl'?ok,? ?U?OfY1l?' l.?.e.?
?Wct S emans VW AtAmbkwc. CPr
I
A
6u, i- ts
` i
A
M CT -ILN
Service Type
3
?
L
, Mail ? Express Mail
? Registered WRetum Receipt for Merchandise
? Insured mail ? C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? Pdra Fee) ? Yes a
z Article Number 7007 3020 0000 3631 5434
(1-m.tar from serVld
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum "pt 102595.02-M-1540
- -- - ---- I
T r, x
UNITEDStATEO.P '4T 411-
Fie Y 44a;`rNZ ttSL-'VIS Mall.'... i
f'f J. `ry"...t-a„vv
...! ?e...Y`.C^..
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and Z45+4 'in this box •rrr
ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART LLP
P.O. BOX 449
LANCASTER, PA 17608-0449
.,4.s-_ ??Er1>fl?I3 3 f?r }?: ??1?ill??? ????f?. t?Iit?fl:i???r???i??1
E_ xh)bli If
Y
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS
SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2. and 3. Also complete
item 4 H Restricted Delivery is desired
COMPLETE THIS • • DELIVEpy
-
.
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so tat we can return the card to
ou x AAAent
? Ad
d
lV
y
.
¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits. ressee
ted Name) CDate of Deli
1. Article ressed
Add to
Y res
dIfiN
-
1CA-?- aw% COt -cku
+ s
rent
from item 1? O Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: D No
C
X
tt
SO 1 u.?.g? t?J1l
'ai,m ?
?
•nnon
,(
?
p
-
T?v ?7 11f1, o t
3 Service
Type
. _
py.eruned Mail ? Express Wlail
13 Registered *,?eWm Receipt for Merchandise
0 Insured mail ? C.O.D.
2. Article Number. 4. 0estricted
Delivery? (Ex6a Fee) O Yes
:
(77ansferfrwnM 7007 3020 0000
3631 5441
Ps Form 3811, February 2004
• Domestic Return Receipt
- _ _ . - .- . -, - 02595-024A-1540
I UNITED STATES POSTA Vmo --r
-1-1Co 11 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART LLP
P.O. 80X 449
LANCASTER, PA 17608-0449
i
'i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in
the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows:
Melissa Yemma, Esquire
Nicolson Associates, LLC
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 North Providence Road
Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(Counsel for Continental Automotive Systems Us, Inc. f/n/a Siiemens/VDO)
Keith E. Smith, Esquire
Jodi Dyan Oley, Esquire
Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two Liberty Place
50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1909
(Counsel for Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.)
Nancy E. Campbell, Esquire
Kennedy, Daniel & Lipski
1818 Market Street
Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(Counsel for Brenner Dodge)
Dated: 71Z7/(J? ATLEE, HALL p
OKHART, LLP
By:
,a e D. Jackson, Esquire
A orney for Plaintiff
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
(717) 393-9596
I.D. No.80448
PLFVD-e i-;E
^F THE
:,,!?Y
2 99 J?' 28 FN 12: E5 Or
Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County
R Thomas Kline
Sheri
Ronny R Anderson
Chief Deputy
Jody S Smith
Civil Process Sergeant
Edward L Schorpp
Solicitor
boa„ta at t"?rrnbcrt ??
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
O T FILE..--?";?rvE= ?ry
George E. Seidle, Jr.
vs.
Brenner Motors, Inc.
2004,!L 30 Afl0- 34
CUM,
NTY
Case Number
2009-4680
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
07/15/2009 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff who being duly swom according to law states that he made a diligent search and
inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Brenner Motors, Inc., but was unable to locate them in his
bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Dauphin County, PA to serve the within Complaint and
Notice according to law.
07/2312009 Dauphin County Return: And now, July 23, 2009 I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return, that I made diligent search and inquiry for Brenner Motors the
defendant named in the within Complaint and that I am unable to find her in the County of Dauphin and
therefore return same NOT FOUND.
SHERIFF COST: $37.00
July 29, 2009
SO ANSWERS,
R THOMAS KLINE, SHERIFF
(ptlitit of the ?$Ijvr-f
r -f
Mary Jane Snyder
Real Estate Depu
Charles E. Sheaffer
Chief Deputy
William T. Tully
Solicitor
Dauphin County
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889
Michael W. Rinehart
Assistant Chief Deputy
Jack Lotwick
Sheriff
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Dauphin
GEORGE SEIDLE, JR
VS
BRENNER MOTORS INC.
Sheriff s Return
No. 2009-T-2054
OTHER COUNTY NO. 094680
I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of the County of Dauphin, State of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return,
that I made diligent search and inquiry for BRENNER MOTORS INC. the DEFENDANT named in the
within COMPLAINT and that I am unable to find him/her in the County of Dauphin, and therefore return
same NOT FOUND, JULY 23, 2009.
BUILDING IS VACANT
Sworn and subscribed to So Answers,
before me this 27TH day of July, 2009 k i?
NOTARIAL SEAL
MARY JANE SNYDER, Notary Public
Highspire, Dauphin County
M Commission Ex ires Set 1, 2010
Sheriff of Dauphin Court , P
1
By ,
Deputy Sheriff
Deputy: R HOPKINS
Sheriffs Costs: $41.25 7/22/2009
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
717-393-9596
Court I.D. No. 80448
Attorney for Plaintiff
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
813 Wertzville Road
Enola, PA 17025
Plaintiff
VS.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENSNDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
One Continental Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
6501 W. William Cannon Drive
Austin, TX 78735
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
1812 Paxton Street
Harrisburg, PA 17104-0
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
No. 09-4680
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE THE COMPLAINT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly reinstate the Complaint against Defendant, Brenner Motors, Inc. in the above-
captioned action.
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: ATI,EE, HALL&43(2(0"T, LLP
By:
J ' Jackson, Esquire
e tt rney for Plaintiff
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
(717) 393-9596
I.D. No. 80448
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E.,Jr\08-176\95221.doc 2
02?
