The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-7747C~ ~'r~E I'~~'~~tCx~O ~s~~ 21~ DEC 16 Phi ~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF C ~MB~F.i~~~ ~,1~T~Y, PENNSYLVANIA PEN~€~YL:~~i~al,~ I ~BENNLAWFIRM METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC.: , Plaintiff No. ~ O ~ ~ 7~7 Gv~ vs. Civil Action -Law LARRY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH, Defendants Jury Trial Demanded NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 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 is served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defense or objections to the claim set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and 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, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. 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. Carlisle, PA 17103 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street ~ ,~ Q.`~ ~y~,bo Y ~~~~~? YORK, PA 17405-5185 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I ~BENNLAWFIRM METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC. Plaintiff No. vs. Civil Action -Law LARRY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH, Defendants Jury Trial Demanded NOTICIA USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe tomar action dentro de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presenter comparecencia esrita en persona o por abogado y presenter en la Corte por excrito sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en su contra. Se le avisa que si no se detiende, el caso puede proceder sin usted y la Corte puede decider en su contra sin mas aviso o notification por cualquier dinero reclamado en la demanda o por cualquier otra queja o compensation reclamados por el Demandante. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, O PROPIEDADES U OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARR USTED. LLEVE ESTA DAMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE O NO CONOCE UN ABODAGO, VAYA O LLAME A LA OFICINA EN LA DIRECCION ESCRITA ABAJO PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. ` Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17103 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~BENNLAWFIRM METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC. Plaintiff vs. LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH, Defendants No. 1 ~ ~`~ 7 7 ~ ~`~" f Civil Action -Law Jury Trial Demanded COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Metropolitan Edison, a wholly owned subsidiary ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 of First Energy, Inc., by and through its attorney, BENNLAWFIRM, and submits the within. Complaint, and in support thereof avers the following: 1. Plaintiff, Metropolitan Edison, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Energy, Inc. (hereinafter "Met-Ed"), is a Pennsylvania Corporation with a place of business at 2800 Pottsville Pike, P.O. Box 16001, Reading, Pennsylvania 19612-6001. 2. Defendant, Laray P. Martin, upon information and belief, is an adult individual with ar> address for service at 9610 Otterbein School Road, Newburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17240. 3. Defendant, Glen R. Martin, upon information and belief, is an adult individual currently residing at 9610 Otterbein School Road, Newburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17240. 1 ~ YORK, PA 17405-5185 4. ~ Defendant, Martins Ag, upon information and belief, is a sole proprietorship with a I ~BENNLAWFIRM 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 principal place of business at 1588 Pinola Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 5. Defendant, Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church (hereinafter "Eastern PA Mennonite Church"), upon information and belief, is anon-profit charity with a principal place of business at 4413 Conrad Weiser Parkway, Womelsdorf, Berks County, Pennsylvania 19567-9740. 6. 'Met-Ed is an electricity company that engages in the transmission and distribution of electrical services to consumers and maintains utility poles with transformers attached thereto to deliver electricity to its customers, as well as energy management and other energy related services. 7. ' At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Laray Martin, owned a 2005 Volvo Dump Truck bearing registration plate E40612D (hereinafter "Defendant's vehicle"). 8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Martins Ag, owned a 2005 Volvo Dump Truck bearing registration plate E40612D (hereinafter "Defendant's vehicle"). 9. ' At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Eastern PA Mennonite Church, owned a 2005 Volvo Dump Truck bearing registration plate E40612D (hereinafter "Defendant's vehicle") 10 ~ On or about December 7, 2009, Defendant, Glen Martin, was operating Defendant's vehicle and traveling East on SR0030/York Road in Straban Township, Adams County, towards the intersection of Route 30/Flickinger Road. 11. At all times relevant hereto, there were no adverse weather or road conditions. 2 YORK, PA 1 7405-5 1 85 12. At approximately 12:40 p.m., Defendant, Glen Martin, fell asleep behind the wheel I ~BENNLAWFIRM of Defendant's vehicle. 13. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Glen Martin, allowed Defendant's vehicle to drift into the oncoming lane of SR0030/York Road, first striking a vehicle (hereinafter "Unit Two") traveling westbound on York Road. 14. The force from Defendant's vehicle striking Unit Two, violently pushed Unit Two directly into two (2) utility poles owned by Plaintiff. 15:~The impact from Unit Two striking Met-Ed's utility poles completely destroyed the utility poles and the transformers and other equipment attached thereto. 16.. At the time of the above-referenced collision, Defendant, Glen Martin, was eighteen (18) years old. 17: In order to restore service to its customers, Met-Ed was forced to replace the above- referenced utility poles and the transformers attached thereto as soon as practicable. 18. In order to replace the utility poles and the transformers attached thereto, which Defendants damaged through their negligence, Plaintiff incurred reasonable and necessary expenses for which it has not been compensated in the amount of Seventy-Nine Thousand Fifty-Three dollars and Seventy-Five ($79,053.75) cents. (Attached hereto, made a part hereof; and marked as Exhibit "A" is a copy of First Energy's "Replacement Costs Report" showing a breakdown of the expenses for replacing the poles and transformers). 19. The amount claimed in this matter exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 arbitration referral by Cumberland County Local Rules. 3 YORK, PA 17405-5185 COUNT I -NEGLIGENCE MET-ED VS. GLEN MARTIN I ~BENNLAWFIRM 20. Paragraphs 1-19 are incorporated herein by reference as fully as though the same were set forth at length. 21. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Glen Martin, had a duty to operate Defendant's vehicle in a competent and reasonable manner and to maintain control of Defendant's vehicle so as to avoid colliding with other vehicles and property. 22. The above mentioned collisions and the resultant property damage caused to Plaintiff are the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Glen Martin, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In falling asleep while operating a motor vehicle; b. In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the roadway in front of him { and motor vehicles lawfully traveling in the opposite direction; c. In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of Defendant's vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; d. In failing to operate Defendant's vehicle on the right-hand side of the road, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3301; e. In operating Defendant's vehicle in careless disregard for the safety of persons and/or property, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; f. In failing to pass vehicles traveling on the subject roadway to the right, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3302; g. In failing to take such precautions as a prudent person would take under the ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 circumstances in regard to the speed and control of Defendant's vehicle; 4 ~ YORK, PA 17405-5185 h. In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have his vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided; and I ~BENNLAWFIRM i. In otherwise operating Defendant's motor vehicle in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others, in direct violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 23. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages to its property, including replacement of utility poles, replacement of transformers, lost service time, labor expenses, and replacement of wiring. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant in the amount of $79,053.75, plus interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT II -VICARIOUS LIABILITY MET-ED VS. MARTINS AG ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 24. Paragraphs 1-23 are incorporated herein by reference hereto as fully as though the same were set forth at length. 25. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Glen Martin, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant, Martins Ag. 26. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all of the resultant property damage to Plaintiff are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Martins Ag's employee, Glen Martin. 5 ~ YORK, PA 17405-5185 27. The aforementioned negligent, careless, and/or reckless conduct of Defendant, Glen I ~BENNLAWFIRM Martin, occurred while acting in and upon the business of Defendant, Martins Ag, and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. 28. Defendant is vicariously liable to Plaintiff, Met-Ed, for the substantial property loss it has suffered, to its great detriment and loss. 29. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages to its property, including replacement of utility poles, replacement of transformers, lost service time, labor expenses, and replacement of wiring. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant in the amount of $79,053.75, plus interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III -VICARIOUS LIABILITY MET-ED VS. LARRY MARTIN ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 30. Paragraphs 1-29 are incorporated herein by reference hereto as fully as though the .~ same were set forth at length. 31. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Glen Martin, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant, Laray Martin. 32. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all of the resultant property damage to Plaintiff are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Laray Martin's employee, Glen Martin 33. The aforementioned negligent, careless, and/or reckless conduct of Defendant, Glen Martin, occurred while acting in and upon the business of Defendant, Laray Martin, and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. 6 ^ YORK, PA 17405-5185 34. Defendant is vicariously liable to Plaintiff, Met-Ed, for the substantial property loss I ~BENNLAWFIRM it has suffered, to its great detriment and loss. 35. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages to its property, including replacement of utility poles, replacement of transformers, lost service time, labor expenses, and replacement of wiring. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant in the amount of $79,053.75, plus interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV -VICARIOUS LIABILITY MET-ED VS. EASTERN PA MENNONITE CHURCH ;. 36: Paragraphs 1-35 are incorporated herein by reference hereto as fully as though the same were set forth at length. 37.'At all times material to this action, Defendant, Glen Martin, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant, Eastern PA Mennonite Church. 38. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all of the resultant property damage to Plaintiff are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Eastern PA Mennonite Church's employee, Glen Martin. 39.' The aforementioned negligent, careless, and/or reckless conduct of Defendant, Glen Martin, occurred while acting in and upon the business of Defendant, Eastern PA Mennonite Church, and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. 40.`Defendant is vicariously liable to Plaintiff, Met-Ed, for the substantial property loss ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 it has suffered, to its great detriment and loss. 7 ^ YORK, PA 17405-5185 41. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered I ~BENNLAWFIRM damages to its property, including replacement of utility poles, replacement of transformers, lost service time, labor expenses, and replacement of wiring. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant in the amount of $79,053.75, plus interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT V -NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT MET-ED VS. MARTINS AG ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 are incorporated herein by reference hereto as fully as though the same were set forth at length. 43. Defendant, Martins Ag, was the owner of the vehicle previously identified in this Complaint as Defendant's vehicle, which Defendant, Glen Martin, was operating with its permission at the time of the collision. 44. Defendant, Martins Ag, knew, or should have known, that Defendant, Glen Martin, would be operating its vehicle without reasonable care and safety. 45: As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Martins Ag, the Plaintiff, Met-Ed, has suffered substantial property damage as set forth in full herein. 46. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Met-Ed, were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Martins Ag, in negligently entrusting its vehicle to Glen Martin and in allowing Glen Martin'to operate its vehicle when it knew or should have known that Glen Martin was not fit and competent to operate the motor vehicle in a safe, non-negligent manner as set forth below:' g ~ YORK, PA 17405-5185 a. In allowing Defendant, Glen Martin, to operate its vehicle when it knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, would operate its vehicle with a careless disregard for the safety and property of others; I ~BENNLAWFIRM b. In allowing Defendant, Glen Martin, to operate its vehicle when it knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, had a propensity to disregard the rules of the roadway and/or operate vehicles in a careless manner; c. In failing to take control of its vehicle when it became apparent that Defendant, Glen Martin, would operate its vehicle with a careless disregard for the safety of others; d. In allowing an inexperienced driver to operate a motor vehicle on a major state route; and e. In failing to realize that an automobile is a dangerous instrumentality when it is entrusted to someone it knew or should have known would use it carelessly and/or recklessly. ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 47. Defendant, Martins Ag, negligently entrusted its vehicle to Defendant, Glen Martin, when it knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, was not a fit and proper driver. 48. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages to its property, including replacement of utility poles, replacement of transformers, lost service time, labor expenses, and replacement of wiring. 9 ^ YORK, PA 17405-5185 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant in the amount of I ~BENNLAWFIRM $79,053.75, plus interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. COUNT VI -NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT MET-ED VS. LARRY MARTIN 49. Paragraphs 1 through 48 are incorporated herein by reference hereto as fully as though the same were set forth at length. 