The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-7132IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. 4:~l- "71~,~,, MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. and INVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, Defendants. COMPLAINT Filed on behalf of Plaintiff: State Farm Insurance Company, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden Counsel of Record for this Party: David J. Rosenberg, Esquire PA I.D. #37492 Christopher P. Deegan, Esquire PA I.D. #85635 WEBER GOLDSTEIN GREENBERG & GALLAGHER, LLP Firm # 594 Two Gateway Center 14th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-4541 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. C)I - ,'/1~ MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. and INVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within TWENTY (20) days after this complaint and notices ara served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association, 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. C::)I- '7122_ MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. and INVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. COMPLAINT AND NOW comes plaintiff State Farm Insurance Company, by and through its counsel, Weber Goldstein Greenberg & Gallagher, LLP, and files the following Complaint. 1. Plaintiff State Farm Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "State Farm") is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and doing business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. John and Anna Bowden (hereinafter referred to as "the Bowdens") are husband and wife, residing at 280 Stumpstown Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. The Bowdens are the holders of a homeowners' policy of insurance that was issued by State Farm. 4. At all times relevant hereto, this policy was in effect and covered the property owned by the Bowdens at 280 Stumpstown Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 5. Defendant Maytag Appliance Sales Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Maytag") is a corporation with a place of business at 240 Edwards Street, S.E., Cleveland, Tennessee 37311. 6. Defendant Invensys Appliance Controls (hereinafter referred to as "lnvensys") is a corporation with its principal place of business at 191 East North Avenue, Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. 7. Defendants Maytag and Invensys at all times relevant hereto, traded and did business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 8. At all times relevant hereto, Maytag was the manufacturer, assembler, producer and/or seller and/or supplier of a washing machine located at the Bowdens' residence. 9. At all times relevant hereto, Invensys was the manufacturer, assembler, producer and/or seller and/or supplier of the inlet valve component of the aforesaid washing machine. 10. Said washing machine was pumhased by the Bowdens in or about 1995. 11. On or about January 3, 2000, Anna Bowden used the washing machine to wash a load of clothes with all due care in a manner foreseeable and intended by the defendants. 12. After placing the load of clothes in the washing machine, Mrs. Bowden left the residence. 13. While she was gone, the washing machine overflowed causing water to spill out into the Bowdens' residence. 14. Upon the discovery of the overflow of water coming from the washing machine, Mrs. Bowden called a neighbor to come to her residence and turn off the water supply to the washer. 15. This overflow of water damaged the Bowdens' home and personal property. COUNT I - STRICT LIABILITY State Farm Insurance ComDanv as subroqee for John and Anna Bowden v. Mayta¢~ Aol31iance Sales Comoany, Inc. 16. State Farm herein incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 15 as if set forth in full. 17. At all times relevant hereto, Maytag was engaged in the business of designing and/or manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling and/or supplying washing machines for use and was a manufacturer and/or supplier as defined by the Restatement of Torts (2d) § 402(a). 18. Said washing machine was expected to and did reach the Bowdens and was used by the Bowdens without a substantial change in the condition in which it was manufactured for sale. 19. Maytag did breach the duties owed to the Bowdens as mandated by the Restatement of Torts (2d) § 402(a) by manufacturing and/or suppling said washing machine in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous. 20. As the sole, direct, legal and proximate result of Maytag's failure to abide by the mandates of the Restatement of Torts (2d) § 402(a), the Bowdens sustained the damages previously set forth. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, State Farm Insurance Company, demands judgment in its favor and against defendant Maytag Appliance Sales Company, Inc. in an amount of $5,603.62, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY State Farm Insurance Company as subropee for John and Anna Bowden v. Invensys Appliance Controls 21. State Farm herein incorporates by reference Paragraph I through 20 as if set forth in full. 22. At all times relevant hereto, Invensys was engaged in the business of designing and/or manufacturing and/or producing and/or selling and/or supplying inlet valves to be used in washing machines and was a manufacturer and/or supplier as defined by the Restatement of Torts (2d) § 402(a). 