OF THE PPOT-?IOTARY
2009 SEP -9 PM 12: 4 b
$10 • oo PZ ATT4
Gc,# 5.5Ma.i
d3o3(o(p
Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County
R Thomas Kline
Sheri
Ronny R Anderson
Chief Deputy
Jody S Smith
Civil Process Sergeant
Edward L Schorpp
Solicitor
George E. Seidle, Jr.
vs.
Brenner Motors, Inc.
t?tp . of Climb,
40
fy;.:J sr;?.
OFPCE C?r '-E SkERIFF
FILED-0i ' ;C
CF THE Pr -`".'nTA?Y
2009 SEA' 18 FM 2-- t
CViY ??l 4 ,..•UN t
F'i+.IVINSYLV?NA
Case Number
2009-4690
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
09/10/2009 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff who being duly swom according to law states that he made a diligent search and
inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Brenner Motors, Inc., but was unable to locate them in his
bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Dauphin County, PA to serve the within Complaint and
Notice according to law.
09/11/2009 Dauphin County Return: And now, September 11, 2009 I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of Dauphin County,'
Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return, that I made diligent search and inquiry for Brenner Motors, Inc.
the defendant named in the within Reinstated Complaint and that I am unable to find them in the County o-
DauDhin and therefore return same NOT FOUND.
SHERIFF COST: $37.00
September 17, 2009
'W 10 -&
m t1i:c of Itl e ?Itj%rr
Mary Jane Snyder
Real Estate Depu
William T. Tully
Solicitor
Dauphin County
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889
Charles E. Sheaffer
Chief Deputy
Michael W. Rinehart
Assistant Chief Deputy
Jack Lotwick
Sheriff
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Dauphin
GEORGE E SEIDLE, JR
VS
BRENNER MOTORS INC.
Sheriff s Return
No. 2009-T-2418
OTHER COUNTY NO. 20094680
I, Jack Lotwick, Sheriff of the County of Dauphin, State of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return,
that I made diligent search and inquiry for BRENNER MOTORS INC. the DEFENDANT gamed in the
within REINSTATED COMPLAINT and that I am unable to find him/her in the County of Dauphin, and
therefore return same NOT FOUND, SEPTEMBER 11, 2009.
BUSINESS IS CLOSED
Sworn and subscribed to
before me this 14TH day of September, 2009
11?
F NOTARIAL SEAL
Y JANE SNYDER, Notary Publi
Highspire, Dauphin County
Commission Expire s Set 1, 2010
M
So Annsswers,i
Sheriff of DauphiMZ77:?
By
Deputy Sheriff
Deputy: N MILLER
Sheriffs Costs: $47.25 9/11/2009
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens/VDO Automotive Corporation
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS/VDO AUTOMOTIVE
CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
: Civil Term No. 09-4680
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE WITH JURY TRIAL DEMAND
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendant, Continental Automotive Systems US,
Inc. f/k/a Siemens/VDO Automotive Corporation, in the above-captioned matter.
Defendant demands a jury trial with twelve (12) jurors and two (2) alternates.
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
CHERYL a. NICOLSON; ESQUIRE
7ARY
0 SEP'2 1 F 1 1:: 1: - :
} f r4
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS/VDO AUTOMOTIVE
CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens/VDO Automotive Corporation
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Civil Term No. 09-4680
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT AND WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Issue a writ to join the following as Additional Defendants in the above-captioned case:
Chrysler Grou LLC and Fiat, S.p.A.
MO 0M.t?qe ? \ Via N;ua n. aso
W'l""n id"Fi' ? IASoI IoiaS Torino -I-ta)
Counsel for Plaintiffs: 7aime Jackson, Esquire Y
Counsel for Additional Defendants: Unknown
Date:
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
CHERYL M. NICOL N, ESQUIRE
MELISSA L. YEMMA, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation
0
QE THE Pr{, EIJO,,MARY
2009 SEP 17 PM 12' 4 U
A.
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens/VDO Automotive Corporation
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS/VDO AUTOMOTIVE
CORPORATION
and
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Civil Term No. 09-4680
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
by facsimile and first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP
P.O. Box 449
8 North Queen Street
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Keith E. Smith, Esquire
Jodi Dyan Oley, Esquire
Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two Liberty Place
50 South 16`" Street, 22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1909
Counsel for Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
V .
Nancy E. Campbell, Esquire
1818 Market Street
Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Brenner Motors, Inc.
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
qhhgo? Y. Amz,4?23a,
CHERYL M. NICOLSON SQUIRE
MELISSA L. YEMMA, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation
Dated: 414
FILED--()F Cc
OF THE ^??+CT,AF?Y
2009 SEP 17 PAS 12: -, 0
U. 14
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS/VDO AUTOMOTIVE
CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens/VDO Automotive Corporation
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Civil Term No. 09-4680
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
WRIT
TO: Chrysler Group LLC c/o CT Corporation System, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE
19801, and Fiat, S.p.A., Via Nizza n.250, 10125 Torino, Italy
You are notified that Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO
Automotive Corporation has joined you as an Additional Defendant in this action, which you are
required to defend.
P1416-notat it ivision
4
By:
Date:
a
NANCY E. CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE
E-Mail: nancy.campbell@zurichna.com
Attorney I.D. No: 36247
KENNEDY, CAMPBELL, LIPSKI &
DOCHNEY
1818 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 430-6350
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/n/a SIEMENS/VDO, FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
TO ALL PARTIES: YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE
ENCLOSED PLEADING WITHIN 20
DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR
JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED
AGAINST YOU ,
ATTj0 jNEY hR DEFENDANT(S)
BRI,NNER MOTORS, INC.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
d(096
No. 09.449ft-civil Term
TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED
ANSWER OF BRENNER MOTORS, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST CONTINENTAL
AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, INC. Vn/a SIEMENS/VDO, AND FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC
1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in
this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and therefore, denies same and demands strict
proof thereof at trial.
2. The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed to Defendants other than
Answering Defendants herein. Answering Defendants are therefore advised that no
further answer is required to the averments contained therein.