50. Defendant, Laray Martin, was the owner of the vehicle previously identified in this Complaint as Defendant's vehicle, which Defendant, Glen Martin, was operating with his permission at the time of the collision. 51. Defendant, Laray Martin, knew, or should have known, that Defendant, Glen Martin, would be operating his vehicle without reasonable care and safety. 52' As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Laray Martin, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial property damage as set forth in full herein. 53.'The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Laray Martin, in negligently entrusting its vehicle to Glen Martin and in allowing Glen Martin to operate his vehicle when he knew or should have known that Glen Martin was not fit and competent to operate the motor vehicle in a safe, non-negligent manner as set forth below: a. In allowing Defendant, Glen Martin, to operate his vehicle when he knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, would operate his vehicle ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 with a careless disregard for the safety and property of others; 10 ~ YORK, PA 17405-5185 b. In allowing Defendant, Glen Martin, to operate his vehicle when he knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, had a propensity to disregard the rules of the roadway and/or operate vehicles in a careless I ~BENNLAWFIRM manner; c. In failing to take control of his vehicle when it became apparent that Defendant, Glen Martin, would operate his vehicle with a careless disregard for the safety of others; d. In allowing an inexperienced driver to operate a motor vehicle on a major state route; and e. In failing to realize that an automobile is a dangerous instrumentality when it is entrusted to someone he knew or should have known would use it carelessly and/or recklessly. 54. Defendant, Laray Martin, negligently entrusted his vehicle to Defendant, Glen Martin, when he knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, was not a fit and proper driver. 55. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages to its property, including replacement of utility poles, replacement of transformers, lost service time, labor expenses, and replacement of wiring. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant in the amount of ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 $79,053.75, plus interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just } and proper. 11 ^ YORK, PA 17405-5185 COUNT VII -NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT MET-ED VS. EASTERN PA MENNONITE CHURCH I ~BENNLAWFIRM 56. Paragraphs 1 through 55 are incorporated herein by reference hereto as fully as though,the same were set forth at length. 57. Defendant, Eastern PA Mennonite Church, was the owner of the vehicle previously identified in this Complaint as Defendant's vehicle, which Defendant, Glen Martin, was operating with its permission at the time of the collision. 58. Defendant, Eastern PA Mennonite Church, knew, or should have known, that Defendant, Glen Martin, would be operating its vehicle without reasonable care and safety. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Eastern PA Mennonite Church, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial property damage as set forth in full herein. 60.'The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Eastern PA Mennonite Church, in negligently entrusting its vehicle to Glen Martin and in allowing Glen Martin to operate its vehicle when it knew or should have known that Glen Martin was ndt fit and competent to operate the motor vehicle in a safe, non-negligent manner as set forth below: a. In allowing Defendant, Glen Martin, to operate its vehicle when it knew or ~ should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, would operate its vehicle with a careless disregard for the safety and property of others; ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 12 ~ YORK, PA 17405-5185 b. In allowing Defendant, Glen Martin, to operate its vehicle when it knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, had a propensity to disregard the rules of the roadway and/or operate vehicles in a careless I ~BENN~AWFIRM manner; c. In failing to take control of its vehicle when it became apparent that Defendant, Glen Martin, would operate its vehicle with a careless disregard for the safety of others; d. In allowing an inexperienced driver to operate a motor vehicle on a major state route; and e. In failing to realize that an automobile is a dangerous instrumentality when it is entrusted to someone it knew or should have known would use it carelessly and/or recklessly. 61. Defendant, Eastern PA Mennonite Church, negligently entrusted its vehicle to Defendant, Glen Martin, when it knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, was not a fit and proper driver. 62. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages to its property, including replacement of utility poles, replacement of transformers, lost service time, labor expenses, and replacement of wiring. ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 13 ^ YORK, PA 17405-5185 b. In allowing Defendant, Glen Martin, to operate its vehicle when it knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, had a propensity to disregard the rules of the roadway and/or operate vehicles in a careless I ~BENNLAWFIIIM manner; c. In failing to take control of its vehicle when it became apparent that Defendant, Glen Martin, would operate its vehicle with a careless disregard for the safety of others; d. In allowing an inexperienced driver to operate a motor vehicle on a major interstate highway; and e. In failing to realize that an automobile is .a dangerous instrumentality when it is entrusted to someone it knew or should have known would use it carelessly and/or recklessly. ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 61. Defendant, Eastern PA Mennonite Church, negligently entrusted its vehicle to Defendant, Glen Martin, when it knew or should have known that Defendant, Glen Martin, was not a fit and proper driver. 62. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages to its property, including replacement of utility poles, replacement of transformers, lost service time, labor expenses, and replacement of wiring. 13 ^ YORK, PA 17405-5185 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendant in the amount of $79,053.75, I ~BBNNLAWFIRM plus interest, costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, BENNLAWFIRM ~jJ"ames F. Loginquire Attorney I.D. # 202170 103 East Market Street P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 Attorneys for Plaintiff ^ 103-107 E. MARKET ST. ^ P.O. BOX 5185 14 ^ YORK, PA 17405-5185 FirstEnergy Corp Printed: Claims System Receivables: Replacement Costs Report Claim Number: 109754 Invoice Number: 80289 Invoice Approved: 3/4/2010 Principal: LARAY P MARTIN Material and Miscellaneous Qty Material Description C~ 3 REG 3331NA OH 7.62 MULTI-TAP PLTFRM TY 37,535.17 3 SWITCH REG BY-PASS 15KV 600A 2,336.70 2 CROSSARM WOOD FIR 4.75" X 5.75" X 16' 206.50 100 CABLE OH/UG 600V 4/OCU XLPE 19STR ~ 277.23 6 ARRESTER SURGE LINE POLY 10KV 135.08 2 POLE WOOD 45FT CLASS 1 910.26 2 CROSSARM WOOD'FIR 3.5" X 4.5" X 8' 57.91 1 PLATFORM MTG AL 14' 4500 LBS PER/POS. 1,166.77 6 INS PIN POLY 15KV (MET-ED ONLY) 31.85 Subtotal Materials Material Handling Expense Contracted Cost Excess Height Meals Miscellaneous Sales Tax Set and Sell Total Material and Miscellaneous Costs 61,294.51 Truck/Equipment Description Costs Technical Service Vehicle/Work Truck 4,269.51 Construction Equipment 0.00 Total Transportation and Equipment Costs 4,269.51 Labor Manhours Time Description Percentage Costs 210.5 Straight Time 92.73 .12,454.35 _- _15.5 Time and-One Half _ _ -:-6-83 - ___ 953.37- __ 1 Double Time 0.44 82.01 227 Total Labor 100.00 13489.73 Total Replacement Costs 79,053.75 EXHIBIT !, Page: 1 3/4/2010 42,657.47 16,456.16 2,110.88 0.00 0.00 70.00 o.oo o.oo VERIFICATION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS COUNTY OF BERKS .~BaNNLAWFIRM I, LINDA L. BUTTERY, being duly sworn according to law, hereby state that I am an authorized agent for the Plaintiff, METROPOLITAI'~T EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC., and, as such, I alm authorized to make this Verification on its behalf, I verify that the statements contained in the foregoing "Complaint" are true and correct to the best of my kriowled'ge, information and belief I understand that false statements herein are made subject to'the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 490 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~nn II ~l~.~ L DA L. BUT E 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P O. BOX 5185 PORK, PA (7405-5185 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROT4'OIIOTA, 2011 JAN 25 AM 11: 02 Richard W Stewart Solicitor OF' ICE THE _- -ERIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Metropolitan Edison Company vs. Case Number Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church (et al.) 2010-7747 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 12/17/2010 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Berks County, Pennsylvania tc serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 12/29/2010 11:10 AM - Berks County Return: And now December 29, 2010 at 1110 hours I, John P. Durante, Sheriff of Berks County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Eastern Pen?lvania Mennonite Church by making known unto Thelma Weaver, adult in charge at 4413 Conrad Weiser Parkway, Womelsdorf, Pennsylvania 19567 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 01/03/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Larry P. Martin, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Franklin County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 01/03/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Glen R. Martin, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Franklin County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 01/03/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Martins Ag, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Franklin County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 01/12/2011 11:48 AM - Franklin County Return: And now January 12, 2011 at 1148 hours I, Dane Anthony, Sheriff of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Complairtf and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Martins Ag by making known unto Laray Martin, adult in charge at 1588 Pinola Road, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 01/12/2011 11:48 AM - Franklin County Return: And now January 12, 2011 at 1148 hours I, Dane Anthony, Sheriff of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Glen R. Martin by making known unto Laray Martin, Father of defendant at 1588 Pinola Road, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 01/12/2011 11:48 AM - Franklin County Return: And now January 12, 2011 at 1148 hours I, Dane Anthony, Sheriff of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Laray P. Martin by making known unto himself r personally, at 1588 Pinola Road, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. eum v .i to are Iff f e e^,s:ft. Irc. SHERIFF COST: $94.44 January 24, 2011 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF CCUMy5u11e Sher*t. T&ooso`t. irc. COUNTY OF BERKS, PENNSYLVANIA *???c?RTY•J,y??? SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Courthouse- 3rd Floor Phone: 610.478.6240 633 Court Street cd rn Fax: 610.478.6222 ? R Reading, PA 19601 APTS COU ?y Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff Anthony Damore, Chief Deputy AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE DOCKET NO. 10-7747 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF BERKS Personally appeared before me, Joseph Roslin, Deputy for Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff of Berks County, 633 Court Street, Reading, Pennsylania, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that on 12/29/2010 11:10:00AM, he served the annexed Complaint in Civil Action upon EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH, within named defendant, by handing a copy thereof to Thelma Weaver, Person In Charge/ PIC, at 4413 CONRAD WEISER PARKWAY, Marion Township, Berks County, Pa., and made known to defendant the contents thereof. EPUTY SHERIFF OF B S COUNTY., PA Sworn and subscribed before me Joseph oslin is 6 day of J , 2011 4"1 rot N TARY PUB , READING, BERKS CO., PA NOTARIAL SEAL REBECCA OXENREIDER Notary Public READING CITY, BERKS COUNTY Commission Expires Feb 22, 2012 FMy Services made as set forth above So Answers, Sheriffs Costs in Above Proceedings $ 100.00 DEPOSIT $ 40.32 ACTUAL COST OF CASE $ 59.68 AMOUNT OF REFUND r r?- SHERIF OF BERKS COUNTY, PA Eric J. Weaknecht All Sheriffs Costs shall be due and payable when services are performed, and it shall be lawful for him to demand and receive from the party instituting the proceedings, or any part liable for the costs thereof, all unpaid sheriffs fees on the same before he shall be obligated by law to make return thereof. _Sec. 2, Act of June 20, 1911, P.L/ 1072 Dedicated to public service with integrity, virtue & excellence www.countvofberks.com/sheriff CASE NO: 2011-00003 T SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF FRANKLIN METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY VS MARTINS AG ET AL ANGEL L LAVIENA , Deputy Sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania , who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMP CIVIL ACTION was served upon MARTINS AG the DEFENDANT at 1148:00 Hour, on the 12th day of January 2011 at 1588 PINOLA ROAD SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to LARAY MARTIN (FATHER OF GLENN R MARTIN) a true and attested copy of COMP CIVIL ACTION together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing .00 Service .00 ANGE Affidavit .00 Surcharge .00 By ° .00 eputy Sheriff .00 01/19/2011 BENN LAW FIRM Sworn and Subscribed to before me this /G _1 day of COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ll A.D. NOTARIAL SEANotarY L Pub tic r RICHARD D. McBO o. F'ankl n County Chambersburg Tres Jan. 29, 2011 Notary My Commission Expires t, CASE NO: 2011-00003 T SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF FRANKLIN METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY VS MARTINS AG ET AL ANGEL LAVIENA , Deputy Sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMP CIVIL ACTION MARTIN GLENN R was served upon DEFENDANT the at 1148:00 Hour, on the 12th day of January , 2011 at 1588 PINOLA ROAD SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 LARAY MARTIN (FATHER) by handing to a true and attested copy of COMP CIVIL ACTION together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge .00 So Answers: .00 ANG V.I .00 .00 By .00 e u y Sheriff ff .00 01/19/2011 BENN LAW FIRM Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of CA9 t/ A.D. d Notary SEAL =Expires TH OF PENNSYLVANIA Y, Notary Public ., Franklin County ires Jan. 29, 2011 CASE NO: 2011-00003 T SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF FRANKLIN METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY VS MARTINS AG ET AL ANGEL ANTHONY Deputy Sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMP CIVIL ACTION MARTIN LARAY P DEFENDANT was served upon the at 1148:00 Hour, on the 12th day of January , 2011 at 1588 PINnT,A PnAn SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 LARAY P MARTIN by handing to a true and attested copy of COMP CIVIL ACTION together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 00 .00 ANGEL T .00 .00 By .00 y S eriff .00 01/19/2011 BENN LAW FIRM Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of cktf A.D. Notary r, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL RICHARD D. McCARTY, Notary Public Chambersburg Boro., Franklin County My CommlSslon Expires Jan. 29, 2011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff Civil Action - Law V. LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTIN'S AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF INSURANCE PLAN, Defendants No. 10-7747 Jury Trial Demanded c cm i r 1 > .. o. NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Metropolitan Edison c/o James F. Logue, Esq., BennLawFirm, 103 East Market St., P.O. Box 5185, York, PA 17405-5185 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed new matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof, or a judgment may be entered against you. I Date: February 25, 2011 osep A. MachMs6 A orn for Defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Me o ite Church Self Insurance Plan Supre a Court I.D.