HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-2169KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MICHAEL CALAMAN II and : NO ~ '~ ^ ;: Y ur
AMOS BLANK, "°
...
?.
T
I
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are
served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the
court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail
to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court
without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORAMTION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL
SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE..
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: (717) 249-3166
(800) 990-9108
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable
accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact
our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before
the Court. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court.
You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing.
? any
?? ass 5 ?
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MICHAEL CALAMAN II, and : NO
AMOS BLANK, ;
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Kent R. Rentschler, M.D., by and through his counsel, Karl
E. Rominger, Esquire, and in support of his Complaint, avers the following:
The Parties
1. Plaintiff, Kent R. Rentschler, M.D. ("Dr. Rentschler"), is an adult
individual residing at 1841 Basin Hill Road, Carlisle, PA 17013.
2. Defendant, Michael Calaman II ("Defendant Calaman"), is an adult
individual residing at 1577 Boiling Springs Road, Boiling Springs, PA 17007.
3. Defendant, Amos Blank ("Defendant Blank"), is an adult individual
residing at 12540 Mongul Hill Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257.
Factual Matters
4. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
5. On or about July 29, 2009, Dr. Rentschler and Defendant Calaman orally
agreed that Defendant Calaman would replace Dr. Rentschler's roof using thirty-year
architectural grade shingles, in exchange for fifteen thousand and one hundred ($15,100)
dollars from Dr. Rentschler.
6. On July 29, 2009, in furtherance of the aforementioned oral agreement
between Dr. Rentschler and Defendant Calaman, Dr. Rentschler paid Defendant Calaman
eight thousand ($8000) dollars to begin work on the roof, and agreed to pay Defendant
Calaman the remainder of the $15,100 upon completion of the work. A copy of the
check in the amount of $8000 paid to Defendant Calaman by Dr. Rentschler is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
7. It is believed and therefore averred, that after entering into the
aforementioned agreement with Dr. Rentschler, Defendant Calaman hired Defendant
Blank to perform the roofing work.
8. Defendant Blank began performing the roofing work on or about August
1, 2009.
9. On or about August 15, 2009, Defendant Blank informed Dr. Rentschler
that the roofing work was complete.
10. However, when Dr. Rentschler inspected the roof, he immediately noticed
signs of poor workmanship as well as blatant and severe defects.
11. On or about September 21, 2009, Defendant Calaman returned to Dr.
Rentschler's property to examine the work Defendant Blank had performed on the roof.
12. After inspecting the work performed by Defendant Blank, Defendant
Calaman noted many defects, and agreed, in writing, to return to Dr. Rentschler's
property and have the defects cured. A true and correct copy of the writing is attached
hereto as Exhibit B.
13. The defects noted by Defendant Calaman on September 21, 2009, consist
of, inter alia: damage to the shingles due to unnecessary foot traffic; improper placement
of shingles; incorrect sealing of the shingles with caulking; damaged ridge vent and roof
cap; tar marks and finger prints on the shingles and siding; destruction of recently
completed paint job to the house; and dents, creases, and metal folds in the house's
aluminum siding.
14. As previously discussed in paragraph 12, supra, Defendant Calaman
signed a writing on September 21, 2009, that not only contained an agreement to return to
the property and cure the defects, but also contained an admission that the work
performed by Defendant Blank was not satisfactory.
15. The aforementioned writing, signed by Defendant Calaman, contained the
following admission: "Since the original agreement specified the construction of a new
roof for Dr. Rentschler and the final result was a roof with many mistakes, poor
workmanship, many areas in need of repairs, damage to both the house, it's [sic] new
paint job involving the metal trim, and the new roof just placed, I, Mike Claman, declare
that I will correct these stated problems and any other problems that arise associated with
the roof. Further, I will return to correct any problems that occur with the roof and
maintain the roof because of the poor workmanship performed by the roofing crew. I will
return for as long as needed to repair any problems with the roof or for a minimum of five
years." (emphasis added).
16. On or about June 1, 2010, Defendant Calaman returned to Dr. Rentschler's
property to cure the defects, but was unable to make the appropriate corrections.
17. Wherefore, after a heavy rain storm with high winds and large hail stones
hit the Carlisle area on or about June 9, 2010, Dr. Rentschler's roof began to leak, which
caused damage to the living room ceiling as well as damage to the ceiling of the bedroom
above the living room.
18. Moreover, not only was the original roof work never completed according
to the terms of the agreement between Dr. Rentschler and Defendant Calaman, but
Defendant Blank caused a large amount of damage to Dr. Rentschler's property while
performing the roof work.
19. While performing work on Dr. Rentschler's roof, Defendant Blank
damaged the siding on Dr. Rentschler's house, causing the siding to need to be replaced,
and also damaged the house's newly painted trim.
20. On or about June 15, 2009, less than two months before Defendant Blank
began working on the roof, Dr. Rentschler paid JR Straining $7,245 to paint the house's
outside trim, dormers, gutters, and downspouts.
21. As a result of Defendant Blank's conduct, however, Dr. Rentschler had to
pay four thousand and nine hundred ($4,900) dollars to have the damaged siding
replaced, and an additional three thousand eight hundred and fifty ($3,850) dollars to
have the house trim repainted.