The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed to Defendants other than
Answering Defendants herein. Answering Defendants are therefore advised that no
further answer is required to the averments contained therein.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
9. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied. By way of further response, Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. sold a
vehicle that was manufactured by Chrysler Corporation without any change or
alternation. Chrysler Corporation represented that the Durango and its component parts,
including the instrument cluster, was of merchantable quality and was fit for the ordinary
purposes for such a vehicle. Answering defendant Brenner Motors, Inc. had no
involvement in the design or manufacturer of the vehicle or any of its component parts.
10. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
11. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
13. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
15. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
21. The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed to Defendants other than
Answering Defendants herein. Answering Defendants are therefore advised that no
further answer is required to the averments contained therein. To the extent a response is
required, denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
42. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
43. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
COUNTI
44. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference the answer to paragraphs 1
through 43 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth at length.
48 - 53. The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed to Defendants
other than Answering Defendants herein. Answering Defendants are therefore advised
that no further answer is required to the averments contained therein. To the extent a
response is required, denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the
allegations. Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law
to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and
are therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering
Defendants.
COUNT II
54. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference the answer to paragraphs 1
through 53 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth at length.
55 - 64. The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed to Defendants
other than Answering Defendants herein. Answering Defendants are therefore advised
that no further answer is required to the averments contained therein. To the extent a
response is required, denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the
allegations. Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law
to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and
are therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering
Defendants.
COUNT III
65. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference the answer to paragraphs 1
through 64 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth at length.
66 - 74. The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed to Defendants
other than Answering Defendants herein. Answering Defendants are therefore advised
that no further answer is required to the averments contained therein. To the extent a
response is required, denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the
allegations. Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law
to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and
are therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff s complaint be
dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering
Defendants.
COUNT IV
75. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference the answer to paragraphs 1
through 74 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth at length.
76 - 85. The averments contained in this paragraph are addressed to Defendants
other than Answering Defendants herein. Answering Defendants are therefore advised
that no further answer is required to the averments contained therein. To the extent a
response is required, denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the
allegations. Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law
to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and
are therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering
Defendants.
COUNT V
86. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference the answer to paragraphs 1
through 85 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth at length.
87. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
88. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
89. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied. Answering defendant specifically denies the allegations in subparagraphs (a)
through (r) and demands strict proof of same at trial.
90. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
91. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
92. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
93. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
94. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering
Defendants.
COUNT VI
95. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference the answer to paragraphs 1
through 94 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth at length.
96. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
97. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied. Answering defendant specifically denies the allegations in subparagraphs (a)
through (n) and demands strict proof of same at trial.
98. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
99. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
100. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
101. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
102. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
103. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
104. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
105. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering
Defendants.
COUNT VII
106. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference the answer to paragraphs 1
through 105 inclusive, as fully as though the same were here set forth at length.
107. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
108. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
109. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
110. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are
therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering
Defendants.
NEW MATTER
111. Any recovery in this action is limited or barred under the provisions of the
Pennsylvania Comparative negligence Act.
112. The negligence of the Plaintiff was a substantial factor in bringing about the
accident, damages and injury alleged and this negligence operates to bar or limit the
damages asserted.
113. The Plaintiff had notice and knowledge of the conditions alleged to have caused
the accident and did knowingly and willfully assume the risk of injury. The claim of
Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of Assumption of Risk.
114. Plaintiff s claims are barred by operation of the applicable Statute of Limitations.
115. Credit and setoff are hereby demanded and claimed for any and all amounts paid
to or on behalf of Plaintiff by or on behalf of Answering Defendant.
116. Plaintiffs claims are barred because of the doctrine of superseding and/or
intervening cause.
117. If the allegations of Plaintiffs' injuries are deemed true, a fact specifically denied
by defendants, then it is averred that said damages and injuries are due to the negligence,
recklessness or carelessness on the part of persons or entities over whom answering
defendants had no control or responsibility and for whom defendants cannot be assumed
to have accepted liability.
118. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
119. Plaintiffs claims for relief are barred and/or limited as the products identified in
Plaintiffs Complaint were subject of misuse, abuse or abnormal use.
120. Plaintiffs claims for relief are barred and/or limited as the products identified in
Plaintiffs Complaint were modified, altered and/or changed such that said product no
longer constitutes a product for which Answering Defendants can be held liable.
121. Plaintiffs claims for relief are barred and/or limited as Plaintiffs own actions
and/or inactions were cause in fact and/or legal cause of the damages alleged.
122. The products described in plaintiffs Complaint complied with all federal and state
statutes, laws and regulations at the time it was supplied by Answering Defendants, if it
found to have been supplied by Answering Defendants.
123. Plaintiffs claims for relief are barred and/or limited by the operation of federal
laws and/or regulations that preempt Plaintiffs state law claims.
124. Plaintiffs claims for relief are barred and/or limited by the provisions of the
Pennsylvania Commercial Code, 13 Pa.C.S.A. Sections 1101-2725.
125. Answering Defendants breached no duty of care to Plaintiff.
126. Answering Defendants extended no express or implied warranties to Plaintiff.
127. The products described in Plaintiffs Complaint complied with all applicable
federal safety standards that existed at the time it was originally designed, assembled,
distributed and sold and this is a complete defense to all or some of Plaintiffs claims.
128. Answering Defendants did not design or manufacturer the products described in
Plaintiffs Complaint.
129. Plaintiff did not suffer a physical injury as a result of the incident that occurred on
December 2, 2007.
130. Plaintiff never had his vehicle in to Answering Defendant's facility after the recall
was announced by Chrysler and before the fire such that his vehicle would have been
identified for a recall repair.
131. Answering Defendant had no independent duty to notify of Chrysler's recall G07.
132. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to set forth a claim for infliction of emotional distress.
133. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to set forth a claim for a duty of Answering defendant
to notify consumers of the Chrysler recall G07.
134. Any damages as alleged by Plaintiff are recoverable from Chrysler as the
manufacturer.
, 1 Q
135. Answering Defendant has a claim for complete indemnification from Chrysler as
well as the parts manufacturers Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemans
VDO Automotive Corporation and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
136. This Complaint should be dismissed as there is a prior existing Complaint filed in
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, January Term, 2009; No. 3567. Said case is still
pending.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering
Defendants.