# 38262 P.O. Box 83 Orrstown, PA 17244 (717) 532-4832 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly Civil Action - Law owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff V. No. 10-7747 Jury Trial Demanded LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTIN'S AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF INSURANCE PLAN, Defendants ANSWER AND NEW MATTER Answering defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan (hereinafter referred to as "defendant" or "answering defendant" from time to time), erroneously referred to by plaintiff in the caption above as "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church", by and through its attorney, Joseph A. Macaluso, hereby answers the complaint of plaintiff Metropolitan Edison as follows: ANSWER 1. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the complaint regarding the form of organization of plaintiff and its place of business. The means of proof of said allegations are within the exclusive control of plaintiff, and strict proof thereof is required of plaintiff. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. It is specifically denied that Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church, which is a church, has a place of business at the address stated. 6. Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 6 pertaining to the operations of plaintiff. The means of proof of said allegations are within the exclusive control of plaintiff, and strict proof thereof is required of plaintiff. 7. Admitted. 8. It is specifically denied that either Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church or the answering defendant owned the truck described. 9. Defendant, being the self-insurance plan for Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church, has no first-hand knowledge about the facts pertaining to the accident which is the subject matter of this case, and therefore, defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the complaint. The means of proof of said allegations are within the exclusive control of the other parties, and strict proof thereof is required of them. 10. Defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 10. 11. Defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 11. 12. Defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 12. 13. Defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 13. 14. Defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 14. 15. Defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 15. 16. Admitted. 17. Defendant, being the self-insurance plan for Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church, has no first-hand knowledge about the facts pertaining to the repairs made by plaintiff pertaining to the accident which is the subject matter of this case, and therefore, defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the complaint. The means of proof of said allegations are within the exclusive control of the plaintiff, and strict proof thereof is required of plaintiff 18. Defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 17 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 18. 19. Defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 17 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 19. ANSWER TO COUNT I 20. Paragraph 20 contains merely an incorporation by reference of the previous Paragraphs 1 through 19, inclusive, of the complaint, to which no further response is required. 21. Paragraph 21 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 22. Paragraph 22, and subparagraphs a. through i. of Paragraph 22, are not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 23. Paragraph 23 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant requests dismissal of Count I the complaint, and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff. ANSWER TO COUNT 11 24. Paragraph 24 contains merely an incorporation by reference of the previous Paragraphs 1 through 23, inclusive, of the complaint, to which no further response is required. 25. Paragraph 25 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 26. Paragraph 26 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 27. Paragraph 27 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 28. Paragraph 28 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 29. Paragraph 29 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant requests dismissal of Count II the complaint, and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff. ANSWER TO COUNT 111 30. Paragraph 30 contains merely an incorporation by reference of the previous Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, of the complaint, to which no further response is required. 31. Paragraph 31 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 32. Paragraph 32 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 33. Paragraph 33 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 34. Paragraph 34 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 35. Paragraph 35 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant requests dismissal of Count III the complaint, and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff. ANSWER TO COUNT IV 36. Paragraph 36 contains merely an incorporation by reference of the previous Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, of the complaint, to which no further response is required. 37. It is specifically denied that defendant Glen Martin was an "agent, servant, employee" of answering defendant at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. 38. Paragraph 38 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant was negligent, or careless, or reckless in any way. 39. It is specifically denied that defendant Glen Martin was "acting upon the business of or "within the course and scope of his employment" for answering defendant at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. Further answering, defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 37 above as though set forth in extenso. 40. Paragraph 40 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant is in any way vicariously liable to plaintiff and it is specifically denied that defendant was an employer of defendant Glen Martin at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. 41. Paragraph 41 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant was in any negligent and it is specifically denied that answering defendant in any way caused damage to the property of plaintiff. WHEREFORE, defendant requests dismissal of Count IV the complaint, and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff. ANSWER TO COUNT V 42. Paragraph 42 contains merely an incorporation by reference of the previous Paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive, of the complaint, to which no further response is required. 43. Paragraph 43 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 44. Paragraph 44 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 45. Paragraph 45 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 46. Paragraph 46, and subparagraphs a. through e. of Paragraph 46, are not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 47. Paragraph 47 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 48. Paragraph 48 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant requests dismissal of Count V the complaint, and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff. ANSWER TO COUNT VI 49. Paragraph 49 contains merely an incorporation by reference of the previous Paragraphs 1 through 48, inclusive, of the complaint, to which no further response is required. 50. Paragraph 50 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 51. Paragraph 51 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 52. Paragraph 52 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 53. Paragraph 53, and subparagraphs a. through e. of Paragraph 53, are not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 54. Paragraph 54 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. 55. Paragraph 55 is not directed to the answering defendant and so no response is required. WHEREFORE, defendant requests dismissal of Count VI the complaint, and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff. ANSWER TO COUNT VII 56. Paragraph 56 contains merely an incorporation by reference of the previous Paragraphs 1 through 55, inclusive, of the complaint, to which no further response is required. 57. It is specifically denied that answering defendant was the owner of the vehicle driven by defendant Glen Martin at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. Further answering, it is specifically denied that answering defendant gave permission to defendant Glen Martin to drive a vehicle at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, and it is specifically denied that any such permission of answering defendant was required. 58. Paragraph 58 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known that defendant Glen Martin would be driving a vehicle at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. Further answering, it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known whether or in what manner that defendant Glen Martin would be operating a vehicle at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. Further answering, it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known that defendant Glen Martin would be operating a vehicle without reasonable care or safety, although in so answering, defendant makes no admission that defendant Glen Martin was operating a vehicle without reasonable care or safety, and defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 58. 59. Paragraph 59 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant was negligent in any way and it is specifically denied that answering defendant caused any damage to the property of plaintiff. 60. Paragraph 60 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant was negligent in any way and it is specifically denied that answering defendant entrusted any vehicle owned by it to defendant Glen Martin at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. Further answering, it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known that defendant Glen Martin was not fit or competent to operate a vehicle in a safe, non-negligent manner at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, although in so answering, defendant makes no admission that defendant Glen Martin was not fit or competent to operate a vehicle in a safe, non-negligent manner, and defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 60. a. Paragraph 60 a. contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant allowed defendant Glen Martin to operate any vehicle owned by it at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. Further answering, it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known that defendant Glen Martin would operate a vehicle with careless disregard for the safety and property of others at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, although in so answering, defendant makes no admission that defendant Glen Martin did operate a vehicle with careless disregard for the safety and property of others, and defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 60 a. b. Paragraph 60 b. contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant allowed defendant Glen Martin to operate any vehicle owned by it at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. Further answering, it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known that defendant Glen Martin had a propensity to disregard the rules of the roadway and/or operate vehicles in a careless manner at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, although in so answering, defendant makes no admission that defendant Glen Martin did disregard the rules of the roadway or operate a vehicle in a careless manner, and defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 60 b. c. Paragraph 60 c. contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant was the owner of a vehicle driven by defendant Glen Martin at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, and it is specifically denied that answering defendant was in any position or had any duty to take control of any vehicle operated by defendant Glen Martin at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. Further answering, it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known that defendant Glen Martin would operate a vehicle with careless disregard for the safety of others at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, although in so answering, defendant makes no admission that defendant Glen Martin did operate a vehicle with careless disregard for the safety of others, and defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 60 c. d. Paragraph 60 d. contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant allowed defendant Glen Martin to operate a vehicle on a major interstate highway at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, and it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known that defendant Glen Martin was an inexperienced driver, although in so answering, defendant makes no admission that defendant Glen Martin was an inexperienced driver, and defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 60 d. e. Paragraph 60 e. contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that an automobile per se was driven by defendant Glen Martin at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, and answering defendant specifically denies that it failed to realize that an automobile is a dangerous instrumentality at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint. Further answering, it is specifically denied that answering defendant entrusted any vehicle to defendant Glen Martin at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, and it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known that defendant Glen Martin would use a vehicle carelessly and/or recklessly at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, although in so answering, defendant makes no admission that defendant Glen Martin did operate a vehicle carelessly and/or recklessly, and defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 60 e. 61. Paragraph 61 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant entrusted any vehicle to defendant Glen Martin at any relevant time mentioned in the complaint, and it is specifically denied that answering defendant was negligent in any way. Further answering, it is specifically denied that answering defendant knew or should have known that defendant Glen Martin was not a fit and proper driver, although in so answering, defendant makes no admission that defendant Glen Martin was not a fit and proper driver, and defendant repeats its answer in Paragraph 9 above as though set forth in extenso with regard to Paragraph 61. 