The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-1608FH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. NOTICE OF APPEAL `? Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. nnMt UN- nrrfiluw MAG. DIST. NO. - NAME OF D.J. Ca,? ?Ptty?i r s- ?. A4 I(n?ub o g - 3 05 Mask he?tQr??? SS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE ZIP CODE J'2( )S' trman _ Yore P>>? ??yo a DATE OF JUDGMENT iNTHE CASE OF (PMrdiff) K aic-I 0 ls+nwen MIC6A DOCKET No. SIGNATURE OF APPEILANt OR ATTORNEY OR AGENT e V-606043V 09 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. I appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P.D.J. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. S0Wh- d PhNhonaby m DSp* J4W 'ic PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary A4 f C 1""C 1 Enter rule upon L?C?.IL appellee(s), to fife a complaint in this appeal I III III ".. "F Name of appWes(s) (Common Pleas No.? ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer en of ' dgment of non pros. Signatureof8A-9 nt-SM-Y-egont RULE: To N 1 ? ?q-Viov , appellee(s) Name of &Aw# e(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the maili I ?\ Dater g .20 J un of or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE -COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN - COURT FILE YELLOW- APPELLANTS COPY PINK -COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD -COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE PROOF'QF lNOOFAPP LAND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of she Jt 9S7 d or SAYS filing of thebotice of appoeal. 'C$00 applicable poxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served ? a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) 20 , ? by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) , on ,20 ? by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 20 Signature of affiant Signature of official betare whore affidavit was made My commission expires on 20 - o n r- M ? r i .1- 2! T.+ Cla =' xs. r M , co ICJ 0 ?c- ?f rr t rr C- . eK? ?Yqs t2'?"•?38?( COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBSRLAND May. D--- 09-3-05 MDJ Narne: Hon. MARK MARTIN Address: 507 N YORK ST MECHANICSBURG, PA Telephone: (717 ) 766-4575 17055 CAMEO SERVICES - R SCOTT KNAUB 420 S SHERMAN ST YORK, PA 17403 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PLAINTIFF ® Judgment was entered for: (Name) 0 Judgment was entered against: (Name) in the amount of $ 6,846.4 STRICKER, MICHAEL CAMEO SERVICES - R SCOTT KNAUB Defendants are jointly and severally liable. Damages will be assessed on Date & Time This case dismissed without prejudice. Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 F1 Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease Q Amount of Judgment $ 6,711.93 Judgment Costs $ 134.50- Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees $ . OD Total $ 6,846.43 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total $ ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTrrRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME-FRAM THE COLRI OF COMMQN_PLEAS:_AND NO FURTHER PRQCESSJiAAY BE ISSI,JEp By THE _MAOISTEF A1, !Zf„gTR[CT JUDGE:.. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REOUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. Date Magisterial District Judge f certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date , Magisterial District Judge My commission expires first Monday of January, 2012 AOPC 315-07 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS FSTRICKER, MICHAEL -1 20 MANOR DRIVE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L DEFENDANT: FAMEO SERVICES - 420 S SHERMAN ST YORK, PA 17403 VS. NAME and ADDRESS R SCOTT KNAOB J L J Docket No.: CV- 0000438 - 09 Date Filed: 11/23/09 (Date of Judgment) 2/09/10 DATE PRINTED: 2/11/10 1:42:00 PM SEAL ~ .. tti - - m m ; ~ r ,.; u ~ /' ,/ $ Postage T 7 r ~ Certified Fee ~ k ~ Retum Receipt Fee ^ ~ 3 Postmar Here ~ (Endorsement Required) V p , Restrtcted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) ..D ~ Total Postage 8 Fees ~ ~~ f~0 ~ ~ Sent TO-~j~~~--S~'!d ~ -~~---°~Yv ~ street, Apt ~ Y'~ /~ , /t lJK lti or PO Box No. ' ~~Y City Sreie. Zi~+4 --------------------------------------------------- M-QC1nUM~~S~r~ ~ (~ l"l o Y ^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. This roof of s hROOF OF $ER,~CE OF NOTICE QF APPlAL AND RULE•TO FILE COMPLAINT ( p ervice MUST BE~tL6D tMTH~N T',~)V j10)1`7AYS AF'~'Ef7 filing of the notice of ap~5eal. Giteck applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ~~,,,~~ < <~~~ ~ ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear} (affirm} that I served ^ a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas ~(~~(~ Q o upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) ,3 ~ a , 20 / p ^ by personal service llYby (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) '~/~ ~ C, k li~ ( /j G ~~ r' , on ~/ O , 20 / p ^ by personal service by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. {SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS ~ 7 DAY OF CYI~ ti __, 20 J ~ . Signature of afficiat bef whom affidavit ii~i`~de {9 p l t17 e v'f y ~~ ~~ k.a~~ ~~ y a . ~ -7--- Y r._ My c~Mission expires on oaf,. J.p(i{ ____1 ~ ~ II 1. Article Addressed to: M~c~Qe( ~~~C~ ~p N1a~u2 ~i2, ~+ ~ ~ ^; ~ompleteiYerns 1, 2; and 3. Aiso complete ~~~~~O~M iteiYt y if•Re+s~r'icted Delivery is desired. M r~.a11 ^ Print our name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to ou t-- t ~ G r~=4, CJ's r~ 0 GV '`_~> U ~~~An' G5 +' 0 m ~~ tti m m ti rU 0-' Postage ~ $ ~ Certified Fee ~ ~//~ 0 Retum Receipt Fee ] 0 3 (Endorsement Required) (~ • G Postmark Here O Restricted Delivery Fee O (Endorsement Required) ...D ~ Total Postage 8 Fees ~ 5 , S ~7 ~ `' C' (~v-Q/ ~' d`~ - n o street, ~.t~~~=!'--- n----- ----- ------ ---------------------'-4 t ---° f`- or PO Box No. - l-~v-1 ~ . ~ VYK Cj d, ---------------- ---°------ - - ------•-----I ~ ~ ~ --------------- City, State, ZfP+4 ~„»--d~...~.. Signature of affiant ~6~~ >4~t Kn.~-~.6 bw~,'PA- ~--a55 A. Received by (Please Print Clearly) ~ B. Date of Delivery C. Si ature ~ ' ~~ , `r~`/`~ '• ^ Agent X ~' "~ ~~~ ^ Addressee D. Is delivery address different ftdm ite If YES, enter deliu~ry address be~w~~ A J ~ J ,~ X.010 ~i~, 3. Sen~TYPe ~ !J S ~_~-~ Gd'Certified Mail ^ Express Mail A ^ Registered f~eturn Receipt for Merchandise ^ Insured Mail ^ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Feel ^ Yes 2. Article Number (Copy from 7p09 X960 D0~0 9223 3747 PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-00-M-0952 e ~ 20~0.~~ ~S ~'~~ I' ~~ SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, L.L.P. River Chase Office Center 4431 North Front Street, 3rd Floor Hamsburg, PA 17110-1778 (717)234-2401 r:.1')li~iu~~k.~'~i~uori, Esquire dliguori@sasllp.com Attorney for Plaint MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff, v. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a!k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2010-1608 CIVIL ACTION -LAW 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 maybe entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 SMIGEL,ANDERSON &SACKS,LLP River Chase Office Center, 3rd Floor 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)234-2401 MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff, v. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, Defendants. Darryl J. Liguori, Esquire dliguorina s~ sllp.com Attorneys for Plaint IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2010-1608 CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES, Plaintiff Michael Stricker, by and through his attorneys, Smigel, Anderson & Sacks L.L.P., who states the following causes of action and, in support thereof, avers as follows: Parties 1. Plaintiff Michael Stricker (hereinafter "Stricker") is an adult individual residing at 20 Manor Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. Defendant Cameo Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Cameo") is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business located at 420 South Sherman Street, York, Pennsylvania 17043. 3. Defendant Ronald Scott Knaub a/k/a R. Scott Knaub (hereinafter "Knaub") is an adult individual with a principal place of business at 420 South Sherman Street, York, Pennsylvania 17043. 4. Defendants are in the business of providing cleaning, construction, and restoration services specializing in fire, smoke, water, mold, and storm damage restoration. Jurisdiction and Venue 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of the instant dispute. 6. Venue is appropriate in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006 as it is the county in which the cause of action arose. Factual Background 7. On September 8, 2009, Stricker contacted Defendants concerning a water leak in the basement of his residential home at 20 Manor Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 (hereinafter "The Property") 8. On September 8, 2009, Defendants arrived at the Property, inspected the basement, and began the water removal and drying process on the basement floor and carpet. 9. Stricker signed an authorization form provided by Defendants to begin this process. A copy of this authorization form is no longer in the possession of Stricker. 10. Defendants also advised Stricker that there was mold on closet doors and on an entertainment center that was affected by the water leak and it was necessary that they be removed. 11. Defendants promised Stricker that this work would be covered by his homeowner's insurance policy issued by State Farm Insurance Company (hereinafter "State Farm") and showed Stricker a work order with a State Farm claim number on it. A copy of work order is not in the possession of Stricker. 12. On the basis of Defendants' representations, Stricker authorized Defendants to continue the water removal and drying process and to remove his entertainment center and closet doors. 13. On the evening of September 8, 2009 Defendants began the water removal process on the basement carpet, lifted the basement carpet, dismantled and removed Stricker's entertainment center, and cut the paneling approximately 8 inches off of the floor. 14. On or about September 9, 2009, Stricker was notified by State Farm that his claim was not approved and that the work being done by Defendants would not be covered by his homeowner's insurance policy. 15. Stricker also learned from his State Farm Agent Robert Gardner that the work being performed by Defendants went above and beyond the normal State Farm parameters for a water damage claim. 16. On September 16, 2009, Defendants sent Stricker an estimate in the amount of $5,365.93 to complete the water damage repairs. A true and correct copy of the September 16, 2009 Estimate is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." 17. As Defendants were not authorized by State Farm to perform the repairs and the work Defendants were performing went above and beyond the normal State Farm parameters for a water damage repairs, Stricker did not accept the estimate. 