CROSS CLAIM OF DEFENDANT BRENNER MOTORS INC. AGAINST
CONINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US. INC. and FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR. INC.
137. If Plaintiff suffered injuries or damages as alleged in the Complaint, that
Answering Defendants specifically deny, said injuries and damages were caused solely
by the negligence and carelessness of Defendant CONTINENTAL AUOTMOTIVE
SYSTEMS US, INC. and FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. who are solely
liable, or jointly and/or severally liable, and/or liable over to Answering Defendants.
138. If Answering Defendants are held liable to Plaintiff for all or part of such injuries
and damages as Plaintiff may have suffered, which Answering Defendants specifically
deny, Defendant CONTINENTAL AUOTMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, INC. and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. are liable to Answering Defendants by way of
contribution and/or indemnity, contractually or otherwise.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in its favor and against
Defendant, CONTINENTAL AUOTMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, INC. and FREESCALE
4 •
14 SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., for all sums paid by Answering Defendants to Plaintiff as a
result of verdict or settlement and attorney's fees, costs and interest.
KENNEDY, CAMPBEL, LIPSKI &
VERIFICATION
Nancy E. Campbell, Esq. hereby states that she is the attorney of record for
Defendant in this action and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to
Plaintiffs Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaim is true and correct to the best of
her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements
therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
KENNEDY, DANIEL & LIPSKI
NANCY E. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
Date: October 26, 2009
•+ r
NANCY E. CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE
E-Mail: nancy.campbell@zurichna.com
Attorney I.D. No: 36247
KENNEDY, CAMPBELL, LIPSKI &
DOCHNEY
1818 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215 430-6350
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. Fn/a SIEMENSNDO, FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S)
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
No. 09-4980 Civil Term
TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nancy E. Campbell, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Answer with New matter and Crossclaim was mailed via first class mail,
postage prepaid to the following counsel listed below:
Jaime D. Jackson, Esq.
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esq.
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
Keith E. Smith, Esq.
Jodi Dyan Oley, Esq.
Eckert Seaman Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two Liberty Place
50 S. 16' St., 22 n' Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1909
KENNEDY, CAMPBELL, LIPSKI
& DOCHNEY
Date: October 27, 2009
NANCY E. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant, Brenner Motors, Inc.
OF THE PRUTHOINMAPY
M9 OCT 29 Ph 2: P4
G+vfY
6,
O O
TO: Allparties
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO
THE ENCLOSED New Matter and Crossclaim
WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM
SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFA ULT JUDGMENT
MAYBE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
Cheryl M. Nicolson. Esquire
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.,
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
v.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS VDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
No. 09-4680 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC and FIAT, S.p.A.
DEFENDANT, CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, INC.
F/K/A SIEMENS VDO AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION'S ANSWER WITH NEW
MATTER AND CROSSCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Defendant, Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation, by and through its counsel, Nicolson Associates LLC, hereby files this Answer to
Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaim and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that George E. Seidle, Jr. is a
named Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. After reasonable investigation, Answering
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the
4
truth of the remaining averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
is a named Defendant in the above-captioned matter. After reasonable investigation, Answering
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
4. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Brenner Dodge is a named
Defendant in the above-captioned matter. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant
is without sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the
remaining averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue,
and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
SUMMARY OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION
5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
11. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further affirmative response is
required, after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this
paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at
the time of trial.
12. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further affirmative response is
required, after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this
paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at
the time of trial.
13. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further affirmative response is
required, after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this
paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at
the time of trial.
14. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further affirmative response is
required, after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this
paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at
the time of trial.
15. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further affirmative response is
required, after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or
information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this
paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at
the time of trial.
16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
18. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Answering Defendant
inspected certain damaged Z107 chips. With respect to the remaining averments of this
paragraph, Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information with which to
form a belief as to the truth of same. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict
proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
19. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that at all times material
hereto, Answering Defendant was in the business of manufacturing, in part, assembly and supply
of instrument clusters which were incorporated into some model year Dodge Durangos. With
respect to the remaining averments contained in this paragraph, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
20. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Answering Defendant
inspected certain damaged Z107 chips and returned them to Freescale Semiconductors for
inspection. With respect to the remaining averments of this paragraph, Answering Defendant is
without sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of same.
Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of
trial.
21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
27. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Daimler Chrysler issued
a recall relating to the instrument cluster in some 2004-2006 model year Dodge Durangos. With
respect to the remaining averments of this paragraph, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of same. Therefore, said
averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
28. Admitted in part; denied in part. Answering Defendant admits that Plaintiff has
attached as Exhibit "A", a document that purports to be the Defect Information Report for
DaimlerChrysler Corporation's Recall GO1. After reasonable investigation, Answering
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining averments contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
29. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Freescale manufactured
and supplied to Answering Defendant Z 107 chips for incorporation into instrument clusters used
in some 2004-2006 model year Dodge Durangos. It is further admitted that Answering
Defendant has a principal place of business located at One Continental Drive, Auburn Hills,
Michigan. With respect to the remaining averments of this paragraph, Answering Defendant is
without sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of same.
Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
trial.
30. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that the referenced NHTSA
Campaign Number is for a recall concerning the instrument cluster of some 2004-2006 model
year Dodge Durangos. Any remaining averments are denied.
31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial
32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
42. Admitted in part; denied in part. Answering Defendant admits that Plaintiff has
attached as Exhibit "B", a document that purports to be a Safety Recall Notice from Daimler-
Chrysler. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained
in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
43. Admitted in part; denied in part. Answering Defendant admits that Plaintiff has
attached as Exhibit "C", a document that purports to be a Safety Recall Notice from Daimler-
Chrysler. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledge
or information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained
in this paragraph. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
ANSWER TO COUNT I
Georze E. Seidle, Jr. v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO
Automotive Corporation
Negligence
44. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1
through 43, inclusive, as though each were fully set forth at length herein.
45. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Answering Defendant
was engaged in the manufacture, in part, assembly and supply of instrument clusters which were
installed in some model year Dodge Durangos. After reasonable investigation, Answering
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the
remaining averments. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
46. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of
trial.
47. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of
trial.