62. Paragraph 62 contains merely legal suppositions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that answering defendant was negligent in any way and it is specifically denied that answering defendant caused any damage to the property of plaintiff. WHEREFORE, defendant requests dismissal of Count VII the complaint, and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff. NEW MATTER Further answering the complaint, defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan (the "Plan"), by and through its attorney, Joseph A. Macaluso, avers the following New Matter: 63. The Plan is a self-insurance plan for members of the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church and Related Areas. 64. The Plan has received Self-Insurer Certificate No. S. I. -14 from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (copy attached hereto as Exhibit A). 65. At no relevant time mentioned in the complaint did the Plan own a vehicle that was involved in the accident which is the subject matter of this suit. 66. Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim against the Plan for negligence. 67. At no relevant time mentioned in the complaint did the Plan employ defendant Glen Martin as an "employee, servant, or agent". 68. There is no legal theory to vicarious support vicarious liability of the Plan to plaintiff. 69. At no relevant time mentioned in the complaint did the Plan entrust any vehicle owned by it to defendant Glen Martin or defendant Martin's Ag. 70. Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim against the Plan for negligent entrustment of any vehicle. 71. The Plan does not own any interest in defendant Martin's Ag. 72. Any injury incurred by the plaintiff is a direct result of the actions of third parties over whom the Plan does not exercise control. 73. Upon information and belief, the Plan avers that defendant Martin's Ag has a commercial liability insurance policy sufficient to cover any loss incurred by the plaintiff. 74. Any amount that may be required to be paid by the Plan as a result of this accident is limited by Pa.C.S.A. Sections 1787 and 1774. WHEREFORE, the Plan requests dismissal of the complaint, and that judgment be entered in its favor and against plaintiff. Ily subm Jos h A. Macaluso, Esq. upr me Court I.D. # 38262 A r ey for Defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan P.O. Box 83 Orrstown, PA 17244 Tel. # (717) 532-4832 Dated: -2- ?.?? ? VERIFICATION I, Robert L. Shank verify that I am a Representative of Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan, that I am authorized to sign this verification on its behalf, and that the statements made in the foregoing answer to complaint and new matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that if any false statements are made herein I am subject to the penalties of perjury contained in Pa.C.S_ Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Robert L. Shank Dated. ??? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 25, 2011, i caused to be served a true and correct copy of the answer and new matter of defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following individuals: James F. Logue, Esq. BennLawFirm 103 East Market St. P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 John A. Statler, Esq. 301 Market St. P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 I further certify that the statements made herein are true and correct, and I understand that if any false statements were made herein, the same would be subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: February 25, 2011 ' nrI - LV' LVIV V - TVI III jimn1\ULr'1Vf11L\XU I I IOL111 IV V'VIVU F' I (is" of S.1, 114 'rot 0 BURRAU OF DRIVER LICENSING HAPPANUAG SELF-INSURER CERTIFICATE TN 1S'TO CERTIFY THAT Eastern Penny1 vans a Mennonite Church or _ 185 W1. Burk hel der Drive lititZ3 Punnsylyanin,_17543 _ has qualltlod as A set( ituurer under the Motor Vehicle 1 artcial RespandbUlty Law and imed this Cerdflcate as evidence thereof and asslood Number S_1. #14 ? by the Swretaty of Transportation. , This Certifiaste is effective as of F2brua.U_0§, 1907 erd BhAl1 MAIA in Wool until cancelled. a, Februdr o •?o 87 '1LEO-O FILE t+ i1E i' JTH 0 OTARY 2GI i MAR 10 IA,4i 10: CUMBERLAND COUNTY -I?NSYLVANIA Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidn r By: John A. Statler, Esquire I.D. No. 43812 301 Market Street P. O. Box 109 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-010 (717) 761-4540 jas@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendants Laray P. Martin, Individually, Glen R. Martin, Individually, and Martins Ag METROPOLITAN EDISON, a w oily owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, I C., v LARAY P. MARTIN, Individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, Individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN P NNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH, De endants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-7747 CIVIL JURY OF 12 PERSONS DEMANDED REPLY IF DEFENDANTS LARAY P. MARTIN, GLEN R. MARTIN ND MARTINS AG TO NEW MATTER FILED BY r EASTERN PENN YLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF INSURANCE PLA AND NOW, come Defers attorneys, Johnson, Duffie, Stev Matter of Defendant Eastern Per 63. Admitted. 64. Admitted on ants Laray P. Martin, Glen R. Martin and Martins Ag, by their art & Weidner, P.C., who file the following Reply to the New isylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan: nation and belief. 65. Admitted. 66. Admitted. 67. Admitted. 68. Admitted. 69. Admitted. 70. Admitted. 71. Admitted. 72. Admitted. 73. The averments response is required. 74. The averments this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Laray P. Martin, Glen R. Martin and Martins Ag respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Plaintiffs in this case. Respectfully submitted, DATE: 3 f ? ( tJOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: John A. Sta quire Attorney I.D. No. 43812 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants Laray P. Martin, Glen R. Martin and Martins Ag 433241 41255-34 VERIFICATION I, LARAY P. MARTIN, acknowledge that I am a Defendant in this action; that I have read the foregoing Reply to New Matter of Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan; and that the focts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and I understand that any fal?e statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. °l A'X7 - a.- LARAY P. M IN DATE: ,5/9/// VERIFICATION I, GLEN R. MARTIN, acknowledge that I am a Defendant in this action; that I have read the foregoing Reply to New Matter of Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and bel I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. X. 04aggED GLEN R. MA IN DATE: 3/9-/// VERIFICATION 1, 1i4 ?14 Y )p Defendant in this action and have read the foregoing Reply Insurance Plan; and that the knowledge, information and ??2Jy hereby acknowledge that Martins Ag is a t I am authorized to make this verification on its behalf; that I New Matter of Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self stated therein are true and correct to the best of my I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to falsification to authorities. MARTINS AG By: DATE: V9/4// I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply of Defendants Laray P Martin, Glen P. Martin and Martins Ag to New Matter Filed by Defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan upon all parties or counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid on the day of U C 2011, addressed to the following: James F. Logue, Esquire Be n Law Firm P. . Box 5185 Yo k, PA 17405-5185 Jo eph A. Macaluso, Esquire P. P. Box 83 Or town, PA 17244 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By: John A. Statle , uire Attorney I.D. No. 43812 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 Attorneys for Defendants Laray P. Martin, Glen R. Martin and Martins Ag IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I '1ABENNLAWFIRM METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC. : Plaintiff No. 10-7747 vs. Civil Action - Laws LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE 5? - C)-n CHURCH, c ) ; m n Defendants Jury Trial Demanded -< j , ANSWER OF PLAINTIFF TO NEW MATTER FILED BY DEFENDANT, EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Metropolitan Edison, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Energy, Inc., by and through its attorney, BENNLAWFIRM, and files the following Answer to New Matter of Defendant, Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church, as follows: 63. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge and/or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 63. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 64. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 and/or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 64. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. By way of further Answer, the document attached as Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. Any further characterization of the contents of said document is denied. YORK, PA 17405-5185 U-BENNLAWFIRM 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 65. Denied. Paragraph nine (9) of Plaintiff's Complaint specifically states that Eastern PA Mennonite Church was an owner of the subject vehicle. Defendant, by its substitution of the Party Defendant in the caption, thereby consented and/or acquiesced to the substitution of the Plan as the named Defendant throughout the Complaint. Additionally, on Wednesday, March 23, 2011, Defendant's counsel consented to Plaintiff's Amending of the caption to substitute Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan for Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church. Attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked as Exhibit "A", is a copy of Attorney Macaluso's consent. 66. The allegations contained in paragraph 66 of Defendant's New Matter contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial, if deemed material. 67. Denied. Count IV of Plaintiff's Complaint, specifically paragraph thirty- seven (37), states that Defendant employed Defendant, Glen Martin. Defendant, by its substitution of the Party Defendant in the caption, thereby consented and/or acquiesced to the substitution of the Plan as the named Defendant throughout the Complaint. Additionally, on Wednesday, March 23, 2011, Defendant's counsel consented to Plaintiff's Amending of the caption to substitute Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan for Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church. See Exhibit "A". 68. Denied. Paragraph 68 of Defendant's New Matter does not make sense as stated. Further, the allegations contained in paragraph 68 of Defendant's New Matter contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed YORK, PA 17405-5185 necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial, if deemed material. 69. Denied. Count VII of Plaintiff's Complaint, specifically paragraphs sixty '1ABENNLAWFIRY (60) and sixty-one (61), states that Defendant negligently entrusted its vehicle to Defendant, Glen Martin. Defendant, by its substitution of the Party Defendant in the caption, thereby consented and/or acquiesced to the substitution of the Plan as the named Defendant throughout the Complaint. Additionally, on Wednesday, March 23, 2011, Defendant's counsel consented to Plaintiff's Amending of the caption to substitute Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan for Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church. See Exhibit "A". 70. The allegations contained in paragraph 70 of Defendant's New Matter contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial, if deemed material. 71. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge and/or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 71. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 72. The allegations contained in paragraph 72 of Defendant's New Matter 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial, if deemed material. YORK, PA 17405-5185 73. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge 'BENNLAWFIRM and/or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 73. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 74. The allegations contained in paragraph 74 of Defendant's New Matter contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial, if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's New Matter and enter judgment in its favor. Respectfully submitted, BENNLAWFIRM Ciam F. Lo squire Attorney I.D. # 202170 103 East Market Street P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 Attorneys for Plaintiff 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 JOSEPH A. MACALUISO Attorney at Law P.O. Box 83 Orrstown, PA 17244 Admitted to Practice in PA, NJ and 1!iY March 23, 2011 BennLawFirm Attn: James F: Logue, Esq. P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 174055185 Re: Metropolitan Edison v. LaRay P. Martin et al. Cumberland County, PA Docket No. 10-7747 Dear Mr. Logue: (717) 532-4832 Via Telefax 852-8797 As you requested, this confirms that I consent to a ten-day extension for you to answer the new matter of Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self-Insurance Flan and to amend the caption in this case to refer to "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self-Insurance Plan" instead of "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church", A. Macaluso John A. Statler, Esq. (via fax 761-3015) Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Serf Insurance Plan Attn.: Robert L. Shank, Deacon (via fax 375-4558) EXHIBIT Uj VERIFICATION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : SS COUNTY OF BERKS UBINNLAWF1RM I, LINDA L. BUTTERY, being duly sworn according to law, hereby state that I am an authorized agent for the Plaintiff, METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC., and, as such, I am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. I verify that the statements contained in the foregoing "Answer of Plaintiff to New Matter" are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. LINDA L. BU ERY d-d -- 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA U-BENNLAWFIRM METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC. : Plaintiff No. 10-7747 VS. Civil Action - Law LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH, Defendants Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James F. Logue, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 24th day of April, 2011, I caused to be served the Plaintiff's "Answer to New Matter" upon the person and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 440: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL TO THE ADDRESS OF THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS SET FORTH BELOW: John A. Statler, Esq. Joseph A. Macaluso, Esq. 301 Market St. PO Box 83 PO Box 109 Orrstown, PA 17244 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Respectfully submitted, BENNLAWFIRM James F. Logue;?E'squire Attorney I.D. # 202170 103 East Market Street P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 Fax: (717) 852-8797 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 Attorney for Plaintiff YORK, PA 17405-5185 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC. : Plaintiff No. 10-7747 ABENNLAWFIRM VS. Civil Action - Law LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH, Defendants Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE TO AMEND TO THE PROTHONOTARY: -%7 a? - bZ ? ? Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1033 and the attached written Agreement of counsel for Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church (attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked as Exhibit "A"), please amend the caption of the case and all references to Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church in the Original Complaint filed on December 16, 2010 (excluding Paragraph Five (5)) to read as follows: "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self-Insurance Plan". Respectfully submitted, BENNLAWFIRM ?? 7T- - /?