18. On December 14, 2009, Stricker received an estimate to repair and replace the carpet and flooring in his basement from Allwein's Carpet One in the amount of $3,526.60. A true and correct copy of the estimate from Allwein's Carpet One is attached hereto as "Exhibit B." 19. To date, Defendants have failed to pay Stricker the cost of the estimate to restore his basement to its former condition or the cost of the estimate to replace the basement carpet. COUNTI Breach of Contract 20. Plaintiff Michael Stricker incorporates the above paragraphs by reference as though the same was set forth in full below. 21. The parties had a valid contract by which Defendants agreed to perform water removal and restoration services on his basement floor and carpet and to remove and replace an entertainment center and closet doors. 22. The contract to perform such services was conditioned on Defendants' promise that State Farm was covering the cost of Defendants' services. 23. Defendants materially breached the contract by: a. Misrepresenting that Stricker's homeowners insurance policy with State Farm would cover Defendants' services; b. Misrepresenting that State Farm would pay the cost of Defendants' services; and c. Performing services that were unnecessary and went above and beyond the normal parameters for the repair of a water damage claim. 24. To repair the damage and return his basement to its former condition Stricker will be forced to incur costs of $5,365.93 in restoration fees; $3,526.60 in fees for carpet replacement; and $600.00 in costs to replace his entertainment center. See Exhibits A and B. 25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' material breaches, Stricker has suffered damages in the amount of $9,492.53. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Stricker respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of him and against Defendants Cameo Services, Inc. and Ronald Scott Knaub a1k/a R. Scott Knaub in the amount of $9,492.53 together with lawful interest thereon, costs of suit, and any other relief the at the Court may deem necessary or appropriate. COUNT II Breach of Pennsylvania UTPCPL 26. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference as though the same was set forth in full below. 27. Stricker purchased goods and services from the Defendants primarily for personal, family, and household purposes. 28. Defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Sections 201-2(4)(ii), (iii), (v), (xv), and (xxi) of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 P.S. § 201-1, et. seq., by: a. Misrepresenting that Stricker's homeowners insurance policy with State Farm would cover Defendants' services; b. Misrepresenting that State Farm would pay the cost of Defendants' services; and c. Performing services that were unnecessary and went above and beyond the normal parameters for the repair of a water damage claim. 29. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive acts or practices, Stricker sustained damages in the amount of $9,492.53 as set forth above. 30. Stricker also seeks to treble his damages and recover his attorney's fees and costs as permitted under Section 201-9.2 of Pennsylvania's UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-9.2 31. Under 73 P.S. § 201-9.2, Stricker requests an award of three times the actual damages he sustained, reimbursement of his costs, and reasonable attorney's fees, together with such additional remedies as the Court deems appropriate. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Stricker respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants Cameo Services, Inc. and Ronald Scott Knaub a!k/a R. Scott Knaub in the amount of $9,492.53 as well as interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and treble damages and any such other relief that is just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP Date: June 23, 2010 gy; ~ ~ `'~ ' Darryl J. Liguori, Esquire ID #91715 River Chase Office Center, 3rd Flr. 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-2401 Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff, v. CAMEO SERVICES, IIv~C. and RONALD SCOTT' KNAUB a/kia R. SCOTT KNAUB, Defendants. ; IN THE COURT OI+ COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2010-1648 CIVIL ACTION -LAW VERIFICATION I, Michael Stricker, ~~erify that the statements contained in the foregoing PIaintifPs First Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that #alse statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~ ~ r '~~ ---- .-,y ~,. J /~ P "~~ i to /{/ l , ichael S rickea`Plaintiff ~ • • Cameo Services, Inc. 420 South Sherman Street York, PA. 17403 Tel: 71.7-843-8893 Fax: 717-843-3808 Email: rsk@cameoyork.com PA Contractor Registration Number: PA008587 9/16/2009 Estimate: 38-P960-069RP Claim Number: 38-P960-069 Insured: Stricker, Mike Policy Number: Property: 20 Manor Drive Type of Loss: WATER Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Deductible: Cellular: (412) 287-3526 Price List: PAHA8F_AUG09A Restorati on/Servi ce/Remodel F =Factored In, D = Do Not Apply Date of Loss: 9/8/2009 Date Inspected: 9/8/2009 Summary for Dwelling Line Item Total 4,381.48 Material Sales Tax @ 6.000% x 1,126.21 67.57 Cleaning Mtl Tax @ 6.000% x 10.38 0.62 Subtotal 4,449.67 General Contractor Overhead @ ] 0.0% x 4,449.68 444.97 General Contractor Profit @ 10.0% x 4,449.68 444.97 Cleaning Sales Tax @ 6.000% x 438.65 26.32 Replacement Cost Value (including General Contractor Overhead and Profit) 5,365.93 Less Deductible (0.00) Net Payment $5,365.93 . Scott Knaub (717) 843-8893 x 103 ALL AMOUNTS PAYABLE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITS OF YOUR POLICY. To: Mike Stricker Date: 09/15/09 From: R. Scott Knaub Estimate Type: Water Damage Repairs Estimate Amount: $5,365.93 Project Status: Pending Approval Opening Statement:Thank you for allowing Cameo Services to submit this estimate. Our company tt~uly appreciates this opportunity. Based on our interpretation of your property's damage, in our opinion this estimate contains the scope of work required to restore your property to its pre-loss condition. Unless otherwise specified, all materials should be assumed to be of like kind and quality. Some line items listed in this estimate contain more than one category of work. For further explanation and/or clarification, please direct all questions to the estimator. Disclaimer: Cameo Services makes no representation of authority to determine insurance coverages and/or settlements. This estitate is not a contact document, this estimate is intended for general information purposes only, once formally approved, this estimate wi}l become part of a fixed contract price. Cameo Services, inc. 420 South Sherman Street York, PA. 17403 Tel: 717-843-8893 Fax: 717-843-3808 Email: rsk@cameoyork.com PA Contractor Registration Number: PA008587 9/16/2009 Special Notations: 38-P960-069RP Page: 2 Stricker, Mike Cameo Services, inc. 9/16/2009 38-P960-069RP Main Level _ .,~ ~ Rec Room Ceiling Height: 8' `' 826.67 SF Walls 574.52 SF Ceiling j " vil """' 1,401..19 SF Walls & Ceiling 574.52 SF Floor 1 ~ _ -y- ,- , _, - ,: 103.33 LF Ceil. Perimeter 103.33 LF Floor Peri meter ., DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST RCV 31 . Carpet pad 574.52 SF 0.67 384.93 32 . Lay existing carpet -labor only 574.52 SF 0.51 293.01 33 . Additional labor cost for Berber or patterned carpets 574.52 SF 0.18 103.41 34. R&R Paneling -High grade 826.67 SF 2.17 1,793.88 48. Paneling Installer -Finish Carpenter -per hour 8.00 HR 61.71 D 493.68 Additional removal and prep labor required because the paneling was glued to drywall. 35. R&R Quarter round - 3/4" -hardwood 1.03.33 LF 1.83 189.09 36. (Install) Bifold door set -Colonist -Double 2.00 EA 73.69 147.38 37. Content Manipulation charge -per hour 2.00 HR 27.66 D 55.32 38. Clean and deodorize carpet 574.52 SF 0.31 178.10 47. Re-skin toe kick 10.00 LF fi.53 65.30 Totals: Rec Room II ~ Closet F-3'3" -f--5' --p'6" T 2•~~• ~ t;2 m i 9'9" --1 3,704.10 186.67 SF Walls 210.13 SF Walls & Ceiling 23.33 LF Ceil. Perimeter Ceiling Height: 8' 23.47 SF Ceiling 23.47 SF Floor 23.33 LF Floor Perimeter 38-P960-069RP Page: 3 Stricker, Mike DESCRIPTION 46. Paneling -High grade 39. Carpet pad 40. Lay existing carpet -labor only 41. Additional labor cost for Berber or patterned carpets 42. Clean and deodorize carpet 44. Content Manipulation charge -per hour Totals: Closet ~~ -' Storage ~~ l 1r~,T~T fv~, 1 i ~:~ ~.. Missing Wall: DESCRIPTION 1- 3'7"X6'8" Cameo Services, Inc. 9/16/2009 QUANTITY UNIT COST RCV 12.00 SF 1.95 23.40 23.47 SF 0.67 15.72 23.47 SF 0.51 11.97 23.47 SF 0,18 4.22 23.47 SF 0.31 7,28 1.00 HR 27.66 D 27.66 632.11 SF Walls 924.03 SF Walls & Ceiling 82.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter Opens into Exterior QUANTITY 90.25 Ceiling Height: 8' 291.92 SF Ceiling 291.92 SF Floor 78.42 LF Floor Perimeter Goes to Floor UNIT COST RCV 45. Paneling -High grade 18.00 SF 1.95 35.10 Totals: Storage 35.10 Area Totals: Main Level 1,645.44 SF Walls 889.90 SF Ceiling 2,535.35 SF Walls and Ceiling 889.90 SF Floor 960.79 Total Area 205.08 LF Floor Perimeter 889.90 Floor Area 216.67 Exterior Perimeter 208.67 LF Ceil. Perimeter 1,709.44 Exterior Wall Area of Walls 1,645.44 Interior Wall Area Total: Main Level 3,829.45 Debris Removal 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Long Wall 0.00 SF Ceiting 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter 38-P960-069RP Page: 4 Cameo Services, Inc. Stricker, Mike DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 29. Haul debris -per pickup truck load -including dump fees 1.00 EA Totals: Debris Removal General Services 0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling 0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SF Short Wall 0.00 SF Long Wall DESCRIPTION QUANTITY 43. Cleaning Technician -incl. cleaning agent -per hour 4.00 HR Totals: General Services 110.68 Line Item Subtotals: 38-P960-069RP 4,057.02 Adjustments for Base Service Charges 9/16/2009 UNIT COST RCV 116.84 116.89 116.89 0.00 SF Walls & Ceiling 0.00 LF Floor Perimeter 0.00 LF Ceil. Perimeter UNIT COST RCV 27.67 D 110.68 Adjustment Carpenter -Finish, Trim/Cabinet 123.42 Floor Cleaning Technician 68.86 Flooring Installer 132.18 Total Adjustments for Base Service Charges: 324.46 LINE ITEM TOTALS: 38-P960-069RP 4,381A8 Grand Total Areas: 1,645.44 SF Walls 889.90 SF Floor 889.90 SF Ceiling 2,535.35 SF Walls and Ceiling 205.0$ LF Floor Perimeter 208.67 LF Ceil. Perimeter 889.90 Floor Area 1,709.44 Exterior Wall Area 960.79 Total Area 216.67 Exterior Perimeter of Walls 1,645.44 Interior Wall Area 38-P960-069RP Page: 5 Trade Summary Includes all applicable Tax, General Contractor O&P, and Bas e Service Charges DESCRIPTION LINE ITEM REPL. COST ACV NON-REC. MAX ADDL. QNTY TOTAL DEPREC. AMT AVAIL. CAB CABINETRY Re-skin toe kick ] 0.00 LF $84.46 $84.46 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL CABINETRY $84.46 $84.46 $0.00 $0.00 CLN CLEANING Clean and deodorize carpet 597.99 SF $323.86 $323.86 $0.00 $0.00 Cleaning Technician -incl. cleaning ~ 