48. (a-1) Denied. To the extent the averments contained in this paragraph state
conclusions of law, no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. It is further specifically denied that any acts and/or omissions on the part of
Answering Defendant, as set forth in sub-parts a-1 of this paragraph, were negligent. To the
contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering Defendant acted in a careful, cautious and
prudent manner under each and every circumstance. Accordingly, the averments contained in
this paragraph are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
49. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of
trial.
50. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law, to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
51. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law, to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
52. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law, to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
53. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law, to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., together with costs, interest, counsel fees, and any other
award this Court deems just and proper.
ANSWER TO COUNT II
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. Vk/a Siemens VDO
Automotive Corporation
Strict Products Liabili
54. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1
through 53, inclusive, as though each were fully set forth at length herein.
55. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that at all times material
hereto, Answering Defendant was in the business of manufacturing, in part, assembly and supply
of instrument clusters which were incorporated into some model year Dodge Durangos. With
respect to the remaining averments contained in this paragraph, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
56. (a-1) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of
law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded
at the time of trial.
57. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
58. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To
the extent that any further response is required, after reasonable investigation, Answering
Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining averments. Therefore, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
59. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
60. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
61. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law, to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
62. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law, to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
63. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law, to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
64. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law, to
which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., together with costs, interest, counsel fees, and any other
award this Court deems just and proper.
ANSWER TO COUNT III
Georee E. Seidle, Jr. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
Negligence
65. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1
through 64, inclusive, as though each were fully set forth at length herein.
66. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
67. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
68. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
69. (a-h) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a
Defendant other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are
therefore denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
70. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
71. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
72. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
73. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
74. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., together with costs, interest, counsel fees, and any other
award this Court deems just and proper.
ANSWER TO COUNT IV
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
Strict Products Liability
75. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1
through 74, inclusive, as though each were fully set forth at length herein.
76. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
77. (a-h) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a
Defendant other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are
therefore denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
78. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
79. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
80. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
81. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
82. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
83. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
84. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
85. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., together with costs, interest, counsel fees, and any other
award this Court deems just and proper.
ANSWER TO COUNT V
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Brenner Motors, Inc.
Nealizence
86. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1
through 85, inclusive, as though each were fully set forth at length herein.
87. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
88. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
89. (a-r) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a
Defendant other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are
therefore denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
90. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
91. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
92. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
93. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
94. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., together with costs, interest, counsel fees, and any other
award this Court deems just and proper.
ANSWER TO COUNT VI
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Brenner Motors, Inc.
Strict Products Liability
95. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1
through 94, inclusive, as though each were fully set forth at length herein.
96. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
97. (a-n) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a
Defendant other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without
sufficient knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are
therefore denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
98. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
99. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
100. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
101. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
102. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
103. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
104. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
105. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., together with costs, interest, counsel fees, and any other
award this Court deems just and proper.
ANSWER TO COUNT VII
George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Brenner Dodge
Breach of Warranty
106. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1
through 105, inclusive, as though each were fully set forth at length herein.
107. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
108. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
109. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
110. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are directed to a Defendant
other than Answering Defendant. Accordingly, Answering Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information with which to form a belief as to same. Said averments are therefore
denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., together with costs, interest, counsel fees, and any other
award this Court deems just and proper.
NEW MATTER
111. Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of
limitations.
112. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
113. The incident described in Plaintiffs Complaint was caused by or contributed to by
Plaintiffs' own negligence.
114. Plaintiff assumed the risk.
115. The acts and/or omissions of other individuals or entities over whom the Answering
Defendant had no control, constitute an intervening, superseding cause of the damages alleged to
have been sustained by Plaintiff.
116. The product at issue was improperly installed by an individual or entity other than
Answering Defendant.
117. Answering Defendant was not negligent.
118. Any acts of the Answering Defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not a
substantial factor in causing the alleged damages.
119. Any damages or injuries sustained by Plaintiff were not caused by Answering
Defendant.
120. Plaintiff was negligent.
121. Answering Defendant denies that they were negligent in any manner whatsoever.
Should it be determined to the contrary, then the negligence of Plaintiff or others, was
comparatively greater than that of Answering Defendant, causing Plaintiff's claims to be barred or
reduced pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
122. Some or all of the damages claimed by Plaintiff are not recoverable under the
applicable laws.
123. Plaintiff's alleged damages, if proven, are not recoverable under Pennsylvania's
doctrine of strict liability.
124. Answering Defendant is not strictly liable pursuant to §402(a) of the Restatement of
Torts (Second), to Plaintiff, and/or any other person, party, or entity.
125. Any product produced and/or sold by Answering Defendant, was neither defective
nor unreasonably dangerous for its intended use when it left the possession of Answering
Defendant.
126. Any product produced and/or sold by Answering Defendant, did not cause or
contribute to the cause of the alleged incident and/or any resulting damages at issue herein.
127. Any product produced and/or sold by Answering Defendant, underwent substantial
alteration in its condition after it left the possession of Answering Defendant.
128. Any product produced and/or sold by Answering Defendant, as that product existed
when it left Defendant's possession and control did not cause or contribute to the cause of the
incident described in Plaintiff's Complaint.
129. Any product produced and/or sold by Answering Defendant was misused.
130. Any product produced and/or sold by Answering Defendant, was properly designed,
manufactured, tested, inspected, and were accompanied by all appropriate, necessary and required
warnings and instructions.
131. Plaintiff's claims are barred or are otherwise limited by the spoliation of evidence.
132. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff failed to take reasonable measures to mitigate
the damages allegedly suffered.
133. Based upon present knowledge and information, this action may not be maintained
because of Plaintiff's failure to join all necessary and indispensable parties to this action, and in the
absence of such entities who should be parties, this action cannot proceed.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., together with costs, interest, counsel fees, and any other
award this Court deems just and proper.
CROSSCLAIMS DIRECTED TO FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. AND
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
134. In the event that any liability is found to exist on the part of Answering
Defendant, Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation, which liability is specifically denied, then Defendants, Freescale Semiconductor,
Inc., and Brenner Motors, Inc., are liable over to Answering Defendant, Continental Automotive
Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation for contribution and/or
indemnification or are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff.