- James F. LoguL?Esquire Attorney I.D. # 202170 103 East Market Street P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 Attorneys for Plaintiff 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 Dated: 7 _, 2011 YORK, PA 1 7405-5 1 85 JOSEPH A: MACAI.US4 Attorney-a Law P.O. Box 83 Orratown, PA 17244 Admitted to Practice in PA, NJ and NY March 23, 2011 BennLawFirm Attn.= .lames F: Logue, Esq. P.Q. Box 5185 York, PA 17445-5185 Re: Metropolitan Edison v. LaRay P. Martin et W. Cumberland County, PA Docket No. 10-7747 Dear Mr. Logue: (717) 532-4832 Via Telefax 852-8797 As you requested, this confirms that I consent to a ten-day extension for you to answer the new matter of Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self-Insurance Plan and to amend the caption in this case to refer to "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self-Insurance Plan" instead of "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church". I A. Macaluso John A. Statler, Esq. (via fax 761-3015) Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self-Insurance Plan Attn.: Robert L. Shank, Deacon (via fax 375-4558) EXHIBIT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA %I-BENNLAWFIRM METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC. : Plaintiff No. 10-7747 VS. Civil Action - Law LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH, Defendants Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James F. Logue, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 7th day of April, 2011, I caused to be served the "Praecipe to Amend" upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 440: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL TO THE ADDRESS OF THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS SET FORTH BELOW: John A. Statler, Esq. Joseph A. Macaluso, Esq. 301 Market St. PO Box 83 PO Box 109 Orrstown, PA 17244 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Respectfully submitted, BENNLAWFIRM James F. Logue; Efquire Attorney I.D. # 202170 103 East Market Street P.O. Box 5185 1103-107 E. MARKET ST. 1 P.O. BOX 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 Fax: (717) 852-8797 Attorney for Plaintiff YORK, PA 1 7405-5 1 85 METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Energy, Inc., Plaintiff VS. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-7747 CIVIL LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF-INSURANCE PLAN, Defendants IN RE: NONJURY TRIAL ORDER rnco :J:-,n rn- r M -<> ° r- 8 ---4c:) 1C) c-a 77= -n r - C) t=a .-? .iceC , #`y c, r; ' AND NOW, this le day of June, 2011, a pretrial conference in the above- captioned matter is set for Tuesday, June 28, 2011, at 11:15 a.m. in Chambers of the undersigned. BY THE COURT, Kevin ,k. Hess, P. J. James F. Logue, Esquire / For the Plaintiff Joseph A. Macaluso, Esquire For Eastern Pa. Mennonite Church eopie-q f 0?(8 ? John A. Statler, Esquire For Laray P. Martin, Glen R. Martin and Martins AG ? Court Administrator - in file :rlm IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O? PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff V. LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTIN'S AG, And EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF !INSURANCE PLAN, Defendants Civil Action - Law L} h.1 MM C- No. 10-7747 ?> Jury Trial Demanded =' DEFENDANT EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF INSURANCE PLAN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOW COMES movant, defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan (the "Plan") in the above-captioned action, by and through its attorney, Joseph A. MacalUso, and respectfully requests that this Court grant summary judgment in its favor and against plaintiff Metropolitan Edison, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Movant, the Plan, is a self insurance plan for members of the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church and Related Areas. 2. The Plan has received Self-Insurer Certificate No. S.I. -14 from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, a copy whereof is attached as Exhibit A to the Plan's answer and new matter filed in this action. I Plaintiff Metropolitan Edison is the owner of public utility equipment and property that was allegedly damaged during a vehicular accident. 4. Defendant LaRay P. Martin is the owner of a 2005 Volvo Truck (the "Truck") involved in the accident and the sole proprietor of defendant Martin's Ag. 5. Defendant Glen R. Martin was the driver of the Truck at the time of the accident. 6. Plaintiff commenced this action by complaint filed December 16, 2010. 7. The parties agreed to an extension for all defendants to file a responsive pleading, which was subsequently terminated. 8. Co-defendants filed an answer dated February 15, 2011. 9. The Plan filed an answer and new matter on February 28, 2011. 10. Plaintiff incorrectly named the Plan in the caption of the complaint as "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church", and plaintiff acknowledged this error and corrected the error by prae6ipe dated April 7, 2011, stating that all references to "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church" shall read "Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self-Insurance Plan". 11. Plaintiff alleges in Paragraph 7 of its complaint that: 7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Laray (sic) Martin, owned a 2005 Volvo Dump Truck bearing registration plate E40612D (hereinafter "Defendant's vehicle")." 12. Defendant LaRay Martin admits in his answer to Paragraph 7 of the complaint: 7. Laray (sic) Martin, owner of Martin's Ag, owned the dump truck." 13. Based on this admission, there is no genuine issue whether defendant LaRay Martin owns the Truck. 14. Plaintiff inconsistently alleges in Paragraph 9 of the complaint the same language as in Paragraph 7 except that it alleges that the Plan owns the Truck. 15. The Plan denies ownership of the Truck in its answer to Paragraph 9 of the complaint. 16. In Paragraph 65 of its new matter, the Plan alleges: "65. At no relevant time mentioned in the complaint did the Plan own a vehicle that was involved in the accident which is the subject matter of this suit." 17. Co-defendants LaRay Martin, Martin's Ag, and Glen R. Martin state in their reply to Paragraph 65 of the Plan's new matter: "Admitted." 18. In Count VII of the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the Plan is liable for negligent entrustment of the Truck. 19. In Paragraph 65 of its new matter, the Plan alleges: "69. At no relevant time mentioned in the complaint did the Plan entrust any vehicle owned by it to defendant Glen Martin or defendant Martin's Ag." 20. Co-defendants LaRay Martin, Martin's Ag, and Glen R. Martin state in their reply to Paragraph 69 of the Plan's new matter: "Admitted." 21. Based on these admissions, as a matter of law, the Plan cannot be liable for negligent entrustment since the Plan did not own or entrust the Truck. 22. Plaintiff alleges in Paragraph 25 of its complaint that: 7. At all times material to this action, Defendant, Glen R. Martin, was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant, Martin's Ag." 23. Plaintiff also inconsistently alleges in Paragraph 36 of its complaint that defendant Glen R. Martin was an agent, servant, and/or employee of the Plan. 24. The Plan denies that it was an employer of said co-defendant in its answer to Paragraph 36 of the complaint. 25. In Count HIV of the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the Plan is vicariously liable for damages as an employer. 26. In Paragraph 67 of its new matter, the Plan alleges: "67. At no relevant time mentioned in the complaint did the Plan employ defendant Glen Martin as an "employee, servant, or agent". 27. Co-defendants LaRay Martin, Martin's Ag, and Glen R. Martin state in their reply to Paragraph 67 of the Plan's new matter: "Admitted." 28. Based on these admissions, as a matter of law, the Plan cannot be vicariously liable for damagjes since the Plan did not employ defendant Glen R. Martin as an employee, servant, or agent. 29. Rule 10$5.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure states, inter alia: " After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law (1) whenever there is no genuine issue of material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action ..." 30. Upon the closing of the pleadings, it has become apparent that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to ownership of the Truck and that the Plan does not own the Truck and did not entrust the Truck. 31. Nor is there no any genuine issue of material that the Plan did not employ defendant Glen 'R. Martin. 32. Since the Plan cannot be liable for negligent entrustment or vicarious liability, the Plan is entitled to summary judgment. 33. This case is not even 6 months old. 34. Despite the plaintiff's prematurely listing this case for trial without discovery, there will be no delay of trial by granting the Plan's motion for summary judgment. 35. No Order has been issued by any Judge in this case except for the Order dated June 1, 2011, signed by the Honorable Kevin A. Hess. P.J., scheduling a pre-trial conference on June 28, 2011. 36. In the within motion, the Plan has relied on the admissions of the plaintiff (as to the movant being an insurance plan) and co-defendants (as to ownership and entrustment of the Truck, and as to the Plan not being an employer), whose interests are adverse to mjovant, and so summary judgment is not precluded by reason of the rule in Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co., 309 Pa. 236, 163 A.2d 523 (1932). See: Kniaz v. Benton Borough, 642 A.2d 551 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), and Bowe v. Allied Signal, Inc., 806 A.2d 05 (Pa. Super. 2002). 37. For the foregoing reasons, the Plan urges that it is entitled to summary judgment in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1035.2. 38. No verification of this motion is required since the facts set forth herein are already facts of record verified by the respective parties. WHEREFORE, defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan respectfully requests that this Court grant summary judgment in its favor and against the plaintiff Metropolitan Edison pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1035.2. Dated: `?T Respeci}futly Submitted, oseph A. Macaluso, Esq. S pre a Court I.D. No. 38262 Att r y for Defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Men onite Church Self Insurance Plan P.O. Box 83 Orrstown, PA 17244 (717) 532-4832 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the l I Pof June, 2011, 1 caused to be served a true and correct copy of the defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan's motion for summary judgment by first class mail postage prepaid upon the following individuals: James F. Logue, Esq. BennLawFirm 103 East Market St. P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 John A. Statler, Esq. 301 Market St. P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 I further certify that the statements made herein are true and correct, and I understand that if any false statements were made herein, the same would be subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Dated: June (( , 2011 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE .., (entire caption must be stated in full) METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, :z --U :2= INC., Plaintiff vs. cra LARRY P . MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, <=; MARTIN"S AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF ' INSURANCE PLAN, Defendants -' c:- co No. 10-7747'Terr? 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): mot on for summary Judgment 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: m-? _5-7 PLAN, J s F. Logue, Esq., BennLawFirm, 103 East Market St., P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 (Name and Address) (b) for defendants: A. Macaluso, Esq.(attorney for EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH f,URANCE PLAN) (Name and Address) P.O. Box 83, Orrstown, PA 17244 John A. Statler, Esq.(attorney for all other defendants) 301 Market St., P.O Box 109, Moyne, PA 17043-0109 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4 Ami i nPnt Cnurt n;;tP, Defendant, EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF INSURANCE PLAN Attorney for Date; June 11, 2011 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. I FILED-uF r IrE f q y-?, ft.r THE Prr)C,- v # # JUN 20 AM I I : # 1 IN THE COURT OFC?R -9F CUMBERLAND COUNTY, F%l E, UBENNLAWFIRM METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC. : Plaintiff No. 10-7747 vs. Civil Action - Law LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, : GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE : CHURCH SELF INSURANCE PLAN, Judge Kevin A. Hess Defendants ANSWER OF PLAINTIFF TO DEFENDANT EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF INSURANCE PLAN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Metropolitan Edison, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Energy, Inc., by and through its attorney, BENNLAWFIRM, and files the following Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant, Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self Insurance Plan, as follows: 1. Admitted, upon information and belief. 2. Admitted, upon information and belief. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted with clarification. LaRay P. Martin is a member of Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church. Pursuant to Mr. Martin's signing of a "Members Self- Insurance Agreement", he acquiesced to the following: The Members own and operate motor vehicles within the Commonwealth 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 of Pennsylvania. YORK, PA 17405-5185 The Members, because of religious convictions, desire to share the burden of losses from motor vehicle accident in the context of the Church UBENNLAWFIRM community. The Members, intending to satisfy the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, bind together as the Self-Insurer, and enter into the following Agreement with the Department to furnish the security required from a self-insurer under the Act. AGREEMENT 1. In consideration of the Department's permission to self-insure their motor vehicles pursuant to the Act, the Members and the Self-Insurer, intending to be legally bound, agrees to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. The Members agree to bind together and qualify as the self-insurer and to be liable as a member and as a self insurer. (emphasis added). Attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit "A", is a copy of the relevant "Self-Insurance Package for a Religious Group". See specifically p. 7, 18. Therefore, it is Plaintiff's contention that the Plan has also assumed an ownership 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 role over the "Truck", as per the language of the Members Self-Insurance Agreement. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. %ABENNLAWFIRM 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff inconsistently alleged that the Plan is an owner of the Truck, based upon Defendant, Laray Martin's, choice to become a member of the Self Insurance Plan, and due to the fact that he agreed to be liable as a member and as a self insurer. See Exhibit "A". 15. It is admitted that the Plan denies ownership, however, Plaintiff denies this allegation, as per Plaintiff's Answer to Defendant's New Matter at Paragraph 65. 16. Admitted that the Plan alleged this statement. 17. It is admitted that said Defendant's admitted such language. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted that the Plan alleged this statement. 20. It is admitted that said Defendant's admitted such language. 