4.00 HR $141.12 $141.12 $0.00 $0 00 agent -per hour . TOTAL CLEANING $464.98 $464.98 $0.00 $0.00 CON CONTENT MANIPULATION Content Manipulation charge -per hour 3.00 HR $99.58 $99.58 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL CONTENT MANIPULATION $99.58 $99.58 $0.00 $0.00 DMO GENERAL DEMOLITION Remove Haul debris -per pickup truck 1.00 EA $140.26 $140.26 $0.00 $0 00 load -including dump fees . TOTAL GENERAL DEMOLITION $140.26 $140.26 $0.00 $0.00 DOR DOORS (Install) Bifold door set -Colonist - 2.00 EA $185.39 $185.39 $0.00 $0 00 Double . TOTAL DOORS $185.39 $185.39 $0.00 $0.00 FCC FLOOR COVERING -CARPET Additional labor cost for Berber or 597.99 SF $150.04 $150.04 $0.00 $0.00 patterned carpets Lay existing carpet -labor only 597.99 SF $426.09 $426.09 $0.00 $0.00 Carpet pad 597.99 SF $584.67 $584.67 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL FLOOR COVERING -CARPET $1,160.80 $1,160.80 $0.00 $0.00 FNC FINISH CARPENTRY / TRIMWORK R&R Quarter round - 3/4" -hardwood 103.33 LF $245.29 $245.29 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL FINISH CARPENTRY / TRIMWORK $245.29 $245.29 $0.00 $0.00 PNL PANELING & WOOD WALL FINISHES R&R Paneling -High grade 826.67 SF $2,289.06 $2,289.06 $0.00 $0.00 Paneling -High grade 30.00 SF $75.14 $75.14 $0.00 $0.00 Paneling Installer -Finish Carpenter -per 8.00 HR $620.97 $620.97 $0.00 $0.00 hour TOTAL PANELING & WOOD WALL FINISHES $2,985.17 $2,985.17 $0.00 $0.00 Note: Slight variances inay be found within report sections due to rounding Page: 6 Trade Summary Includes all applicable Tax, General Contractor O&P, and Base Service Charges DESCRIPTION LINE ITEM REPL. COST ACV NON-REC. MAX ADDL. TOTALS QNTY TOTAL $5,365.93 DEPREC. AMT AVAIL. $5,365.93 $0.00 $0.00 ALLWEIN'S ~ CARPET ONE 1 475 E. MAIN ST. ANNVILLE, PA 17003 71 7-867-41 00 / FAX: 71 7-867-4099 ESTIMATE TO: FROM: Michael Stricker Sue Lane ~ ADDRESS: DATE: 20 Manor Drive 12/14/2009 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 PHONE NUMBER: 412-287-3526 RE: Basement Flooring Estimate JOB NUMBER:: Following please find our estimate to replace the flooring in your Basement. The carpet and pad for this area was replaced on June 9, 2009. This estimate is based on the exact same carpet/pad at our current retail rates. New Carpet/Pad Replacement - Remove/Dispose Carpet $ 276.00 - Carpet: Xanadu/Strudel 12x57.06 $2063.10 - New Pad $ 402.00 - Move Furniture $ 135.00 - Metal Transitions $ 9.00 - Installation Labor $ 716.50 - Freight $ 25.00 Area Total: $3526.60 AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED: THE ABOVE PRICES, SPECIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS ARE SATISFACTORY AND ARE HEREBY ACCEPTED. UPON INSTALLATION, UNFORESEEN DEFECTS IN THE SUBSTRATE MAY CHANGE THE AMOUNT DUE ON THIS CONTRACT. DATE: SIGNATURE: MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff, v. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k!a R. SCOTT KNAUB, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2010-1608 CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Darryl J. Liguori, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, certify that I this day served a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint upon the person(s) indicated below by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and addressed as follows: Christian R. Miller, Esquire Miller, Poole & Lord, LLP 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17401 Attorney for Defendants Date: June 23, 2010 SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, L.L.P. Y `~7~"~ Darryl J. Liguori, Esquire - ID #91715 River Chase Office Center, 3rd Floor 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-2401 Attorneys for Plaintiff • y ,~ Ff r r~_ ,. ~ "~i 71 LU~Q is{'~ _C~ ~~~~ ,~i+ ill. ~J'~ ~'Y~! G~~': ._ l'i'd i ! { ~~' MILLER, POOLE & LORD, LLP John D. Miller, Jr., Esquire Pa. Bar No. 215753 Christian R. Nvliller, Esquire Pa. Bar No. 306370 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 174401 (717) 845-154 Attorneys for Defendants MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff vs. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT I~NAUB, Defendants TO: Darryl J. Liguori, Esquire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA N0.2010-1608 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully Submitted, MILLER, POOLE & LORD, LLP ~~~ Christian R. Miller, Esquire 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17403 (717) 845-1524 Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 306370 < X a MILLER, POOLE & LORD, LLP John D. Miller, Jr., Esquire Pa. Bar No. 25753 Christian R. Miller, Esquire Pa. Bar No. 306370 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17401 (717) 845-1524 Attorneys for Defendants MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA vs. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT I~NAUB, Defendants N0.2010-1608 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER. NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, to wit, this ~~ day of July, 2010, come Defendants, CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, by and through their counsel, MILLER, POOLE & LORD, LLP, and files the following: PARTIES 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. I Admitted. By way of further answer, Knaub did not have any involvement with this matter in y capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo is in the business of providing cle 'ng, construction, and restoration services specializing in fire, smoke, water, mold and storm damage restoration. Denied that Knaub is personally in the same line of business as Cameo. By way of further answer, Knaub is only in the same line of business to the extent he is an agent of Cameo. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo arrived at the Property on September 8, 2009 and inspected the basement. It is further denied that Cameo immediately began water removal and the drying process on the basement floor and carpet without communication with Stricker. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Denied. Cameo did not promise, let alone make any representation whatsoever, that their work would be covered by Stricker's homeowner's insurance. Nor did Cameo ever show Stricker'any work order with a State Farm claim number on it. By way of further answer, Cameo does n t provide any opinion as to insurance coverage issues when conducting business. It is further de ied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of C eo. 12. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Stricker authorized Cameo to conduct water removal and water mitigation practices. Denied that such authorization was obtained by and based on representations of insurance coverage. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 13. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo began water damage mitigation procedures on Stricker's basement on September 8, 2009. The remaining allegations of this paragraph pertaining to the work conducted, including lifting the basement carpet, dismantling and removing the entertainment center, and cutting paneling, are denied as stated. It is further denIled that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 14. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. As such, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 14 relating to the Stricker's insurance coverage for damages to his home and strict proof thereof is demanded. 15. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. As such, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 15 relating to what Stricker was or was not told by Robert Gardner concerning insurance coverage parameters for water damage repairs and strict proof thereof is demanded. B way of further answer, the parameters of a water damage claim and subsequent repair is a sub ective standard that must be determined on a case by case basis, therefore it is impossible to laim any repairs went beyond normal parameters for a water damage claim. 16. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo sent Stricker the estimate described in paragraph 16. Denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 17. Denied. Cameo never sought any authorization of any type from State Farm to conduct water damage repairs at the Property. The only authorization Cameo was concerned with and obtained was from Stricker as the homeowner. It is further denied that any repairs went beyond any normal parameters for water damage due to the subjective nature of the matter or that Cameo performed any repairs beyond the scope warranted by the situation to restore the Property to its "pre-water damage" state. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 18. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. As such, Defendants deny the factual allegations of an estimate by Allwein's Carpet One and strict proof thereof is demanded. 19. Admitted in part denied in part. Admitted Cameo has not paid any amounts to Stricker. By vway of further answer, Cameo has no obligation to pay any amount to Stricker, as Stricker has filed and continues to fail to pay for the repairs conducted at the Property. Denied that Knaub has any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT 20. Paragraphs 1-19 are incorporated herein by reference. 21. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo and Stricker had a valid contract for Cameo to perform water damage repairs on the Property. Denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 22. Denied that any contract to perform water damage repairs was based on State Farm's coverage of the repairs as Stricker's insurance carrier. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 23. Denied. Cameo never made any representations to Stricker concerning any aspect of his insurance coverage related to water damage repairs. Denied that there are any "normal parameters" for the repair of a water damage claim due to the subjective nature of the matter. It is further denied that Cameo performed any repairs beyond the scope warranted by the situation to restore the Property to its "pre-water damage" state. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 24. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. As such, Defendants deny the estimates set forth in paragraph 24 and strict proof thereof is demanded. 25. This paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent required, it is denied that Defendants are the direct or proximate cause of any damages allegedly suffered by Stricker. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matt r in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff, dismissing Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, along with any other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II BREACH OF PENNSYLVANIA UTPCPL 26. Paragraphs 1-25 are incorporated herein by reference. 27. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Stricker purchased services from Cameo primarily for personal, family, and household purposes. It is denied that Stricker purchased gopds from Cameo. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 28. This paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent required, it is denied that Cameo ever made any representations to Stricker concerning any aspect of his insurance coverage related to water damage repairs. It is further denied that Cameo performed any repairs beyond the scope warranted by the situation to restore the Property to its "pre-water damage" state. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement viaith this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 29. This paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent required, it is denied that Stricker sustained any alleged damages as a result of any of Defendants' actions. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in y capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 30. This paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Tot e extent required, it is denied that Stricker sustained any alleged damages. It is further denied that Stricker is permitted to recover treble for any alleged damages or to recover attorney's fees and/or costs. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 31. This paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent required, it is denied that Stricker sustained any alleged damages. It is further denied that Stricker is permitted to recover treble for any alleged damages or to recover attorney's fees and/or costs. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff, dismissing Count II of Plaintiffls Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, along with any other relief as this Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER 32. Paragraphs 1-31 are incorporated herein by reference. 33. Plaintiff initially claimed that the water damage suffered was caused by an event covered under his home owner's insurance when in fact Plaintiff knew that the actual cause of his water damage was not covered by his home owner's insurance. 34. Due to Plaintiff s erroneous attempt to receive insurance coverage knowing his loss was not iMSUrable, Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole by the doctrine of unclean hands. 35. Beginning with Cameo's arrival and continuing throughout the performance of Cameo's Ovate damage repair services, Stricker authorized and acquiesced in all of the actions and services p ovided by Cameo. 36. It wasn't until Stricker learned that his water damage loss would not be covered by his homegwner's insurance policy that he prohibited Cameo from finishing the services they began. 37. Due to Stricker's acquiescence and authorization, Stricker's claims are barred in whole or in part by the principles of consent and/or estoppel. 38. Defendants incorporate by reference and assert the following affirmative defenses based on the facts pled in the Complaint, Answer, and New Matter: (a) Plaintiff s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (b) Plaintiff s claims fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. (c) Plaintiff has not alleged a legal basis to recover damages either consequential or incidental, or to be entitled to any of the relief requested; (d) Plaintiff has not alleged any conduct on the part of Defendants entitling Plaintiff to the relief requested. (e) Plaintiff has not alleged any fact entitling it to any damage or relief requested. (f) Plaintiff s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches. (g) Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the principles of release and/or waiver and/or discharge. (h) Plaintiff- s claims are barred in whole or in part by the defense of failure of consid ration and/or inadequate consideration. 39. To prevent waiver thereof, Defendants incorporate by reference and further plead all affirmative defenses set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 to the extent further discovery or proceedings may disclose their applicability and relevance of any such affirmative defense. COUNTERCLAIM 40. Paragraphs 1-39 are incorporated herein by reference. 41. Stricker's initial request for emergency water damage repair was in response to purported substantial water infiltration damage in Stricker's basement. 42. From Cameo's initial response to the emergency request through its final repairs allowed at the Property, Cameo, in adhering to its company policies and industry standards, did not provide any opinion to Stricker concerning insurance coverage issues regarding the alleged water damage loss. 43. Stricker, as the insured, completed and signed a State Farm Authorization to Repair form ("Authorization") in which Defendant authorized Plaintiff to commence repairs to the water damaged areas of Defendant's residence. Attached is a true and correct copy of the State Farm Authorization Form as "Exhibit A". 44. State Farm's initial determination was that Stricker's water damage loss was a routine loss commonly occurring in the homeowner insurance industry and, as such, the water damage repair] would be covered. 45. Pursuant to the Authorization, Cameo commenced its water damage evaluation and repair services by exposing the damaged area to determine the severity of the damage, determine ho1,v to stop the damage, and begin the process of restoring the damaged area. 46. In order to determine how to fix the damage, Cameo had to determine the cause of the damage, requiring Cameo to investigate all of the damp and water damaged areas in Stricker's basiement, including but not limited to removal of carpeting and carpet padding, partial removal of wall coverings and dry-wall to investigate the damage behind such coverings, removal of trim work and doors, and rearrangement of furniture. 47. Additionally, Cameo performed extensive "dry-out" services in order to avoid additional damage in the form of mildew and mold. 48. Throughout Cameo's performance of its services, Stricker acquiesced iri all measures taken and services provided by Cameo. 49. At all times while Cameo conducted their water damage repair services, Stricker presumed that the water damage repairs would be covered by his homeowners insurance. 50. Upon Cameo's extensive initial investigation of the water damage, it concluded the cause was surface water run-off and that such run-off had been an ongoing problem as evidenced by tihe pre-existing build-up of mold behind previously enclosed portions of Stricker's basement where the water damage occurred. 51. ~ Within two (2) days of Cameo conducting their services and prior to commencing any reconstructive repairs to the water damaged area, Cameo was informed that the water damage and subsequent repairs would not be covered under his insurance policy. 52. But for Cameo's services, Stricker could not have determined the cause or extent of water damage to the Property, how to repair and restore the damaged area, or whether the damage was br wasn't covered by his insurance. 53. Upon learning the expenses associated with the water damage would not be covered by hxs insurance, Stricker immediately directed Plaintiff to cease repair and restoration services. 54. The amount due for Cameo's services up until Stricker directed Cameo to cease work totaled two thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60), which was invoiced ~to Stricker on September 10, 2009. 55. Substantial restoration services remained to be completed by Cameo in order to complete their repair of the water damaged area. 56. Stricker, upon learning the water damage repair services were not covered by State Farm as,he initially presumed, suddenly stopped services mid project and, at that point for the first time, claimed that he had not personally authorized any of the services performed. 57. Stricker, upon receiving the invoice, has completely failed to provide Cameo with payment for the invoice or to provide Cameo with a notice of any deficiency item of Cameo's services pursujant to the contract. COUNTERCLAIMI Uniust Enrichment 58. 59. Paragraphs 1-57 are incorporated herein by reference. Cameo's performance has conferred a benefit upon Stricker. 60. Stricker was fully aware of and had knowledge of Plaintiff's actions while performing itis water damage evaluation and repair services at Defendant's residence. 61. Cameo's performance was conducted on reliance that it would be paid for the same and, without payment in some form, would be at Cameo's expense. 62. Stricker's failure to pay Cameo despite its performance constitutes unjust enrichment irk the amount of the benefit conferred. 63. By reason of Stricker's failure to pay Cameo and the resulting unjust enrichment, Stricker is liaible to Cameo in the amount of two thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($x,780.60) and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. WHE~tEFORE, Cameo prays for judgment in its favor and against Stricker, in the amount of tvv~o thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60) together with interest ~t 18% per annum and costs of suit, plus any other relief as the court may deem appropriate. COUNTERCLAIM II Breach of Contract 64. 'Paragraphs 1-63 are incorporated herein by reference. 65. ', Pursuant to Stricker's admission in paragraph 21 of his Amended Complaint, Cameo and Sticker had a valid contract by which Cameo agreed to perform water damage repair services. 66. ~ Cameo performed it's agreed upon water damage repair services until they were prohibited by tricker to continue or finish their repairs. 67. ', Despite Cameo's performance under the contract, Stricker has and continues to refuse to pay'Cameo for his services performed. 68. Stricker's failure to pay Cameo, pursuant to the contract, constitutes a breach of the contract. WHEREFORE, Cameo prays for judgment in its favor and against Stricker, in the amount of tv~o thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60) together with interest ~t 18% per annum and costs of suit, plus any other relief as the court may deem appropriate. COUNTERCLAIM III Violation of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act 69. Paragraphs 1-68 are incorporated herein by reference. 70. The Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act ("CASPA"), 73 P.S. § 501 et. seq., establishes payment procedures and penalties for withholding payments between owners, contactors and subcontractors. 71. Under CASPA, the following definitions apply: (a) an "owner" is any person with an interest in the real estate improved and who o~dered the improvement; ', (b) a "contractor" is any person authorized by the owner to improve real properky and buildings thereon; and (c) the term "improve" includes any repair to any building upon the owner's real es te. 72. ', Performance by a contractor under a contract entitles the contractor to payment within twenty (20) days after final invoice were there is no payment schedule provided in the contract. 731.5. § 504-505. 73. An owner is entitled to withhold payment from contractor only for good faith claims pursuant to a deficiency item under the contract, and only if the owner provides the contractor with notice of the deficiency item within seven (7) days after receiving the final invoice. 