135. In the event that harm, losses or damages alleged by Plaintiff are found to exist,
which are specifically denied, then Defendants, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. and Brenner
Motors, Inc. are solely liable to Plaintiff for the harm, losses or damages to Plaintiff, or are liable
over to Answering Defendant, Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO
Automotive Corporation for contribution and/or indemnification, or are jointly and severally
liable to Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against all other parties together with costs, interest, counsel fees, and any other award this-Court
deems just and proper.
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
t
CHER L M. COL N, ESQUIRE
MELISSA L. YEMMA, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation
Date: / 0-1
VERIFICATION
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
SS:
COUNTY OF LANCASTER )
Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, George R. Jurch, III, who acknowledged to me under oath that he is the corporate
agent of Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. and that Continental Automotive Systems
US, Inc. is a named Defendant in George E. Seidle, Jr. v. Continental Automotive Systems US,
Inc. flkla Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation, et al., in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 09-4680. He states that he is duly
authorized to sign Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation's Answer with New Matter and Crossclaims to Plaintiff's Complaint; that he has
read the foregoing document and knows the contents thereof; that the matters stated in the
foregoing document are not within his personal knowledge and that there is no individual
employee of Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. who has personal knowledge of all such
matters; that said assertions were prepared with the assistance of employees and counsel for said
defendant upon which he has relied; that the assertions set forth herein, subject to inadvertent and
undiscovered errors, are based upon and necessarily limited by the records and information still
in existence, presently recollected, and thus far discovered in the course of preparation of those
assertions and consequently, said defendant reserves the right to make any changes in the
assertions if it appears at any time that omissions or errors have been made therein or that more
accurate information is available; and that subject to the limitations set forth herein, the said
responses are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
Z/--*-?//l
ORGE R. JUR I
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this ?W' day of OVAEb2Wr2009.
Personally known to me
_ Who Produced Identification
Notary 'Public
My Commission Expires: OS/ag /go/ C,
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.,
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS VDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
No. 09-4680 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
V.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC and FIAT, S.p.A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Defendant, Continental
Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation's Answer with New
Matter and Crossclaims to Plaintiffs Complaint was served electronically on the date stated
below, upon the following:
Attorney for Plaintiff
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart LLP
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608
Attorney for Defendant, Brenner Motors, Inc.
Nancy E. Campbell, Esquire
1818 market Street
Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorney for Defendant, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
Keith E. Smith, Esquire
Jodi Dyan Oley, Esquire
Eckert Seamens Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two Liberty Place
50 South 16d' Street, 22"d Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1909
Attorney for Defendant, Chrysler LLC
Keith D. Heinold, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
1845 Walnut Street
Philadelphia PA 19103
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
CHERYL M. NICOL N, ESQUIRE
MELISSA L. YEMMA, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation
(improperly designated SiemensNDO)
Dae: 1
,or :Hi? !1r 07MY
2009 NOV -6 pill 3: 10
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
717-393-9596
Court I.D. No. 80448
Attorney for Plaintiff
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
Plaintiff
vs.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS VDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
No. 09-4680
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF
DEFENDANT, BRENNER MOTORS. INC.
Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., by and through his attorneys, Atlee, Hall & Brookhart,
LLP, hereby replies to the New Matter of Defendant, Brenner Motors, Inc. as follows:
111. Neither admitted nor denied. This allegation calls for a conclusion of law to
which no response is required.
112. Neither admitted nor denied. This allegation calls for a conclusion of law to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that
Plaintiff was negligent in any matter.
{
113. Neither admitted nor denied. This allegation calls for a conclusion of law to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is specifically
denied that Plaintiff assumed the risk of any injury.
114-118. Neither admitted nor denied. This allegation calls for a conclusion of law to
which no response is required.
119. Neither admitted nor denied. This allegation calls for a conclusion of law to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that any
defenses of product misuse, abuse or abnormal use are applicable.
120. Neither admitted nor denied. This allegation calls for a conclusion of law to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that
Plaintiff's claims are barred because the product at issue was substantially changed.
121-127. Neither admitted nor denied. This allegation calls for a conclusion of law to
which no response is required.
128. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Brenner
Motors did not manufacture or design the products at issue. It is specifically denied that
Defendant is not responsible for the damages suffered by Plaintiff under Pennsylvania law.
129. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff has experienced physical manifestations as a
result of the extreme anxiety and stress from being in his home when it caught fire and
watching his home burn on December 2, 2007.
130. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this
paragraph and therefore, Plaintiff denies the allegations.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\97374.doc 2
131-135. Neither admitted nor denied. This allegation calls for a conclusion of law to
which no response is required.
136. Neither admitted nor denied. This allegation calls for a conclusion of law to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is specifically
denied that pendency of a prior action is a proper defense to be raised in New Matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., demands judgment against Defendant,
Brenner Motors, Inc. for damages in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs
thereon as allowed by law.
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: _ (l o? ATLEE,HAW
R0Oyd ART
By:
Jai e D.41ackson, Esquire
orney for Plaintiff
North Queen Street
.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
(717) 393-9596
I.D. No. 80448
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\97374.doc 3
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Dated: 1 0 q
n r",
C)
George E. e dle, Jr. I/
Print Name Here
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in
the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows:
Melissa Yemma, Esquire
Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
Nicolson Associates, LLC
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 North Providence Road
Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(Counsel for Continental Automotive
Systems Us, Inc. f/n/a Siemens/VDO)
Keith E. Smith, Esquire
Jodi Dyan Oley, Esquire
Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two Liberty Place
50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1909
(Counsel for Freescale Semiconductor,
Inc.)
Dated: t k \ i ak)9
Adam T. Schramek, Esquire
Fulbright & Jaworski
600 Congress Avenue
Suite 2400
Austin, TX 78701-2978
(Outside Counsel for Freescale
Semiconductor, Inc.)