21. The allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial, if deemed material. By way of further Answer, Defendants' filed their Answer to Defendant Plan's New Matter on March 9, 2011, which was prior to the substitution of the Plan as a party Defendant. The "Plan" was not "mentioned in the complaint" because the allegations in 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 the original Complaint are against Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church. The "Plan" YORK, PA 17405-5185 was not substituted as a party Defendant until on or about April 7, 2011, as Defendant concedes in Paragraph 10 of the instant Motion. 22. Admitted. UBENNLAWFIRM 23. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff inconsistently alleged that defendant Glen R. Martin was an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant, Martin's Ag, based upon Defendant, Laray Martin's (owner of Martin's Ag), choice to become a member of the Self Insurance Plan, and due to the fact that he agreed to be liable as a member and as a self insurer. (emphasis added) See Exhibit "A". 24. Denied. In Paragraph 36 of Defendant's Answer to the Complaint, the only allegation that Defendant makes is as follows: "Paragraph 36 contains merely an incorporation by reference of the previous Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, of the complaint, to which no further response is required." 25. Admitted. 26. Admitted that the Plan alleged this statement. 27. It is admitted that said Defendant's admitted such language. 28. The allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial, if deemed material. By way of further Answer, Defendants' filed their Answer to Defendant Plan's 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 New Matter on March 9, 2011, which was prior to the substitution of the Plan as a party Defendant. The "Plan" was not "mentioned in the complaint" because the allegations in the original Complaint are against Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church. The "Plan" YORK, PA 17405-5185 was not substituted as a party Defendant until on or about April 7, 2011, as Defendant concedes in Paragraph 10 of the instant Motion. 29. Admitted. 'IABENNLAWFIRM 30. Denied. A genuine issue of material fact exists as the Plan's ownership, entrustment and/or liability in the instant matter, as Laray Martin is a Member of the Plan, and, as a Member, agreed "to bind together and qualify as the self-insurer and to be liable as a member and as a self-insurer." As further stated in Exhibit "A", "The Members, because of religious convictions, desire to share the burden of losses from motor vehicle accidents in the context of the Church community." (emphasis added). 31. Denied. A genuine issue of material fact exists as the Plan's employment of Glen Martin in the instant matter, as Laray Martin is a Member of the Plan, and, as a Member, agreed "to bind together and qualify as the self-insurer and to be liable as a member and as a self-insurer." As further stated in Exhibit "A", "The Members, because of religious convictions, desire to share the burden of losses from motor vehicle accidents in the context of the Church community." (emphasis added). See Exhibit "A". 32. The allegations contained in paragraph 32 of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff denies the allegations with strict proof thereof demanded at trial, if deemed material. 33. Denied. As of the date of this filing, the case is 6 months old. By way of 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 further Answer, this allegation is not material to a Motion for Summary Judgment, nor should it be considered for purposes of said Motion. YORK, PA 17405-5185 34. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff prematurely listed this case for trial. I UBENNLAWFIRM :Plaintiff chose to not engage in discovery in this matter. All Defendants had ample opportunity to engage in discovery in this matter. By way of further Answer, Defendant Plan's counsel has been unresponsive to Plaintiff's counsel throughout this matter. In addition, a pre-trial conference is scheduled for June 28, 2011, therefore, this motion may very well delay trial proceedings. 35. Admitted. 36. Denied as stated. The movant is a self-insurance plan, which requires its members to share the burden of losses from motor vehicle accidents, and further requires its members to assume responsibility as a member and as a self-insurer. Summary judgment is precluded because there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to the Plan's responsibility and negligence regarding one of its members, as the Plan members each made a conscious decision to personally "bind together as the Self-Insurer". See Exhibit "A". Further, Plaintiff denied said Plan's allegations in its New Matter, and, therefore, genuine issues of material fact exist. 37. Denied. Summary judgment is precluded because there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to the Plan's responsibility and negligence regarding one of its members, as the Plan members each made a conscious decision to personally "bind together as the Self-Insurer". See Exhibit "A". Further, Plaintiff denied said Plan's allegations in its New Matter, and, therefore, genuine issues of material fact exist. 38. Denied. Some of the "facts" set forth in Defendant's Motion for Summary 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 Judgment are not conceded to as stated, especially in light of the fact that Defendants Laray Martin, Glen Martin, and Martin's Ag, Answered Plaintiff's Complaint and YORK, PA 17405-5185 'BENNLAWFIRM Defendant Plan's New Matter prior to the Plan being substituted as a Party Defendant. 'Therefore, many of the said Admissions of Defendants Laray Martin, Glen Martin, and Martin's Ag were in regard to the Complaint failing to mention the Plan. Any other such Admissions made by Defendants are legal conclusions that should be determined by the Court. Further, Plaintiff denied said Plan's allegations in its New Matter, and, therefore, genuine issues of material fact exist. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and allow this matter to proceed to trial. Respectfully submitted, BENNLAWFIRM 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 ames F. Logu , squire Attorney I.D. # 202170 103 East Market Street P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 Attorneys for Plaintiff YORK, PA 17405-5185 SELF-INSURANCE PACKAGE FOR A RELIGIOUS GROUP CHAPTER 223. SELF-INSURANCE REGULATION ...................... CHAPTER 67.21 EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ............ MASTER SELF-INSURANCE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT ............. FORMATS FOR SURETY BOND, LETTER OF CREDIT, & ESCROW AGREEMENT FORMAT MEMBERS SELF-INSURANCE AGREEMENT MV 220 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF SELF-INSURANCE PHONE # (717) 783-3694 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY SECTION P O BOX 68674 PUB 619 (4-07) HARRISBURG PA 17106-8674 InF EXHIBIT F 0 Preface This document provides regulations, an application, agreements and formats for acceptable forms of collateral regarding the issuance of CERTIFICATES of SELF-INSURANCE. YOUR COMPLETED PACKAGE FOR SELF-INSURANCE SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: Completed MV-220, Application for Certificate of Self-Insurance Income Statement and Balance Sheet or Annual Statement for the Previous Fiscal Year Completed Master Self-Insurance and Security Agreement Resolution for Signatory Authority One of the following acceptable forms of collateral: (1) Pa Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law Self-Insurer's Bond (2) Letter of Credit (3) Escrow Agreement Documents for your organization require proper execution being the signature of the SELF- INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, and signatures of two CHURCH OFFICIALS, (PLEASE NOTE: The signing OFFICIALS must identify their TITLES with their signatures such as BISHOP, DEACON, etc.) The names of the SELF-INSURER, the SELF-INSURANCE ADMINISTRATOR, and OFFICIALS must be consistent throughout all documents. Be sure to have a SEAL affixed to signatures on the Self-Insurance Application, Master Agreement, Resolution and collateral format. Upon completion of the appropriate forms, please return documentation to the address indicated on the cover for approval. If your documentation is complete, the package will be sent to the Office of Chief Counsel for approval. The approval cycle should be completed in eight to ten weeks, upon which time a CERTIFICATE OF SELF-INSURANCE will be issued. If your package is incomplete, it will be returned along with a letter indicating additional requirements Preface Table of Contents REGULATION: CHAPTER 223 SELF INSURANCE .............................. 1 REGULATION: CHAPTER 67.21 EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ........ 4 MASTER SELF INSURANCE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR A RELIGIOUS GROUP .............................................................. 7 RESOLUTION FOR SIGNATORY AUTHORITY ................................. 12 PENNSYLVANIA MOTOR VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW SELF-INSURER'S BOND ................................................. 13 LETTER OF CREDIT ..................................................... 15 ESCROW AGREEMENT ................................................... 16 MEMBERS SELF-INSURANCE AGREEMENT ................................. 18 Table of Contents REGULATION: CHAPTER 223 SELF INSURANCE Annex A Title 67. TRANSPORTATION Part I. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subpart A. VEHICLE CODE PROVISIONS ARTICLE VIII. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT CHAPTER 223. SELF INSURANCE S 223.1 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the qualifications and the procedures which a person must meet in order to be approved by the Department as a self-insurer under 75 Pa. C.S. 1701 - 1798 (relating to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law). S 223.2 Definitions. The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Act - 75 Pa. C.S. S 1701 - 1798 (relating to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law). Department - The Insurance Department of the Commonwealth. Person - A natural person, firm, co-partnership, association, corporation or government agency or authority. Self-insurer - A person designated as an approved self-insurer by the Department. S 223.3 Proposal. a) A person desiring to qualify as a self-insurer shall file a proposal of self-insurance with the Department for approval. This proposal shall include the following: (1) Application for Self-Insurance. (2) Master self-insurance and security agreement (3) A balance sheet and income statement which shall reflect the actual financial condition of the person as of the last complete calendar or fiscal year preceding the date of the proposal; and in the case of an individual or non-business entity that it truly reflects his financial condition and income as of that time; and in the case of a corporation or partnership, it shall be certified by a Certified Public Accountant or responsible accounting officer of the entity. Such information shall be confidential, and the Department shall not release such information unless it has the prior written consent of the self-insurer. REGULATION: CHAPTER 223 SELF INSURANCE b) If a certificate of self-insurance is issued, the following information shall be filed annually with the Department on a calendar year basis on or before March 1: (1) Renewal Application for Self-Insurance (2) A balance sheet and income statement which shall reflect the actual financial condition of the person as of the last complete calendar or fiscal year preceding the date of the proposal; and in the case of an individual or "non-business entity" that it truly reflects his financial condition and income as of that time; and in the case of a corporation or partnership, it shall be certified by a Certified Public Accountant or responsible accounting officer of the entity. Such information shall be confidential, and the Department shall not release such information unless it has the prior written consent of the self-insurer. S 223.4 Approval requirements. a) No person shall be approved as a self-insurer unless it posts certain minimum collateral with the Department to meet the duties of a self-insurer under the Act. This requirement may not apply to government agencies or authorities. b) The minimum required security that must be furnished to the Department is, for one secured vehicle, $50,000, and for each additional vehicle, $10,000, up to a maximum of $1,000,000. c) Only the following shall be accepted as valid collateral for self-insurance purposes: (1) United States currency, including United States Treasury bills, United States Treasury notes or other negotiable obligations of the United States Government. United States Savings Bonds are not negotiable. (2) Evidence of escrow deposits in federal or state banks, credit unions, or savings and loan associations if federally insured; such escrow deposits shall be established for the sole purpose of providing security to meet the duties of a self-insurer. (3) Irrevocable letters of credit issued by any bank in the Commonwealth or such other bank as approved by the Department. (4) Surety bonds issued by insurers authorized or eligible to do business in the Commonwealth. (5) Bonds or other negotiable obligations issued by any state or subdivision or instrumentality of a state in the United States, if not in default as to principal or interest. (6) Corporate bonds, issued by an entity other than the proposed self-insurer, rated A or better by Moody's Bond Records, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (7) Other security approved upon petition to the Department. d) The Department shall hold the collateral furnished for the benefit of the persons to whom the self- insurer is obligated. (1) The self-insurer shall pay for all obligations incurred under the act by assets readily reduced to liquid assets, such as demand deposits, time deposits, negotiable instruments and such other assets which may be readily reduced to liquid form. (2) If the self-insurer is not able to discharge its obligations, the self-insurer may petition the Department to release such collateral posted as is necessary to satisfy the obligations of the self- insurer. (3) If such withdrawals from collateral are required, the self-insurer must replace the security within 72 hours from the date of withdrawal, in order to retain its certificate as a self-insurer. e) Each self-insurer shall annually furnish to the Department a report of all claims incurred during the preceding calendar year. This report shall be included on the Renewal Application for Self-Insurance. REGULATION: CHAPTER 223 SELF INSURANCE 9 f) If, based on the number of claims incurred by the self-insurer, the Department determines the collateral furnished is inadequate, it may require additional security and more frequent report of claims incurred. S 223.5 Certificate. Upon approval by the Department of a self-insurance proposal, a self-insurance certificate will be issued to the person covered by the proposal. Such certificate shall be renewed annually, after such review as the Department shall deem appropriate. S 223.6 Self-insurance identification card. A self-insurer shall issue an identification card for each vehicle covered by self-insurance as set forth in Subchapter B of Chapter 67, Title 31. S 223.7 Cancellation of certificate. The Department shall cancel the certificate of self-insurance if it finds that the self-insurer has not maintained adequate collateral or has not discharged its obligations under the Act. REGULATION: CHAPTER 223 SELF INSURANCE REGULATION: CHAPTER 67.21 EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Annex A Title 31. INSURANCE Part II. AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CHAPTER 67. MOTOR VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW SUBCHAPTER B. EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY S 67.21 Purpose. The purpose of this subchapter