73 F.S. § 506. 74. A penalty is assessed at one percent (1%) per month the final amount invoiced plus attorney' fees and expenses where litigation is commenced to recover payment and the owner has famed to comply with the payment terms of CASPA. 73 P.S. § 512. 75. Pursuant to CASPA, Stricker constitutes an owner since he both owns the house at which the services were rendered and authorized such services; Cameo constitutes a contractor due to the services rendered to repair the water damage to Stricker's home, and Cameo's services are within the~definition of "improve" as repairs to Stricker's home. 76. ' As admitted by Stricker in paragraph 21 of his Amended Complaint, he and Cameo had a contract for which Cameo was to perform water damage repair services. 77. 'Cameo performed its services of water damage repair under the contract to the extent it was permitted to until Stricker ordered Cameo to stop performance. 78. Cameo provided Stricker with a final invoice on September 10, 2009 in the amount of tw thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60). 79. Stricker has failed to either pay any amount of the invoice or provide Cameo with any notice of a deficiency item for the services performed pursuant to the contract in order to establish a gdod faith claim to withhold payment. 80. ' Stricker's failure to make payment or provide Cameo with a deficiency notice constitutes a violation of CASPA, thereby entitling Cameo to the amount of the final invoice, the same being t~bvo thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60), plus one percent (1%) per month for every month payment was wrongfully withheld, plus attorney fees and expenses, WHE~ZEFORE, Cameo prays for judgment in its favor and against Stricker for violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Act, in the amount of two thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60) together with interest at 18% per annum, and penalties ' of interest at 1 % per month the amount owed, attorney's fees, and costs of suit, plus any other relief as the court may deem appropriate. Date: ~ ~ ' l U Respectfully Submitted, MILLER, POOLE & LORD, LLP ~~~-~ John D. Miller, Jr., Esquire Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 25753 Christian R. Miller, Esquire Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 306370 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17403 (717) 845-1524 STAjE FARM INSURANC ~ I ~- 1nsured 1'R-`k.P - -~~r <<• ~ ~? -~ Claim Number . ~~'- f 9~'o n_ ~ C>fv 9 PA 8587 AUTHORIZATION TO REPAIR (To Be Signed Prior to Beginning Services/Repairs) TO: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 1 have agreed to use the State Farm Premier Service®Program. f understand the use of this program is voluntary and i have been offered the opportunity to choose any independent contractor and/or service provider(s) participating in the State Farm Premier®Program. I also understand they are independent contractors and/or independent service providers hired by me and not by the State Farm Insurance Cpmpanies®. I understand State Farm is paying for the repairs to the property dam- age covered under my policy, subject to the deductible and the policy's terms and conditions, and that State Farm is not exercising its option under the insurance contract to repair or replace any part of the property dammed. I have selected and authorize Cc ~„-~ z> `~ .~ ti c ~ ~ to perform repairs ~s indicated on their estimate due to a loss on ~ n c- ._. I understand my deductible is payable to the authorized independent contractor and/or independent service provider(s). agree to ply my independent contractor and/or independent service provider(s) for any repairs, or additional improvements made at my direction, that are not covered under my policy. Any person who kno I ingly and with intent to defraud any insurance company or other person files an application for insurance or a statement of claim containing any materially false information or conceals for the purpose of misleading information concerning any fact material thereto commits a fraudulent insurance act, which is a crime and subjects such pe!~son to criminal and civil penalties. Deposit Amount Collected: $ _ Method of Paymenla: ^ Cash Card Type: ' ^ Visa Name on Card: Card Number: Authorizing No: L ( ate) Repair Start D Collected By: ^ Credit Card Exp Date: (insured Signature) Time: ~_:~~am p~` Estimated Completign Date: / U l~_l h 9 (Year) ^ Check #: ^ Master Card EXHIBIT ~ A UNS WORN VERIFICATION Tixe foregoing document is based upon facts and information which has been gathered ~y me in the preparation of this law suit. The language of the document is that of counsel. I have read the document and the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Taxis statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 rel~ting to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. CAMEO SERVICES, INC Dated: ',1 ' ZS - ~ o .Scott Knaub, Pre ident CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, the undersigned hereby certifies that I have, on the date written below, served a true ~nd correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by regular mail addressed to: Darryl J. Figuori, Esq. ', SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP River Case Office Center, 3`a Floor ', 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MILLER, POOLE & LORD, LLP Date: ~1- ~ "~ l o ~i~~ ~., ~ ~~./yl ',, Christian Miller, Esquire I .~ A~ 2~ID .~J~. 19 Frl 2~ I i ,, ~ ~ ~,~, MILLER, POOLE & L John D. Miller, Jr., Esqui Pa. Bar No. 25753 Christian R. Miller, Esqu Pa. Bar No. 306370 137 East Philadelphia Str York, PA 17401 (717) 845-1524 LLP for Defendants MICHAEL STRICKE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Pl 'ntiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA vs. N0.2010-1608 CIVIL TERM CAMEO SERVICES, I C. and . RONALD SCOTT KN UB a/k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, CIVIL ACTION -LAW De endants . NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Darryl J. Liguori, YOU ARE HE BY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MA ER TO COUNTERCLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully Submitted, MILLER, POOLE & LORD, LLP ~~~ Christian R. Miller, Esquire 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17403 (717) 845-1524 Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 306370 ~M ~ MILLER, POOLE & L RD, LLP John D. Miller, Jr., Esqu' e Pa. Bar No. 25753 Christian R. Miller, Esq re Pa. Bar No. 306370 137 East Philadelphia Str et York, PA 17401 (717) 845-1524 Attorneys for Defendants MICHAEL STRICKE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Pl intiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA vs. N0.2010-1608 CIVIL TERM CAMEO SERVICES, I C. and . RONALD SCOTT KN UB a/k/a . R. SCOTT KNAUB, CIVIL ACTION -LAW De endants . AND NOW, to INC. and RONALD St MILLER, POOLE & LC this 1S~`'day of July, 2010, come Defendants, CAMEO SERVICES, T KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, by and through their counsel, ), LLP, and files the following: PARTIES 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. By way of further answer, Knaub did not have any involvement with this matter in any capaci other then as an agent of Cameo. 4. Admitted i part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo is in the business of providing cleaning, const ction, and restoration services specializing in fire, smoke, water, mold and storm damage Cameo. By way of an agent of Cameo. .tion. Denied that Knaub is personally in the same line of business as ;r answer, Knaub is only in the same line of business to the extent he is JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted September 8, 2009 and i began water removal and communication with matter in any capacity oth 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Denied. C that their work would be show Stricker any work o~ Cameo does not provide a It is further denied that Kr. an agent of Cameo. n part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo arrived at the Property on cpected the basement. It is further denied that Cameo immediately ;he drying process on the basement floor and carpet without cer. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this ;r then as an agent of Cameo. Leo did not promise, let alone make any representation whatsoever, eyed by Stricker's homeowner's insurance. Nor did Cameo ever r with a State Farm claim number on it. By way of further answer, opinion as to insurance coverage issues when conducting business. b had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as 12. Admitted~in part, denied in part. Admitted that Stricker authorized Cameo to conduct water removal a~d water mitigation practices. Denied that such authorization was obtained by and based or~ representations of insurance coverage. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 13. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo began water damage mitigation procedures on Stricker's basement on September 8, 2009. The remaining allegations of this paragraph pertaini g to the work conducted, including lifting the basement carpet, dismantling and removin the entertainment center, and cutting paneling, are denied as stated. It is further denied that Kna~b had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 14. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a bel~ef as to the truth of this averment. As such, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 14 relating to the Stricker's insurance coverage for damages to his home and strict proof thereof is 15. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a bel' f as to the truth of this averment. As such, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 1 relating to what Stricker was or was not told by Robert Gardner concerning insurance cov rage parameters for water damage repairs and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of fu her answer, the parameters of a water damage claim and subsequent repair is a subjective Stan and that must be determined on a case by case basis, therefore it is impossible to claim any r pairs went beyond normal parameters for a water damage claim. 16. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo sent Stricker the estimate described in paragraph 1 ~. Denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as angent of Cameo. 17. Denied. ameo never sought any authorization of any type from State Farm to conduct water damage re airs at the Property. The only authorization Cameo was concerned with and obtained was fr m Stricker as the homeowner. It is further denied that any repairs went beyond any normal par eters for water damage due to the subjective nature of the matter or that Cameo performed an repairs beyond the scope warranted by the situation to restore the Property to its "pre-water damage" state. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any ca acity other then as an agent of Cameo. 