23. Said inlet valve was expected to and did reach the Bowdens and was used by the Bowdens without a substantial change in the condition in which it was manufactured for sale. 24. Invensys did breach the duties owed to the Bowdens as mandated by the Restatement of Torts (2d) § 402(a) by manufacturing and/or suppling said inlet valve in a defective condition that was unreasonably dangerous. 25. As the sole, direct, legal and proximate result of Invensys' failure to abide by the mandates of the Restatement of Torts (2d) § 402(a), the Bowdens sustained the damages previously set forth. _ WHEREFORE, plaintiff, State Farm Insurance Company, demands judgment in its favor and against defendant Invensys Appliance Controls in an amount of $5,603.62, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNTIII-NEGLIGENCE State Farm Insurance Company as subro,qee for John and Anna Bowden v. Maytaq AoDliance Sales Company, Inc. 26. State Farm herein incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 25 as if set forth in full. 27. At all times relevant hereto, Maytag owed the Bowdens a duty to design and/or manufacture and/or supply a safe washing machine. 28. Maytag was negligent in general and in the following particulars: In failing to incorporate safety devices within the washing machine to prevent it from overflowing; In failing to furnish a product with adequate or proper warnings as to the danger of an overflow of water occurring; Co In failing to design the washing machine so as to keep the inlet valve from malfunctioning and allowing an overflow of water to occur; do In failing to warn consumers that a risk of overflow was present in the use of the washing machine and that the washing machine should be monitored when in use; In failing to incorporate into the washing machine a warning device that would warn users that it was overflowing; fo In failing to adequately manufacture the washing machine in order to provide a safe product; go In failing to adequately assemble and fabricate the washing machine in order to provide a safe product; In failing to provide adequate warnings, cautions and directions concerning the dangers and limitations of the washing machine; In failing to properly and adequately design, fabricate, manufacture, sell, label and supply the washing machine in a safe condition; In permitting the washing machine to leave its control without all of the safeguards necessary to make the product safe; Otherwise failing to exercise due care under the circumstances as described above. 29. As the sole, direct, legal and proximate result of Maytag's negligence as aforesaid, the Bowdens have sustained damages as previously set forth herein. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, State Farm Insurance Company, demands judgment in its favor and against defendant Maytag Appliance Sales Company, Inc. in an amount of $5,603.62, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE State Farm Insurance Company as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden v. Invensvs Appliance Controls 30. State Farm herein incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29 as if set forth in full. 31. At all times relevant hereto, Invensys owed the Bowdens a duty to design and/or manufacture and/or supply a safe inlet valve. 32. Invensys was negligent in general and in the following particulars: a. In failing to incorporate safety devices within the inlet valve to prevent it from malfunctioning; b. In failing to furnish a product with adequate or proper warnings as to the danger of a malfunction and subsequent overflow of water occurring; c. In failing to design an inlet valve so as to keep it from malfunctioning and allowing an overflow of water to occur; d. In failing to warn consumers that a risk of overflow was present in the use of the inlet valve and that the inlet valve should be monitored when in use; e. In failing to incorporate into the inlet valve a warning device that would warn users that it was malfunctioning; f. In failing to adequately manufacture the inlet valve in order to provide a safe product; g. In failing to adequately assemble and fabricate the inlet valve in order to provide a safe product that would not malfunction; h. In failing to provide adequate warnings, cautions and directions concerning the dangers and limitations of the inlet valve; i. In failing to properly and adequately design, fabricate, manufacture, sell, label and supply the inlet valve in a safe condition; j. In permitting the inlet valve to leave its control without all of the safeguards necessary to make the product safe; k. Otherwise failing to exercise due care under the circumstances as described above. 33. As the sole, direct, legal and proximate result of Invensys' negligence as aforesaid, the Bowdens has sustained damages as previously set forth herein. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, State Insurance Company, demands judgment in its favor and against defendant Invensys Appliance Controls in an amount of $5,603.62, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT V - BREACH OF WARRANTY State Farm Insurance Company as subroc~ee for John and Anna Bowden v. Ma_vtaq Aol~liance Sales Comoanv, Inc. 34. State Farm herein incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 33 as if set forth in full. 35. At all times relevant hereto, Maytag manufactured, designed, sold and/or supplied the washing machine and was a merchant within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code, 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 2104 et. seq. 36. Being within the ambient of the foreseeable operation and use of the aforesaid washing machine, the Bowdens relied upon Maytag's express warranties and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for use for which a washing machine was intended to be used and which were extended in accordance with the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code. 37. As the sole, direct, legal and proximate cause of breaches by Maytag of the express and/or implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for use for which the aforesaid washing machine was intended, said warranties having been made by the agents, servants and/or employees of Maytag acting within the scope of their employment and authority and/or implied by law, the Bowdens sustained the damages previously set forth and sustained incidental and consequential damages. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, State Farm Insurance Company, demands judgment in its favor and against defendant Maytag Appliance Sales Company, Inc. in an amount of $5,603.62, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT VI - BREACH OF WARRANTY State Farm Fire and Casualty Com;3anv as subroQee for John and Anna Bowden v. Invensys A~Dliance Controls 38. State Farm herein incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 37 as if set forth in full. 39. At ail times relevant hereto, Invensys manufactured, designed, sold and/or supplied the inlet valve and was a merchant within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code, 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 2104 et. seq. 40. Being within the ambient of the foreseeable operation and use of the aforesaid fill valve, the Bowdens relied upon Invensys' express warranties and implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for use for which a fill valve was intended to be used and which were extended in accordance with the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code. 41. As the sole, direct, legal and proximate cause of breaches by Invensys of the express and/or implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for use for which the aforesaid inlet valve was intended, said warranties having been made by the agents, servants and/or employees of Invensys acting within the scope of their employment and authority and/or implied by law, the Bowdens sustained the damages previously set forth and sustained incidental and consequential damages. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, State Farm Insurance Company, demands judgment in its favor and against defendant Invensys Appliance Controls in an amount of $5,603.62, exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GOLDSTEIN GREENBERG & GALLAGHER, LLP D~?- ~ E uire avid J. Ro~/~nDerg, sq Christopher'P. Deegan, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff VERIFICATION Christopher P. Deegan, counsel of record for the plaintiff deposes and says that he is counsel for said party in the above matter; that he is authorized to make this verification on behalf of said party; that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct, not of his own knowledge, but from information supplied to him by said party; that the purpose of this verification is to expedite litigation; and that a verification by this party will be furnished if requested. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: · p ~,/L)eegan, Esquire IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. 01-7132 Civil Term MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. andlNVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, Defendants. PROOF OF SERVICE - INVENSYS Filed on behalf of Plaintiff: State Farm Insurance Company, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden Counsel of Record for this Party: David J. Rosenberg, Esquire PA I.D. #37492 Christopher P. Deegan, Esquire PA I.D. #85635 WEBER GOLDSTEIN GREENBERG & GALLAGHER, LLP Firm # 594 Two Gateway Center 14th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-4541 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. 01-7132 Civil Term MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. and INVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. PROOF OF SERVICE - INVENSY,~ I, Christopher P. Deegan, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, hereby certify that a copy of the Complaint was served upon Defendant, Invensys, by Certified Mail. A copy of the Return Receipt from such Certified Mailing, showing that the Complaint was delivered on January 2, 2002, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I also verify that the statements in this Proof of Service are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A.