is to ensure that persons will be able to demonstrate satisfaction of the financial responsibility requirements of the act. S 67.22 Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Act - 75 Pa. C.S. S 1701 - 1798 (relating to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law). Department - The Insurance Department of the Commonwealth. I.D. card - An insurance identification card prescribed by this chapter. Insurer - An insurance company, association or exchange providing coverage on motor vehicles under the act. NAIC company code number - The unique number which is assigned by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Central Office to identify that insurer. Policy - An insurance policy which provides coverage to satisfy the financial responsibility requirements of the act. Self-insurance certificate number - An identification number assigned by the Department of Transportation to a self-insurer. Self-insurer - A person or entity designated as an approved self-insurer by the Department of Transportation as set forth in 67 Pa. C.S. 223.5 (relating to certificate). Vehicle - A motor vehicle of a kind required to be registered under 75 Pa. C.S. (relating to the Vehicle Code). REGULATION: CHAPTER 67.21 EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 4 S 67.23 I.D. cards. a) Insurers. On or after October 1, 1984, at the inception or renewal of a policy, the insurer shall issue to each named insured one I.D. card as specified in this subchapter for each vehicle which it insures. Upon the addition or substitution of a vehicle covered in the policy, the insurer shall issue an I.D. card for that vehicle. Replacement of I.D. cards for the purpose of change of address shall be optional at the discretion of the insurer. b) Self-Insurers. On or after October 1, 1984, the self-insurer shall issue an I.D. card as specified in this subchapter for each vehicle for which satisfaction or the requirements or the act is accomplished through self-insurance. Upon the addition or substitution of a vehicle, the self-insurer shall issue an I.D. card for that vehicle. Replacement of I.D. cards for the purpose of change of address shall be optional at the discretion of the self-insurer. c) Evidence. The I.D. cards shall serve as evidence of financial responsibility. S 67.24 Form and content of I.D. cards. a) Form of financial responsibility cards. The insurer and self-insurer may in their discretion choose to satisfy the requirements of this subchapter by continuing to use the existing no-fault identification card until January 1, 1985. After January 1, 1985, the insurer and self-insurer shall use a new card containing information required in this section or another card as may be approved by the Insurance Department. b) Contents. Each I.D. card shall contain the following information on the front of the card: (1) Title of card, "Financial Responsibility Identification Card". (2) NAIC Company Code number of the insurer or self-insurance certificate number. (3) Name of the insurer or self-insurer. (4) Name and address of the named insured or motor vehicle registrant where the vehicle is self- insured. (5) Description of vehicle: year, make, and vehicle identification number (VIN). The model of the vehicle may be used as the make. All digits of the vehicle identification number shall appear on the I.D. card. (6) Policy number where applicable. (7) Effective date: month, day, and year of the policy must be shown. (8) The following inscription below the effective date: NOT VALID MORE THAN 1 YEAR FROM EFFECTIVE DATE. c) Statement. Each I.D. card shall contain the following statement on the back of the card: This card must be carried for production upon demand. It is suggested that you carry this card in the insured vehicle. WARNING: Any owner or registrant of a motor vehicle who drives or permits a motor vehicle to be driven in this State without the required financial responsibility may have his registration suspended or revoked. Note: THIS CARD IS REQUIRED WHEN: (1) You are involved in an auto accident. (2) You are convicted of a traffic offense other than a parking offense that requires a court appearance. REGULATION: CHAPTER 67.21 EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 5 (3) You are stopped for violating any provision of 75 Pa. C.S. (relating to Vehicle Code) and requested to produce it by a police officer. You must provide a copy of this card to the Department of Transportation when you request restoration of your operating privilege and/or registration privilege which has previously been suspended or revoked. S 67.25 Instructions accompanying I.D. cards. At the time the insurer issues an I.D. card to a policyholder, it shall also issue a statement explaining I.D. card requirements, including display to law enforcement officers, use for registering vehicles, and action that must be taken in the event a card is lost or a card is in error. The following language will be acceptable to the Insurance Department in. satisfaction of this requirement. IMPORTANT NOTICE regarding your Financial Responsibility Insurance Identification card. The Insurance Company is required by Pennsylvania law to send you an I.D. card. The card shows that an insurance policy has been issued for the vehicle(s) described satisfying the financial responsibility requirements of the law. If you lose the card, contact your insurance company or agent for a replacement. The I.D. card information may be used for vehicle registration and replacing license plates. If your liability insurance policy is not in effect, the I.D. card is no longer valid. You are required to maintain financial responsibility on your vehicle. It is against Pennsylvania law to use the I.D. card fraudulently such as using the card as proof of financial responsibility after the insurance policy is terminated. S 67.26 I.D. cards issued to fleets, dealers, transporters, and temporary registration. a) When a policyholder or self-insurer has five or more vehicles registered in this Commonwealth, the insurer or self-insurer may use the statement "all owned vehicles" or "all owned and leased vehicles" instead of a specific vehicle description on each I.D. card. However, each vehicle must have an I.D. card issued for it. b) An I.D. card issued to a dealer may show either "garage liability hazard number 1 policy" or "all owned or non-owned vehicles - - comprehensive auto liability policy" instead of a specific vehicle description. One I.D. card must be issued for each set of dealer plates assigned to the dealer and insured under such a policy. An I.D. card issued to a dealer cannot be used to register a specific vehicle. An I.D. card must be placed in each vehicle while it is being driven under the dealer's policy with the dealer's plate. S 67.27 Binder. a) Prior to receiving an I.D. card from an insurer, a copy of a valid binder which contains the information required in S 67.24 (b)(1)(7) (relating to form and content of I.D. cards) excluding the policy number can be used as evidence of financial responsibility. b) Prior to receiving an 1. D. card from an assigned company of the Pennsylvania Automobile Insurance Plan, a copy of an application to the Plan can be used in place of an I.D. card, if the application contains the information required in S 67.24 (b)(1)- -(7) excluding the policy number and is signed by a licensed insurance agent or broker. S 67.28 Other evidence of financial responsibility and payment of Fund charge. Where the I.D. card is not held sufficient by the court, the Department of Transportation or other law enforcement agency to demonstrate financial responsibility, an insurer shall provide in writing other evidence that the policyholder is financially responsible. REGULATION: CHAPTER 67.21 EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY MASTER SELF INSURANCE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR A RELIGIOUS GROUP DATE / / FEDERAL ID # Department means the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through its agent, the Department of Transportation. Act means the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as codified in 75 Pa. C.S. SS 1701 - 1798. Motor Vehicle means a vehicle of a kind required to be registered under 75 P.S. Section 101 et seq. of the Vehicle Code. Member means a member of , (CHURCH), who bonds together with other members of the same Church as a Self-Insurer, has a motor vehicle(s) registered in his name, intends to self-insure this motor vehicle(s) pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, and executes a Member's Self-Insurance Agreement. Member shall include each and every registrant of any motor vehicle. Self-Insurer means an association of the Member bound together with the intent to qualify as a Self-Insurer and to discharge all duties and provide benefits in the manner set forth in Section 1787 of the Vehicle Code (75 Pa. C.S. S 1787 ) and/or any regulation promulgated by the Department or other Commonwealth department or agency. BACKGROUND The Members own and operate motor vehicles within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Members, because of religious convictions, desire to share the burden of losses from motor vehicle accidents in the context of the Church community. The Members, intending to satisfy the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, bind together as the Self-Insurer, and enter into the following Agreement with the Department to furnish the security required from a self-insurer under the Act. AGREEMENT 1. In consideration of the Department's permission to self-insure their motor vehicles pursuant to the Act, the Members and the Self-Insurer, intending to be legally bound, agrees to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. The Members agree to bind together and qualify as the self-insurer and to be liable as a member and as a self-insurer. They appoint as self-insurance administrator and and as officers, granting these persons and their successors the authority and right to discharge all duties of a self-insurer under the Act and any regulation promulgated by the Department or other Commonwealth department or agency. These duties shall include: a. To file with the Department a completed Application for Certificate of Self-Insurance (MV 220) and annual renewals thereof, (copies of which are to be attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A") including a Certification that all the duties of a self-insurer under the Act shall be discharged. MASTER SELF-INSURANCE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR A RELIGIOUS GROUP b. To file with the Department a completed balance sheet and income statement reflecting the actual financial condition of the Self-Insurer as of the last completed calendar or fiscal year preceding the date of this Agreement and upon the date of each renewal of the Agreement thereafter (copies of which are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "B"), including a Certification that the balance sheet and income statement truly reflects the Self-Insurer's net financial condition and income as of that time. (1) To famish the Department with the number of motor vehicles of the Self-Insurer. (2) To file an annual report with the Department on or before March 1 of each year. The annual report shall include: a) A renewal of the application for certificate of self-insurance, b) A balance sheet and income statement reflecting the actual financial condition of the Self-Insurer as of the last complete calendar year preceding the date filing, and c) A report of all claims incurred during the preceding calendar year. 3. The Self-Insurer promises to provide to the Department as a guaranty for the performance of this Agreement, the following type(s) of security(ies) in the amount(s) as indicated: a. United States Currency $ b. Escrow Deposit(s) $ c. Irrevocable Letter(s) of Credit $ d. Surety Bond(s) $ e. Negotiable Obligation(s) $ f. Corporate Bond(s) $ g. Other Approved Security $ Security option(s) has (have) been agreed to. in the total amount of $ a. All types of security shall be on forms supplied by the Department. All other forms shall be subject to the Department's approval, and the Department may reject any form which in the Departments discretion fails in any respect to meets its approval. b. All irrevocable letters of credit shall be valid for a period of three (3) years and shall be renewable every twelve (12) months. c. The type(s) of security(ies) may be varied subsequent to the execution of this Agreement. The replacement security (ies) shall in all respects comply with the requirements for the original security(ies). d. The security(ies) shall be furnished upon request. The Department shall not issue a self-insurance certificate and this Agreement shall not take effect until the Department determines that security (ies) is (are) acceptable. The security(ies) shall be attached to this Agreement as an exhibit(s). 5. Each type of security shall be payable solely to the order of the Department. 6. The Members and Self-Insurer promises to provide replacement security(ies) for the amount of any judgment upon any security(ies), within seventy-two (72) hours of the date of such final judgment or obtain such other security(ies) which the Department approves as valid collateral for self-insurance purposes within such seventy-two (72) hour period. MASTER SELF-INSURANCE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR A RELIGIOUS GROUP 7. In the event that any judgment arises against and Member pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, the Self-Insurance Administrator shall: a. Upon notice to the Department, provide payment for such judgment out of other funds provided by the Members; or b. Notify the Department of the amount of the judgment, the person(s) to whom payment is due, and security(ies) against which judgment is to be confessed. If the self-insurer fails to pay any judgments arising against the self-insurer pursuant to this Agreement, the Department may confess judgment upon or to levy upon, any or all of the security(ies) and pay the proceeds to any person(s) who obtain(s) a judgment or other order of court arising from a motor vehicle accident against the Self-Insurer, in an amount equivalent to the sum of any damages for first party benefits, bodily injury, death, injury to any property, uninsured motorist coverage or any other payment, as provided by the Act, together with damages for tort liability, and any other sums specified in the Act or in this Agreement. The Department will, at its discretion, confess judgment upon any security(ies) on a random basis and in any amounts or proportions which it deems proper, provided, however, that no judgment will be confessed unless the Department has first notified the self-insurer of its intent to do so in writing and the self-insurer fails, within seventy-two (72) hours of receipt of said notice, to make the payment. 9. The maximum sums payable under this Agreement in any one accident shall be that amount as provided under the Act. 10. The Member and the Self-Insurer acknowledges that the Department does not assume or incur any obligation or liability in the administration of this Agreement, and retains any immunity it may have under law. 11. The Member and the Self-Insurer shall pay the cost of filing this Agreement, any types of security and other documents in a prothonotary's office or other registry, in a manner and at such times and frequency as the Department deems proper. 12. This Agreement shall be conditioned upon approval by the Office of the Attorney General and shall take effect upon the date of issuance of a self-insurer certificate by the Department. 