18. After reas nable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a bel of as to the truth of this averment. As such, Defendants deny the factual allegations of an e timate by Allwein's Carpet One and strict proof thereof is demanded. 19. Admitted n part denied in part. Admitted Cameo has not paid any amounts to Stricker. By way of forth r answer, Cameo has no obligation to pay any amount to Stricker, as Stricker has failed and co tinues to fail to pay for the repairs conducted at the Property. Denied that Knaub has any invo] Cameo. with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT 20. 1-19 are incorporated herein by reference. 21. Admittedin part, denied in part. Admitted that Cameo and Stricker had a valid contract for Cameo to pe~form water damage repairs on the Property. Denied that Knaub had any involvement with thi matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 22. Denied th t any contract to perform water damage repairs was based on State Farm's coverage of the r pairs as Stricker's insurance carrier. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with thi matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 23. Denied. ameo never made any representations to Stricker concerning any aspect of his insurance c erage related to water damage repairs. Denied that there are any "normal parameters" for he repair of a water damage claim due to the subjective nature of the matter. It is further denie that Cameo performed any repairs beyond the scope warranted by the situation to restore the Pr perty to its "pre-water damage" state. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement wit this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 24. After reas nable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a bel'ef as to the truth of this averment. As such, Defendants deny the estimates set forth in para raph 24 and strict proof thereof is demanded. 25. This para aph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent re uired, it is denied that Defendants are the direct or proximate cause of any damages allegedly su ered by Stricker. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any ca acity other then as an agent of Cameo. WHEREFORE, efendants request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff, dismissing Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, along wi any other relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II BREACH OF PENNSYLVANIA UTPCPL 26. Paragrap s 1-25 are incorporated herein by reference. 27. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Stricker purchased services from Cameo primarily for per nal, family, and household purposes. It is denied that Stricker purchased goods from C eo. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 28. This para aph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent r quired, it is denied that Cameo ever made any representations to Stricker concerning any pect of his insurance coverage related to water damage repairs. It is further denied that Came performed any repairs beyond the scope warranted by the situation to restore the Property to its "pre-water damage" state. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this ma er in any capacity other then as an agent of Cameo. 29. This para aph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent r uired, it is denied that Stricker sustained any alleged damages as a result of any of Defendan s' actions. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capaci other then as an agent of Cameo. 30. This para aph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent re uired, it is denied that Stricker sustained any alleged damages. It is '. further denied that Stri attorney's fees and/or ;r is permitted to recover treble for any alleged damages or to recover ts. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other the as an agent of Cameo. 31. This para aph contains a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent r quired, it is denied that Stricker sustained any alleged damages. It is further denied that Strick r is permitted to recover treble for any alleged damages or to recover attorney's fees and/or co ts. It is further denied that Knaub had any involvement with this matter in any capacity other the as an agent of Cameo. WHEREFORE, efendants request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff, ismissing Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, along wit any other relief as this Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER 32. Paragraph 1-31 are incorporated herein by reference. 33. Plaintiff i itially claimed that the water damage suffered was caused by an event covered under his home o er's insurance when in fact Plaintiff knew that the actual cause of his water damage was not covered by his home owner's insurance. 34. Due to Pl 'ntiff's erroneous attempt to receive insurance coverage knowing his loss was not insurable, Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole by the doctrine of unclean hands. 35. Beginning with Cameo's arrival and continuing throughout the performance of Cameo's water damage re air services, Stricker authorized and acquiesced in all of the actions and services provided by ameo. 36. It wasn' by his homeowner's ins began. Stricker learned that his water damage loss would not be covered policy that he prohibited Cameo from finishing the services they 37. Due to S 'cker's acquiescence and authorization, Stricker's claims are barred in whole or in part by the p 'nciples of consent and/or estoppel. 38. Defendan s incorporate by reference and assert the following affirmative defenses based on the facts pled in the Complaint, Answer, and New Matter: (a) Pl 'ntiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (b) Pl intiff's claims fail to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. (c) Pl 'ntiff has not alleged a legal basis to recover damages either consequential or i cidental, or to be entitled to any of the relief requested; (d) Pl ntiff has not alleged any conduct on the part of Defendants entitling Plaintiff to the rel of requested. (e) Pl ntiff has not alleged any fact entitling it to any damage or relief requested. (fl Pla ntiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches. (g) Pla ntiffls claims are barred in whole or in part by the principles of release and/or waiver an or discharge. (h) Pl ntiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the defense of failure of consideration and/ r inadequate consideration. 39. To all affirmative defenses further discovery or affirmative defense. 40. 41. Stricker's purported substantial t waiver thereof, Defendants incorporate by reference and further plead ~t forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 to the extent ~edings may disclose their applicability and relevance of any such COUNTERCLAIM 1-39 are incorporated herein by reference. initial request for emergency water damage repair was in response to ~r infiltration damage in Stricker's basement. 42. From C eo's initial response to the emergency request through its final repairs allowed at the Property, ameo, in adhering to its company policies and industry standards, did not provide any opinion t Stricker concerning insurance coverage issues regarding the alleged water damage loss. 43. Stricker, a the insured, completed and signed a State Farm Authorization to Repair form ("Authorizat on") in which Defendant authorized Plaintiff to commence repairs to the water damaged areas ~f Defendant's residence. Attached is a true and correct copy of the State Farm Authorization~Form as "Exhibit A". 44. State Farm's initial determination was that Stricker's water damage loss was a routine loss commonly o curring in the homeowner insurance industry and, as such, the water damage repair would be vered. 45. Pursuant the Authorization, Cameo commenced its water damage evaluation and repair services by ex osing the damaged area to determine the severity of the damage, determine how to stop th damage, and begin the process of restoring the damaged area. 46. In order t determine how to fix the damage, Cameo had to determine the cause of the damage, requiring C eo to investigate all of the damp and water damaged areas in Stricker's basement, incl ding but not limited to removal of carpeting and carpet padding, partial removal of wall covering and dry-wall to investigate the damage behind such coverings, removal of trim work an doors, and rearrangement of furniture. 47. Additiona ly, Cameo performed extensive "dry-out" services in order to avoid additional damage in the orm of mildew and mold. 48. Througho t Cameo's performance of its services, Stricker acquiesced in all measures taken and servi es provided by Cameo. 49. At all time while Cameo conducted their water damage repair services, Stricker presumed that the water amage repairs would be covered by his homeowners insurance. 50. Upon Cam o's extensive initial investigation of the water damage, it concluded the cause was surface wa r run-off and that such run-off had been an ongoing problem as evidenced by the pre-exis ing build-up of mold behind previously enclosed portions of Stricker's basement where the Ovate damage occurred. 51. Within tw (2) days of Cameo conducting their services and prior to commencing any reconstructive repairs to the water damaged area, Cameo was informed that the water damage and subsequent r airs would not be covered under his insurance policy. 52. But for C< of water damage to the P damage was or wasn't 53. Upon covered by his insure services. 54. The work totaled two 's services, Stricker could not have determined the cause or extent qty, how to repair and restore the damaged area, or whether the by his insurance. ing the expenses associated with the water damage would not be Stricker immediately directed Plaintiff to cease repair and restoration due for Cameo's services up until Stricker directed Cameo to cease seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60), which was invoiced to Stricker n September 10, 2009. 55. Substanti restoration services remained to be completed by Cameo in order to complete their repair oft a water damaged area. 56. Stricker, u on learning the water damage repair services were not covered by State Farm as he initially resumed, suddenly stopped services mid project and, at that point for the first time, claimed tha he had not personally authorized any of the services performed. 57. Stricker, u on receiving the invoice, has completely failed to provide Cameo with payment for the invoice o to provide Cameo with a notice of any deficiency item of Cameo's services pursuant to the c ntract. 58. Paragraphs 59. Cameo's pe COUNTERCLAIM I Uniust Enrichment 1-57 are incorporated herein by reference. rformance has conferred a benefit upon Stricker. 60. Stricker ~ performing its water dare 61. Cameo's fully aware of and had knowledge of Plaintiffs actions while evaluation and repair services at Defendant's residence. ~rmance was conducted on reliance that it would be paid for the same and, without paym nt in some form, would be at Cameo's expense. 