§ 4904 relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GOLDSTEIN GREENBERG & GALLAGHER, LLP Dated: Christopher/P. Deegan, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff · item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reveme an that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of th~ o¢ on the front if space permits. 1. ~rtlcle Addressed to: ~ 2. Nficle Number D. Is dellvey e~ldress ff YES, II [] No 3. Service Type ~ Certified Mail [] Registered [] Insured Mail [] Express Mail [] Return Receipt for Merchandaie [] C.O.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. 01-7132 Civil Term MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. and INVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, Defendants. PROOF OF SERVICE - MAYTAG Filed on behalf of Plaintiff: State Farm Insurance Company, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden Counsel of Record for this Party: David J. Rosenberg, Esquire PA I.D. #37492 Christopher P. Deegan, Esquire PA I.D. #85635 WEBER GOLDSTEIN GREENBERG & GALLAGHER, LLP Firm # 594 Two Gateway Center 14th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-4541 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. 01-7132 Civil Term MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. and INVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. PROOF OF SERVICE - MAYTAG I, Christopher P. Deegan, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, hereby certify that a copy of the Complaint was served upon Defendant, Maytag, by Certified Mail. A copy of the Return Receipt from such Certified Mailing, showing that the Complaint was delivered on December 31, 2001, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I also verify that the statements in this Proof of Service are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A.§ 4904 relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GOLDSTEIN GREENBERG & GALLAGHER, LLP Dated: Christopher~P. Deegan, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery I$ desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse es that we can return the car~ to you. · ~ao?i? o~ to tho b~ok of t~e ,~p~, 2. A~ticle Numbe~ ~ C~tm~ed M~ir rn Registered [] Exm Mall [] Return Receipt fo~ Merchalld~e [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) r"l Yes PS Form 3811, ~?_~ 2OOl D~,,.~k. Re~um R~celIX ~s~-o~-u-~ l~ EX~BIT ! IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION No. 01-7132 Civil Term MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. and INVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT Filed on behalf of Plaintiff: State Farm Insurance Company, as subrogee for John and Anna Bowden Counsel of Record for this Party: David J. Rosenberg, Esquire PA I.D. #37492 Christopher P. Deegan, Esquire PA I.D. #85635 WEBER GOLDSTEIN GREENBERG & GALLAGHER, LLP Firm # 594 Two Gateway Center 14th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 281-4541 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 13:26 P.12/12 VERIFICATION ¢ I, Karen O'Brien, verify that the statements made in the within ~w IVh~er are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ,,. 2OOl TOTAL P.12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher P. Deegan, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Verification of Complaint was served upon the following counsel by first-class mail this ~ ~r~day of January, 2002: Maytag Appliance Sales Company, Inc. 240 Edwards Street, S.E. Cleveland, TN 37311 Invensys Appliance Controls 91 East North Avenue Carol Stream, IL 60188 · p P.~eegan, Esquire Counsel for P~intiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee for JOHN and ANNA BOWDEN, CIVIL DIVISION NO.: 01-7132 Civil Term Plaintiff, VS. MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. and INVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE Defendants. Filed on Behalf of Plaintiff, State Farm Insurance Company, as Subrogee for John and Anna Bowden Counsel of Record For These Pa~ties: David J. Rosanberg, Esquire PA I.D. #37492 Christopher P. Deegan, Esquire PA I.D. #85635 WEBER GOLDSTEIN GREENBERG & GALLAGHER, LLP Two Gateway Center, Suite 1450 603 Stanwix Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 281-4541 Fax: (412) 281-4547 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee for JOHN and ANNA BOWDEN, Plaintiff, VS. MAYTAG APPLIANCE SALES COMPANY, INC. and INVENSYS APPLIANCE CONTROLS, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL DIVISION NO.: 01-7132 Civil Term PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE, TO: CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY Kindly settle and discontinue the docket of the above-captioned matter. By: Respectfully submitted, WEBER GOLDSTEIN GREENBERG & GALLAGHER, LLP Christophert~l~. Deegan, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff, State Farm Insurance Company, as Subrogee for John and Anna Bowden CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE has served by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this ¢~2 l day of February, 2002, upon the following parties: Maytag Appliance Sales Company, Inc. 240 Edwards Street, S.E. Cleveland, TN 37311 Invensys Appliance Controls 91 East North Avenue Carol Stream, IL 60188 Christopher I~. Deegan, Esquire