Nancy E. Campbell, Esquire
Kennedy, Daniel & Lipski
1818 Market Street
Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(Counsel for Brenner Dodge)
ATLEE,
T,
By:
d iYne D. JaZKon, Esquire
ttorney for Plaintiff
North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
(717) 393-9596
I.D. No.80448
Iai0 L,.1-1 : t }} ? ,
Z u,Ii>>r
k
NANCY E. CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE
E-Mail: nancy.campbell@zurichna.com
Attorney I.D. No: 36247
KENNEDY, CAMPBELL, LIPSKI &
DOCHNEY
1818 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 430-6350
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/n/a SIEMENS/VDO, FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S)
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
No. 0 vil Term
TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED
RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT BRENNER MOTORS, INC. TO CROSSCLAIM
OF DEFENDANT CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, INC. f/n/a
SIEMENS/VDO
134. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
135. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained in this paragraph and therefore, Answering Defendant denies the allegations.
Moreover, the allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleadings and are therefore
denied.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants pray that Plaintiff's complaint be
dismissed with prejudice or that judgment be rendered wholly in favor of Answering
Defendants.
KENNEDY, CAMPBEL, LIPSKI &
T /l!'ITTTT<T
VERIFICATION
Nancy E. Campbell, Esq. hereby states that she is the attorney of record for
Defendant in this action and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Response
to the Crossclaim of Defendant Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/n/a
SiemensNDO is true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief.
The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties
of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: November 10, 2009
KENNEDY, DANIEL & LIPSKI
NANCY E. CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE
E-Mail: nancy.campbell@zurichna.com
Attorney I.D. No: 36247
KENNEDY, CAMPBELL, LIPSKI &
DOCHNEY
1818 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 430-6350
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/n/a SIEMENS/VDO, FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT(S)
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
I No. 09-4980 Civil Term
TRIAL BY JURY OF 12 DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Nancy E. Campbell, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Response to Crossclaim of Defendant Continental Automotive Systems US,
Inc. Fn/a Siemens/VDO was mailed via first class mail, postage prepaid to the following
counsel listed below:
Jaime D. Jackson, Esq.
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esq.
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
Keith E. Smith, Esq.
Jodi Dyan Oley, Esq.
Eckert Seaman Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two Liberty Place
50 S. 16`' St., 22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 191.02-1909
KENNEDY, CAMPBELL, LIPSKI
& DOCHNEY
NANC E. TPBELL, ESQ.
Attorny fo ndant, Brenner Motors, Inc.
Date: November 10, 2009
2 ???
10,
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.,
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS VDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
No. 09-4680 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
V.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC and FIAT, S.p.A.
PROOF OF SERVICE
Attached is a photocopy of the Return Receipt Card for service of the Praecipe for Writ
and Writ to Join Additional Defendants, Chrysler Group, LLC and Fiat, S.p.A. on the following:
1. Defendant, Chrysler Group LLC, has been served, a copy of the Return Receipt Card
is attached as Exhibit "A".
Respectfully submitted,
CHERYL M. NICOLS , ESQUI
MELISSA L. YEMMA, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation
Dated: November 9, 2009
Ll
ru
.0
ro
rq
n?
N
0
a
0
0
a
rq
m
m
0
M
R
t -
a
U
m
IN N
a F
0 Q
Z ?
m `-
U G
u
0
N
0
N
O
n
cc
E
a
U
.N
m
0
0
V
O
O
N
c
tL
T
co
m
E
O
Ll.
CO
CL
a.
- N O
ca m
LL U`
ai .6 o
co m Z
-Lga€
?'oW(D
o.
w
U
w
U)
J
F
O
CL
N
ul
w
E-
Z
•
O
wo
s
C_
t
a
N
m Ll
vi i
-
vl 7
co Q
aS
C ? f ?' J I?
C r4,
l ti4. ., 4
v
Q ?1
N
O
Ln 'n
"! yJ
'? \
1
Q
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.,
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS VDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
No. 09-4680 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
V.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC and FIAT, S.p.A.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of Proof of Service by
first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Attorney for Plaintiff
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart LLP
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608
Attorney for Defendant, Brenner Dodae
Nancy E. Campbell, Esquire
1818 market Street
Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorney for Defendant, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
Keith E. Smith, Esquire
Jodi Dyan Oley, Esquire
Eckert Seamens Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two Liberty Place
50 South 16'h Street, 22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1909
Attorney for Defendant, Chrysler LLC
Keith D. Heinold, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
1845 Walnut Street
Philadelphia PA 19103
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
41, IA.AAAAA
CHERYL M. KNEW SQUIRE
MELISSA L. YEMMA, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation
Dated: November 9, 2009
? 1'rd?i/?afan?
a,?y, ?tlev /? /tm 9a ?a
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.,
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. FWa SIEMENS VDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
No. 09-4680 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
V.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC and FIAT, S.p.A.
DEFENDANT CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US., INC.'S f/Wa
SIEMENS/VDO AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION'S REPLY TO CROSSCLAIM OF
DEFENDANT BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
Defendant, Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens/VDO Automotive
Corporation, by and through its counsel Nicolson Associates, LLC, hereby files this Reply to
Defendant Brenner Motors, Inc.'s Crossclaim and in support thereof, avers as follows:
137. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. It is
specifically denied that the injuries and damages complained of in Plaintiff's Complaint, said
averments being specifically denied, were caused solely or jointly and severally by Answering
Defendant. It is further specifically denied that Answering Defendant is solely liable, or jointly
and/or severally liable, and/or liable over to Defendant, Brenner Motors, Inc. Accordingly, said
averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
138. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to
which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. It is
specifically denied that Answering Defendant is liable to Defendant, Brenner Motors, Inc. on the
theory of contribution and/or indemnity, contractually or otherwise for the damages at issue.
Accordingly, said averments are denied, at issue, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time
of trial.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a
SiemensNDO Automotive Corporation demands that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Defendant, Brenner Motors, Inc., together with costs, interest, counsel fees and any other
award this Court deems just and proper.