62. Stricker's failure to pay Cameo despite its performance constitutes unjust enrichment in the amour of the benefit conferred. 63. By reason of Stricker's failure to pay Cameo and the resulting unjust enrichment, Stricker is liable to Cam o in the amount of two thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60) d interest at the rate of 18% per annum. WHEREFORE, ameo prays for judgment in its favor and against Stricker, in the amount of two thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60) together with interest at 18% per annum and costs of suit, plus any other relief as the court may deem appropriate. COUNTERCLAIM II Breach of Contract 64. Paragraph 1-63 are incorporated herein by reference. 65. Pursuant t Stricker's admission in paragraph 21 of his Amended Complaint, Cameo and Stricker had a valid contract by which Cameo agreed to perform water damage repair services. 66. Cameo prohibited by Stricker to c it's agreed upon water damage repair services until they were or finish their repairs. 67. Despite Cameo's performance under the contract, Stricker has and continues to refuse to pay Cameo for ~is services performed. 68. Stricker's failure to pay Cameo, pursuant to the contract, constitutes a breach of the contract. WHEREFORE, Cameo prays for judgment in its favor and against Stricker, in the amount of two thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($2,780.60) together with interest at 18% per annum and costs of suit, plus any other relief as the court may deem appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, MILLER, POOLE & LORD, LLP Date: ~ ' ~ ~ _ l D ~ ~ / G",~/"1. John D. Miller, Jr., Esquire Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 25753 Christian R. Miller, Esquire Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 306370 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17403 (717) 845-1524 STATE FARM INSURANCE ~- Insured Claim Number .~ g- f' 9fQ n ~- ~~(0 9 PA 8587 AUTHORIZATION TO REPAIR (To Be Signed Prior to Beginning Services/Repairs) TO: State Farm Fire and Ca ualty Company I have agreed to use t e State Farm Premier Service®Program. I understand the use of this program is voluntary and i h ve been offered the opportunity to choose any independent contractor and/or service provider(s) pa icipating in the State Farm Premier®Program. l also understand they are independent contractors ndlor independent service providers hired by me and not by the State Farm Insurance Companies® I understand State Farm is paying for the repairs to the property dam- age covered under my policy, subject to the deductible and the policy's terms and conditions, and that State Farm is not exercising i s option under the insurance contract to repair or replace any part of the property damaged. I have selected and au horize ~..c ~~,.-~z, ~ •~ tc es to perform repairs as indicate on their estimate due to a loss on .~ ~ ~ , ,~~ I understand my deductible is payable to the authorized independent contractor and/or independent service provider(s). I agree to pay my inde endent contractor and/or independent service provider(s) for any repairs, or additional improve ants made at my direction, that are not covered under my policy. Any person who knowingly and ith intent to defraud any insurance company or other person files an application for insurance or a statement of cl im containing any materially false information or conceals for the purpose of misleading information concerni g any fact material thereto commits a fraudulent insurance act, which is a crime and subjects such person to crim nal and civil penalties. Deposit Amount Collected: $ Method of Payment: ^ Cash ^ Check #: Card Type: ^ Visa ^ Master Card Name on Card: Card Number: - - Authorizing No: ~~ ( ate) (Year) Repair Start Date: Estimated Completion Date: Exp Date: ~" ~ (./ (Insured Signature) z~ Time: _~: ~ U am pr i EXHIBIT ~~ A Collected By: ^ Credit Card I, Christian R. filler, Esquire, (Pa. Sup. Ct. No. 306370) as an officer of this Court, verify that the informati n contained in this Amended Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim, is true and correct. I forth verify that I am making this verification on behalf of the Defendant, and that the informatio contained in this pleading is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information d belief. The foregoing do ument is based upon facts and information which has been gathered by me in the preparation oft is pleading. The language of the document is that of counsel. This statement an verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsi ication to authorities. I am authorized to execute this verification on behalf of the Defendant. Dated: ~ - ~ S - t o ~G:~ ~` . Christian R. Miller, Esquire Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, the served a true and correct to Plaintiff s Amended hereby certifies that I have, on the date written below, of the foregoing Amended Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim by regular mail addressed to: Darryl J. Figuori, Esq. SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP River Case Office Center, 3`d Floor 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MILLER, POOLE & LORD, LLP Date: `) ` l S - I 0 Christian Miller, Esquire SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, L.L.P. River Chase Office Center 4431 North Front Street, 3rd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17110-1778 (717)234-2401 Darryl J. Liguori, Esquire dliguori@sasllp.com Attorney for Plaintiff MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff, v. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2010-1608 CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' AMENDED ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS ~„ :5,~. r n ;,. ~, N O ~._. ~ _- ~_~:: i'~.3 c,~ --, w ,~.~ ~l -~ ,._ -~ ~,~r- _T, ~„ >; AND NOW COMES, Plaintiff Michael Stricker (hereinafter "Stricker"), by and through his attorneys, Smigel, Anderson & Sacks L.L.P., who files the following Plaintiffs Answer to Defendants' Amended Answer, New Matter and Counterclaims and avers in support as follows: NEW MATTER 32. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 33. Denied. To the contrary, Defendants promised Stricker that this work would be covered by his homeowner's insurance policy issued by State Farm Insurance Company (hereinafter "State Farm") and showed Stricker a work order with a State Farm claim number on it. Stricker did not learn that the damage was not coffered by his policy until State Farm contacted him on or about September 9, 2009. 34. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 35. Denied. To the contrary, Stricker's allowance that Defendants begin water damage repair services was based on Defendants' misrepresentation that Stricker's homeowners insurance policy with State Farm would cover Defendants' services. The remaining averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 36. Denied. To the contrary, Stricker always assumed that Defendants' services would be covered by his State Farm policy based on Defendants' misrepresentations. 37. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 38. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 39. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. COUNTERCLAIM 40. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 41. Admitted. 42. Denied. To the contrary, Defendants promised Stricker that this work would be covered by his homeowner's insurance policy issued by State Farm and showed Stricker a work order with a State Farm claim number on it. 2 43. Denied. The Authorization Defendants reference is a writing which speaks for itself, and therefore Defendants' summaries, conclusions, or characterizations made regarding that writing are specifically denied. 44. Admitted. 45. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that on the evening of September 8, 2009 Defendants began the water removal process on the basement carpet, lifted the basement carpet, dismantled and removed Stricker's entertainment center, and cut the paneling approximately 8 inches off of the floor. It is denied that these water damage evaluation and repair services were necessary. In fact, Defendants went above and beyond the normal State Farm parameters for a water damage claim. 46. Denied. It is denied that these water damage evaluation and repair services were necessary. In fact, Defendants went above and beyond the normal State Farm parameters for a water damage claim. 47. Denied. It is denied that all of the water damage evaluation and repair services were necessary. In fact, Defendants went above and beyond the normal State Farm parameters for a water damage claim. 48. Denied. To the contrary, Stricker's allowance of Defendants to began services was based upon Defendants' misrepresentations that the services were covered by his State Farm policy, were necessary, and were within the normal State Farm parameters for a water damage claim. 49. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on September 8, 2009, Stricker thought that the work would be covered by his homeowner's insurance policy issued by 3 State Farm based on Defendants' misrepresentations. On September 9, 2009, Stricker learned from State Farm that in fact the damage and the repairs were not covered by his policy. 50. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Stricker believes the cause of the water damage was a leaking hose or water that came in the basement from outside. Stricker has no particular knowledge of what Defendants' conclusions are regarding the cause of the damage and those allegations are deemed denied. 51. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that after September 9, 2009, Cameo was informed that the damage and the repairs were not covered by Stricker's policy contrary to what Defendants had earlier told Stricker. 52. Denied. To the contrary, without Cameo's services, Stricker would have discovered himself or with the assistance of another contractor or State Farm the cause and extent of the water damage. 53. Admitted. 54. Denied. The Invoice Defendants reference is a writing which speaks for itself, and therefore Defendants' summaries, conclusions, or characterizations made regarding that writing are specifically denied. 55. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that some additional services were needed to complete the repairs. It is denied that all of Cameo's services were necessary. To the contrary, Defendants went above and beyond the normal State Farm parameters for a water damage claim. 56. Denied. To the contrary, Stricker's initial acceptance of Defendant's services was based upon Defendants' misrepresentations that State Farm was covering the cost of Defendants' service and that Defendants' services were necessary and within the normal parameters of water 4 damage repairs. 57. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Stricker has not paid the referenced Invoice. To the contrary, Defendants were advised of Stricker's dissatisfaction of Defendants' services when Stricker rejected the September 16, 2009 Estimate and filed the Complaints in this litigation. COUNTERCLAIM I Uniust Enrichment 58. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 59. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 60. Denied. To the contrary, it was only after Defendants began their services that Stricker learned that Defendants were not authorized by State Farm to perform the repairs and the work Defendants were performing went above and beyond the normal State Farm parameters for a water damage repairs. 61. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 62. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 63. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Stricker respectfully request this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim and enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants Cameo Services, Inc. and Ronald Scott Knaub a/k/a R. Scott Knaub together with any costs associated therewith. COUNTERCLAIM II Breach of Contract 64. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 65. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 66. Denied. To the contrary, the work Defendants were performing went above and beyond the normal State Farm parameters for a water damage repairs and Defendants were not authorized by Stricker to perform this work or any work that would not be paid by State Farm. 67. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. 68. Denied. The averments of this paragraph contain conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is deemed required, the averments are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Stricker respectfully request this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim and enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendants Cameo Services, Inc. and Ronald Scott Knaub a/k/a R. Scott Knaub together with any costs associated therewith. 6 Respectfully submitted, SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP Date: July 21, 2010 B Y Darryl J. Liguori, Esquire ID #91715 River Chase Office Center, 3rd Flr. 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-2401 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff, v. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2010-1608 CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Darryl J. Liguori, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, certify that I this day served a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Answer to Defendants' Amended Answer, New Matter and Counterclaims upon the person(s) indicated below by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and addressed as follows: Christian R. Miller, Esquire Miller, Poole & Lord, LLP 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17401 Attorney for Defendants Date: July 21, 2010 SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, L.L.P. B ~ 'I Y Darryl J. Liguori, Esquire - ID #91715 River Chase Office Center, 3rd Floor 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-2401 Attorneys for Plaintiff 0M16YIIIW !5TX (6Kb )e Plaintiff tiT ? l?l GK'S, Mefj Defendant In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Nov?9?-? Civil Action - Law. Oath We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelit. Signature ature Signature (IhC,?\eS C. 7,-,- Name (Chairman) Iz n6Y\ n Ct2 A Law Firm 35Li A\n e-nC,?rd ? ??nc Sir; k Address Name Law Firm Mc, k4-+ S? eke :?ca Address ,3ames C<Avi-- Name Law Firm hG ; 1??U4o.ro ?cc; Address 15 Le- m_&yrt. ?Pr 1-lt?Li y -0-)L? Zip City, city, Zip City, Zip Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) Date of Hearing: --??i?1 / C ? airman) Date of Award: a? Notice of Entry f Award _4V444;( 5 20P , at 3 , JP .M., the above award was Now, the r"d day of entered upon the docket and notice the of given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ Prothonotary Deputy . Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if applicable.) _? , . ' `E3 AU -3 PM (amee t off; ?s i It t / ? r MPL LAW FIRM, LLP , 1i? t John D. Miller, Jr., Esquire t -; Pa. Bar No. 25753 Christian R. Miller, Esquire , ?i??M COUt? ?? D C0U Pa. Bar No. 306370 JY? 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17401 (717) 845-1524 Attorneys for Defendants MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff VS. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2010-1608 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UPON ARBITRATION AWARD PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1307(c) TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff in the above captioned matter pursuant to the Arbitration Award entered on August 3, 2011. Please award damages in the principal award amount of $2,780.60 plus interest and court costs, including Sheriff costs, until the principal has been paid in full. Respectfully submitted, MPL LAW FIRM, LLP Date: 7 - 11 r At K Christian R. Miller, Esquire Pa. Bar No. 306370 137 East Philadelphia Street York, Pennsylvania 17401 (717) 845-1524 Imp `I L/ 06 ?d 0 AWARD OF DAMAGES AND NOW, September 19, 2011, Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff upon an Arbitration Award at the sum of $2,780.60 plus interest and court costs, including Sheriff, until payment is made, as per above statement. .. Prothonotary ' eyW,,,. may,. MPL LAW FIRM, LLP John D. Miller, Jr., Esquire Pa. Bar No. 25753 Christian R. Miller, Esquire Pa. Bar No. 306370 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17401 (717) 845-1524 Attorneys for Defendants MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff VS. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2010-1608 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF FILING JUDGMENT (Pa.R.C.P. 236) To: Michael Stricker, Plaintiff c/o Darryl J. Figuori, Esq. You are hereby notified that on S-e o+ , .9 1 , 2011, the following JUDGMENT has been entered against Plaintiff Michael Stricker in the above captioned case: Money judgment in the amount of $2,780.60 plus ' terest and court costs, includin Sheriff. Date: _ •Prothonotary, Cumberland County I hereby certify that the name and address of the person to receive this notice is: Darryl J. Figuori, Esq. SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP River Case Office Center, 3`a Floor 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 v? MPL LAW FIRM, LLP John D. Miller, Jr., Esquire Pa. Bar No. 25753 Christian R. Miller, Esquire Pa. Bar No. 306370 137 East Philadelphia Street York, PA 17401 (717) 845-1524 Attorneys for Defendants MICHAEL STRICKER, Plaintiff VS. CAMEO SERVICES, INC. and RONALD SCOTT KNAUB a/k/a R. SCOTT KNAUB, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2010-1608 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW AFFIDAVIT OF NON-MILITARY SERVICE Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of York Before me, personally appeared Christian R. Miller, Esquire, attorney for Defendants in the above captioned matter, who, being duly sworn or affirmed according to law, deposes and says that the above named Plaintiff is not in the military service of the United States of America, and that he believes the Defendant has a current residential address of 20 Manor Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. Sworn and subscribed before me this ) day of September, 2011 ) Ai L AL -<L,,L Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Patricia Michelle Flahel Notary Public MY COMMISSlown ExplM Dec 25 City of York. York County Member. ' Pennaylvania As aodatlon or N f rtes ?A?gt Christian R. Miller, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, the undersigned hereby certifies that I have, on the date written below, served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Judgment by regular mail addressed to: Darryl J. Figuori, Esq. SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS, LLP River Case Office Center, 3`d Floor 4431 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MPL LAW FIRM, LLP Date: '?' +'j"' 911 %4-t?lj P. Michelle Fishel, Legal Secretary WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) NO 10-1608 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due MICHAEL STRICKER, 20 MANOR DRIVE, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Plaintiff (s) From CAMEO SERVICES INC. (1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the plaintiff (s)and to sell ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20 MANOR DRIVE, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 NOT EXEMPT FROM EXECUTION BY STATUTE. (2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of GARNISHEE(S) as follows: and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant (s) or otherwise disposing thereof, (3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession of anyone other than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above stated. Amount Due $2,780.60 Interest $1,058.54 (6% PER DAY) Atty's Comm % Atty Paid $13z• 21S Plaintiff Paid Date: 11/21/11 L.L. S.50 Due Prothy $2.00 Other Costs: (Seal) REQUESTING PARTY: Name CHRISTIAN R. MILLER, ESQUIRE Address: MPL LAW FIRM 137 E. PHILADELPHIA STREET YORK, PA 17401 Attorney for: DEFENDANT Telephone: 717-845-1524 Supreme Court ID No. 306370 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PE NNSYLVAI , CIVIL DIVISION PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION Cameo Services, Inc. (counterclaim P) ? Confessed Judgment V IC) Plaintiff ?? Other ' vs. File No. 2010-1608 c _-? Michael Stricker (counterclaim D) Amount Due $2,780.60 Defendant Interest $1,058.54 (6% per day) Address: Atty's Comm 20 Manor Drive, Costs $45.00 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SAID COURT: The undersigned hereby certifies that the below does not arise out of a retail installment sale, contract, or account based on a confession of judgment, but if it does, it is based on the appropriate original proceeding filed pursuant to act 7 of 1966 as amended; and for real property pursuant to Act 6 of 1974 as amended. Issue writ of execution in the above matter to the Sheriff of Cumberland County, for debt, interest and costs, upon the following described property of the defendant (s) All personal property located at 20 Manor Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 not exempt from execution by statute PRAECIPE FOR ATTACHMENT EXECUTION Issue writ of attachment to the Sheriff of County, for debt, interest and costs, as above, directing attachment against the above-named garnishee(s) for the following property (if real estate, supply six copies of the description; supply four copies of lengthy personalty list) and all other property of the defendant(s) in the possession, custody or control of the said garnishee(s). MIN %OV E] (Indicate) Index this writ against the garnishee (s) as a lis defendant(s) described in the attached exhibit. Date 11-18-2011 Signature: 0.,N. n" 94.o0 yd at?- gL'7S CAP 1q•Wu n a soM Print Name: Address: Attorney for: Telephone: pendens against real estate of the Christian R. Miller 137 E. Philadelphia St. York, PA Counterclaim Plaintiff (717) 845-1524 Supreme Court ID No: 306370 .4 axo Zvt a. q.wu.. a?? U qa