13. The Self-Insurer shall have each member execute a Member's Self-Insurance Agreement. An original copy of each Member's Self-Insurance Agreement shall be attached hereto as an exhibit. Each Member shall promise in this agreement that he qualifies as a Member, has read and understood each and every provision of the Master Self-Insurance and Security Agreement, promises to keep and abide by all the provisions and promises made therein, and promises to be liable for each provision and promise made therein in both his capacity as a Member and as a Self-Insurer. CANCELLATION AND TERMINATION 14. This Agreement shall remain in force until the earlier of the date of renewal of the self-insurer certificate by the Department, or March 1 of the year following the effective date of this Agreement. The self-insurance administrator or the Department may cancel this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice. Any breach of any provision of this Agreement or of any agreement for security by any Member, or the self- insurance administrator, his officers, agents, or employees shall constitute authority for the Department to terminate this Agreement immediately. In the event of a cancellation or termination of this Agreement: a. The security shall continue in force and shall remain in the Department's possession for the later of a period of two (2) years, or until the Department is satisfied that arrangements have been made by the members and Self-Insurer for compliance with the Act and there exists no possibility of any claim arising from any motor vehicle accident which may have occurred while this Agreement was in force; and b. The Members shall obtain immediately such other insurance as is necessary to comply with the Act. In the event of cancellation or termination of this Agreement, the Member and Self-Insurer shall renew MASTER SELF-INSURANCE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR A RELIGIOUS GROUP 9 the security for as many periods as shall provide for a period the later of two (2) years from the date of cancellation or termination of this Agreement or until the Department is satisfied that there exists no possibility of any claim arising from any motor vehicle accident which may have occurred while this Agreement was in force. If, subsequent to the cancellation or termination of this Agreement, the security shall no longer be in force and any judgment, liability and/or expense comes due (including that arising in paragraphs 9 and 10), which judgement, liability or expense arose from any motor vehicle accident which occurred when this Agreement was in force, the Self-Insurer shall remain liable to pay such judgment, liability and/or expense, and the Members and Self-Insurer promises to pay such sum immediately upon request by the Department. MASTER SELF-INSURANCE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR A RELIGIOUS GROUP 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date first above written. ATTEST TITLE SURETY: TITLE DATE TITLE: BY DATE TITLE: DATE If a Corporation, the President or Vice-president must sign and the Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary or Assistant Treasurer must attest; if a sole proprietorship, only the owner must sign; if a partnership, only one partner need sign; if a limited partnership, only the general partner must sign. If a Municipality, Authority or other entity, please attach a resolution. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - - FOR COMMONWEALTH USE ONLY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY Deputy Secretary of Transportation APPROVED AS TO LEGALITY AND FORM BY for Chief Counsel DATE DATE RECORDED NO. CERTIFIED FUNDS AVAILABLE UNDER ACTIVITY PROGRAM SYMBOL AMOUNT BY Signature DATE BY Comptroller Deputy Attorney DATE Title General MASTER SELF-INSURANCE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR A RELIGIOUS GROUP 11 SELF INSURER BY DATE RESOLUTION FOR SIGNATORY AUTHORITY At this meeting of (Name of Board or Committee) , of (Name of Self-Insured) (Date) (Self-Insurance Administrator) Self Insurance Administrator for held on is hereby appointed to serve as the and (Name of Self-Insured) is hereby authorized to sign and is hereby authorized to attest all applications contracts, and all related documents necessary for (Name of Self-Insured) to be Self-Insured in Pennsylvania. I hereby certify that the following is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted at a meeting of the (Name of Board or Committee) SEAL Secretary/Clerk held on - / - /- (Date) RESOLUTION FOR SIGNATORY AUTHORITY 12 PENNSYLVANIA MOTOR VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW SELF INSURER'S BOND SURETY COMPANY PRINCIPAL AND AND PRINCIPLE PLACE PRINCIPLE PLACE OF BUSINESS ADDRESS OF BUSINESS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we, as Principal, and a corporation authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as Surety, and their heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally are held and firmly bound unto the Department of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in the penal sum of dollars ($ lawful money of the United States, for the payment of any final judgment or judgments, arising from any motor vehicle accident, against the Principal. Now, therefore, the condition of this obligation is such that, if the above bounden Principal shall fulfill the obligations under 75 Pa. C.S. 1787 SS 506, 1501, 1502 and 2001 of the Administrative Code (71 P.S. SS 186, 411, 412 and 511) then this obligation shall be void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect, subject, however, to the following express conditions: This bond is effective _ / _ /_ (12:01 a.m., standard time, at the address of the Principal as stated herein) and shall continue in force until terminated as described herein. The Principal or the Surety may at any time terminate this bond by giving sixty (60) days notice in writing to the other party and the Department of Transportation (The 60 day period shall commence on the date the notice is mailed. Proof of mailing shall be sufficient proof of notice). This bond may also be terminated by the Surety if the Principal's status as a self-insurer has been revoked or terminated by the Department of Transportation. The Surety shall not be liable for the payment of any judgment or judgments against the Principal for public liability or property damage resulting from motor vehicle accidents which occur after the termination of this bond as described herein, but such termination shall not affect the liability of the Surety for the payment of any such judgment or judgments resulting from accidents which occur during the time the bond is in effect. The surety agrees, upon telephone request by an authorized representative of the Department of Transportation, to verify that the surety bond is in force as of a particular date. The telephone number to call is: ATTEST ATTEST (AFFIX CORPORATE SEAL) DATE: SURETY: BY: BY BY CITY: STATE: PENNSYLVANIA MOTOR VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW SELF INSURER'S BOND 13 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SURETY STATE OF: COUNTY OF: On this day of , 20 , before me personally came being duly sworn, did depose and say that he resides in that he is the of the the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument as surety; that he knows the seal of the corporation; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal, that it was so affixed by order of the board of directors of the corporation; that he signed his name thereto by like order; and that he duly acknowledged that he executed the same for and on behalf of the corporation. (OFFICIAL SEAL) TITLE OF OFFICIAL ADMINISTERING OATH: SURETY COMPANY FILE NO.: PENNSYLVANIA MOTOR VEHICLE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW SELF INSURER'S BOND 14 LETTER OF CREDIT ISSUE DATE: BENEFICIARY: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SELF-INSURER: EXPIRATION DATE: AMOUNT: Gentlemen: We hereby establish our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favor and authorize you to draw upon it at our office, located at up to an aggregate amount of by presentment of ( i ) your written demand to pay on sight, and ( ii ) a copy of this Irrevocable Letter of Credit. On each occasion when a demand is made pursuant to this credit, the date and the amount of such demand shall be endorsed upon the reverse side of the last page of this letter. This letter shall be valid for a period of three (3) years until This Letter is irrevocable and may not be terminated by this Bank or the Self-Insurer during this three (3) year period. (financial institution) agrees to notify the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Financial Responsibility Section, Box 68674, Harrisburg, PA 17106-8674, sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date of this Letter of Credit by registered mail. You as the Beneficiary alone retain the right (a) to draw against this Irrevocable Letter of Credit; and (b) to determine whether the Self-Insurer is liable for the payment of any monies under the Master Self-Insurance Agreement, and other agreement incorporated therein by reference, and/or the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (75 Pa. C.S. 1701 - 1798). ATTEST: BANK NAME SECRETARY OR TREASURER PRESIDENT OF VICE-PRESIDENT (SEAL) LETTER OF CREDIT 15 ESCROW AGREEMENT DATE: / / Department means the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through its agent, the Department of Transportation. Insurer means the as a self-insurer under the Act. , an organization qualifying Security Agreement means the Master Self Insurance and Security Agreement executed by the Department and Insurer, and dated / _ , and any security agreement provided thereunder as exhibits. Bank means the association incorporated under the laws of the and having an office at BACKGROUND The INSURER has executed the Security Agreement and qualifies as a self-insurer of its members' motor vehicles. The INSURER has promised to provide security in the sum of ($ dollars for the payment of any liability or other sum payable under the Security Agreement and/or Act. AGREEMENT The DEPARTMENT, INSURER and BANK mutually agree: The INSURER has deposited the sum of ($ ) dollars (the "DEPOSIT") with the BANK in escrow, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, upon the following terms and conditions. The BANK shall pay to the DEPARTMENT upon written demand as many times as necessary as much of or all of the DEPOSIT as may be specified in the DEPARTMENT'S demand. The DEPARTMENT alone retains the right to determine whether the INSURER is liable under the Security Agreement and/or the ACT for the payment of any monies from the Deposit. The Deposit is held solely for the Department's benefit and only the Department may draw upon the DEPOSIT. 2. This Escrow Agreement shall remain in force for a period of three (3) years from the date of its execution. This Escrow Agreement shall not be cancelled or amended without the prior written consent of the DEPARTMENT. The BANK'S only obligation under this Escrow Agreement shall be to hold the DEPOSIT and to pay the DEPOSIT in accordance with the terms hereof. The BANK shall have no obligation to verify the validity of any demand for payment of the DEPOSIT hereunder. The INSURER shall indemnify and reimburse the BANK for any and all liability, costs and expenses the BANK may suffer or incur by reason of its execution and performance of this Escrow Agreement. ATTEST: BANK NAME SECRETARY OR TREASURER PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT (SEAL) , a banking ESCROW AGREEMENT 16 ATTEST: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPUTY SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION ATTEST: INSURER BY TITLE TITLE APPROVED AS TO LEGALITY AND FORM BY BY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CHIEF COUNSEL ESCROW AGREEMENT 17 MEMBERS SELF-INSURANCE AGREEMENT DATE: / / The undersigned declares that he(they) qualify as a Member(s) under the Master Self-Insurance and Security Agreement executed between the Transportation and dated and the Pennsylvania Department of ,20 (hereinafter Agreement). The undersigned declares that he(they) has(have) read and understood the promises and provisions of the Agreement, and intending to be legally bound, promises to keep and abide by all these promises and provisions both in his(their) capacity as a Member(s) and as the Self-Insurer. The undersigned, intending to be legally bound, promises to be liable for any judgment or expense arising under the Agreement, or of any security agreement securing such Agreement. WITNESS MEMBER NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS YEAR MAKE MODEL VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER TITLE NUMBER MEMBERS SELF-INSURANCE AGREEMENT 18 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA UBENNLAWFIRMI METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of FIRST ENERGY, INC. : Plaintiff No. 10-7747 Vs. Civil Action - Law LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG, and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF INSURANCE PLAN, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James F. Logue, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 16th day of June, 2011, I caused to be served the "Answer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 440: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL TO THE ADDRESS OF THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS SET FORTH BELOW: John A. Statler, Esq. Joseph A. Macaluso, Esq. 301 Market St. PO Box 83 PO Box 109 Orrstown, PA 17244 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Respectfully submitted, BENNLAWFIRM 103-107 E. MARKET ST. P.O. BOX 5185 YORK, PA 17405-5185 Tames F. Log&,-Esquire Attorney I.D. # 202170 103 East Market Street P.O. Box 5185 York, PA 17405-5185 (717) 852-7020 Fax: (717) 852-8797 Attorney for Plaintiff METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Energy, Inc., Plaintiff VS. LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF-INSURANCE PLAN, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-7747 CIVIL c , -ax MW c? R -n oc' T? x ca IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER AND NOW, this 2 9 ` day of June, 2011, following conference with counsel in Chambers, it appearing that there is an outstanding motion for summary judgment in this case which will be argued in July, trial without jury is herewith set for Friday, September 2, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. The Court notes that the sole issue in the case is the amount of damages. BY THE COURT, i/ James F. Logue, Esquire For the Plaintiff Joseph A. Macaluso, Esquire For Eastern Pa. Mennonite Church Y/ John A. Statler, Esquire For Laray P. Martin, Glen R. Martin and Martins AG &/Court Administrator Crop, M a . '/ Pd "6y t METROPOLITAN EDISON, a wholly owned subsidiary of First Energy, Inc., Plaintiff VS. LARAY P. MARTIN, individually, GLEN R. MARTIN, individually, MARTINS AG and EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF-INSURANCE PLAN, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF c o CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAAf M, -n m Z= c ? rTl--, -um CIVIL ACTION -LAW ?D CO <=)Mrn -% NO. 10-7747 CIVIL r- T+? N Oils IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DFENDANT, EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA MENNONITE CHURCH SELF-INSURANCE PLAN BEFORE HESS, P.J. AND EBERT, J. ORDER AND NOW, this 11 day of August, 2011, the Court being satisfied that the Plan is not the owner of the truck in question and that there is, therefore, no valid claim against it for negligent entrustment, and being further satisfied that the Plan is not the employer of the defendant, Glen R. Martin, the driver of the truck, the motion for summary judgment of defendant Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Church Self-Insurance Plan is GRANTED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A/Hess, P. J. ? James F. Logue, Esquire / For the Plaintiff Joseph A. Macaluso, Esquire For Eastern Pa. Mennonite Church OOP i BIpKB John A. Statler, Esquire For Laray P. Martin, Glen R. Martin and Martins AG