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
CHERYL M. NICO ON, ESQUIRE
MELISSA L. YEMMA, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation
Date:
VERIFICATION
I, Melissa L. Yemma, Attorney for Defendant, Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.,
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing
Reply to Crossclaim of Brenner Motors, Inc. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. If the above statements are not true, then I am subject to the penalties of
18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
MELISSA L. YEMMA SQUIRE
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
By: Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
By: Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire
Identification Nos. 57422/92194
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 N. Providence Road, Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(610) 891-0300
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.,
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive
Corporation
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
V.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/k/a SIEMENS VDO
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
No. 09-4680 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
V.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC and FIAT, S.p.A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Melissa L. Yemma, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of Defendant, Continental
Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation's Reply to
Crossclaim of Brenner Motors, Inc. was served via facsimile and regular mail on the date stated
below, upon the following:
Attornev for Plaintiff
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire
Atlee, Hall & Brookhart LLP
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608
Attornev for Defendant, Brenner Motors. Inc.
Nancy E. Campbell, Esquire
1818 Market Street
Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorney for Defendant, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
Keith E. Smith, Esquire
Jodi Dyan Oley, Esquire
Eckert Seamens Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two Liberty Place
50 South 16`x' Street, 22°d Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1909
Attorney for Defendant, Chrysler LLC
Keith D. Heinold, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin
1845 Walnut Street
Philadelphia PA 19103
NICOLSON ASSOCIATES LLC
CHERYL M. NICO ON, ESQUIRE
MELISSA L. YEMMA, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendant,
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.
f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation
Date:
RBD- ?
OF THE PRQTMONOTAW
2*940 17 AM 11 ; 19
Jaime D. Jackson, Esquire
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
717-393-9596
1. D. No. 80448
Attorney for Plaintiff
GEORGE E. SEIDLE, JR.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
vs.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS
US, INC. f/n/a SIEMENS/VDO
and
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.
and
BRENNER MOTORS, INC.
No. 09-4680
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER
OF DEFENDANT, CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS US, INC.
F/K/A SIEMENS VDO AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION
Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., by and through his attorneys, Atlee, Hall & Brookhart,
LLP, hereby replies to the New Matter of Defendant, Continental Automotive Systems US,
Inc., f/k/a Siemens VDO Automotive Corporation as follows:
111. Denied. Plaintiff's claims are not barred by an applicable statute of limitations.
112. Denied. Plaintiff's Complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted.
113. Denied. Plaintiff was not negligent and in no way caused the incident described
in Plaintiff's Complaint.
114. Denied. Plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury.
115. Denied. There were no intervening or superseding causes of damages to
Plaintiff.
116. Neither admitted nor denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge or
information with which to form a belief as to the truth of the averment.
117. Denied. Answering Defendant was negligent, as described in Plaintiff's
Complaint.
118. Denied. Answering Defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiff's damages.
119. Denied. Answering Defendant's negligence and defective product were
substantial factors in causing Plaintiff's damages.
120. Denied. Plaintiff was not negligent.
121. Denied. Answering Defendant was negligent and Plaintiff was not negligent.
Plaintiff's claims are not barred or limited under the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence
Act.
122. Denied. All of Plaintiff's damages are recoverable under the applicable laws.
123. Denied. Plaintiff's damages are recoverable under Pennsylvania's doctrine of
strict liability.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidie, George E., Jr\08-176\97791.doc 2
124. Denied. Answering Defendant is strictly liable to Plaintiff under Pennsylvania
law and Restatement (Second) of Torts §402(a).
125. Denied. The product produced by Answering Defendant was defective and
unreasonably dangerous for its intended use when it left the possession of Answering
Defendant.
126. Denied. The product produced by Answering Defendant contributed to the
alleged incident and the resulting damages described in Plaintiff's Complaint.
127. Denied. The product produced by Answering Defendant was defective and
unreasonably dangerous for its intended use when it left the possession of Answering
Defendant. The product did not undergo substantial alteration in its condition after it left the
possession of Answering Defendant.
128. Denied. The product produced by Answering D efendant, as that product existed
when it left Answering Defendant's control, caused and/or contributed to the incident and
damages described in Plaintiff's Complaint.
129. Denied. The product was not misused.
130. Denied. The product produced by Answering Defendant was defective and
unreasonably dangerous for its intended use.
131. Denied. Plaintiff's claims are not barred or limited by spoliation of evidence.
132. Denied. Plaintiff did not fail to mitigate damages.
133. Denied. Plaintiff did not fail to join all necessary and indispensable parties to
this action.
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\97791.doc 3
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, George E. Seidle, Jr., demands judgment against Defendant
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. f/k/a Siemens VDO for damages in excess of
$50,000, together with interest and costs thereon as allowed by law.
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: ATLEE, HALVO(BJ?66KHART, LLP
By:
Pi? D. Jackson, Esquire
Atto ey for Plaintiff
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
(717) 393-9596
I.D. No. 80448
\\ahbprolaw\prolaw\documents\Seidle, George E., Jr\08-176\97791.doc 4
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. As all factual averments to a degree of
reasonable belief are known to plaintiff counsel through investigation, I am verifying this
pleading to allow prompt filing and service. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unorn falsification to authorities.
Dated: r" 9 Signed:
Jackson, Esquire
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in
the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows:
Melissa Yemma, Esquire
Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
Nicolson Associates, LLC
Rose Tree Corporate Center II
1400 North Providence Road
Suite 6050
Media, PA 19063
(Counsel for Continental Automotive
Systems Us, Inc. f/n/a Siemens/VDO)
Keith E. Smith, Esquire
Jodi Dyan Oley, Esquire
Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Two Liberty Place
50 South 16th Street, 22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1909
(Counsel for Freescale Semiconductor,
Inc.)
Dated: I I Inz
Adam T. Schramek, Esquire
Fulbright & Jaworski
600 Congress Avenue
Suite 2400
Austin, TX 78701-2978
(Outside Counsel for Freescale
Semiconductor, Inc.)
Nancy E. Campbell, Esquire
Kennedy, Daniel & Lipski
1818 Market Street
Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(Counsel for Brenner Dodge)
ATLEE, HALLjt BROOKHART, LLP
By:
Jlrney ell. Jackson, Esquire
ofor Plaintiff
8 North Queen Street
P.O. Box 449
Lancaster, PA 17608-0449
(717) 393-9596
I.D. No.80448
r
OF HE
20 u9 KON ^4 4 = p It : 0