22. In addition, although Defendant Calaman and Dr. Rentschler orally agreed
that Dr. Rentschler's flower beds would be covered while the roof was being worked on,
Defendant Blank failed to cover the flower beds, and as a result, destroyed Dr.
Rentschler's plants and flowers.
23. Further, although Defendant Calaman and Dr. Rentschler orally agreed
that all trash and debris associated with the roofing work would be cleaned or picked up
before the job was complete, Defendant Blank left nails, pieces of wood, shingles, and
other pieces of debris in Dr. Rentschler's yard.
24. Finally, after the rain storm that occurred on June 9, 2010, Dr. Rentschler
had to pay ten thousand ($10,000) dollars to have the defective roof replaced, and due to
leaking rainwater, had to pay an additional one thousand nine hundred and eighty
($1,980) dollars to have the damaged ceilings in the living room and bedroom repaired.
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT CALAMAN
25. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
26. Dr. Rentschler and Defendant Calaman entered into an oral agreement,
which stipulated that Defendant Calaman would replace Dr. Rentschler's roof using
thirty-year architectural grade shingles.
27. The parties also orally agreed that Dr. Rentschler's flower beds would be
covered with a tarp while the roof work was being performed, and that all trash would be
cleaned and removed from the property by Defendant Calaman once the work was
complete.
28. Both parties orally agreed that half the money would be paid by Dr.
Rentschler before work on the roof could begin, and the rest would be paid after the work
was complete.
29. Although Dr. Rentschler paid Defendant Calaman eight thousand ($8,000)
dollars, creating a duty in Defendant Calaman to perform, Defendant Calaman failed to
adequately perform the work or have the work performed in accordance with the terms of
the parties' agreement.
30. The roofing work was never completed according to the parties' oral
agreement, Dr. Rentschler's flower beds were never covered while the roof work was
being performed, and debris was left scattered throughout Dr. Rentschler's yard.
31. In addition, Dr. Rentschler and Defendant Calaman entered into a written
agreement on or about September 21, 2009, wherein Defendant Calaman admitted to
faulty workmanship, and agreed to return to Dr. Rentschler's property and cure the
defects.
32. Defendant Calaman breached the parties' written agreement insofar as he
was never able to cure the defects.
33. As a direct cause of Defendant Calaman's breach, Dr. Rentschler had to
pay a third party to replace his roof, had to pay to replace his flower beds, had to pay to
repair his damaged aluminum siding, had to pay to have his house's trim repainted, and
was forced to remove all the debris from his yard that was left by Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Calaman for
compensatory and consequential damages in an amount in excess of the limits of
compulsory arbitration, along with costs, interest and attorney's fees.
COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT BLANK
34. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
35. Dr. Rentchsler was a third-party beneficiary of the contract entered into
between Defendants Calaman and Blank.
36. Defendant Calaman entered into a contract with Defendant Blank, where
Defendant Blank agreed to perform the work on Dr. Rentschler's roof, and Defendant
Calaman agreed to secure the work.
37. The contract entered into between Defendant Calaman and Defendant
Blank stipulated for Defendant Blank to perform work on Dr. Rentschler's roof.
38. The contract entered into between Defendant Calaman and Defendant
Blank contemplated that Dr. Rentschler would benefit from the contract.
39. Although Defendant Blank contractually agreed with Defendant Calaman
to perform work on Dr. Rentschler's roof, Defendant Blank breached the contract by
failing to perform the roof work in a proper manner.
40. As a result, Defendant Calaman needed to return to Dr. Rentschler's home
in an attempt to repair the defects caused by Defendant Blank's poor workmanship.
41. The contract entered into between Defendant Calaman and Defendant
Blank contemplated and intended for Dr. Rentschler to be a third-party beneficiary to the
contract, and Defendant Blank breached that contract, causing economic injury to Dr.
Rentschler.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Blank for
compensatory and consequential damages in an amount in excess of the limits of
compulsory arbitration, along with costs, interest and attorney's fees.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE
42. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
43. In the alternative, if there was no privity of contract between Dr.
Rentschler and Defendant Blank, Defendant Blank still owed Dr. Rentschler a duty of
reasonable care while performing roof work on Dr. Rentschler's house.
44. While damages are generally not recoverable for negligence that results in
pure economic loss, damages are recoverable for negligence that results in harm to
property. See Blanchard v. Wilt, 410 Pa. 356, 358 (Pa. 1963); Excavation Techs. v.
Columbia Gas Co., 2007 PA Super 327, P9 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) ("The economic loss
rule states that `no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic
damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage...." (emphasis added);
and Bilt-Rite Contrs., Inc. v. Architectural Studio, 581 Pa. 454, 476 (Pa. 2005) ("to
recover in tort a plaintiff must allege facts showing a breach of some duty imposed by
law. In other words, to recover in negligence `there must be a showing of harm above
and beyond disappointed expectations' evolving solely from a prior agreement.").
45. Defendant Blank owed a duty of reasonable care not to damage Dr.
Rentschler's property when he was working on Dr. Rentschler's roof.
46. Defendant Blank breached that duty by damaging the shingles due to
unnecessary foot traffic; damaging the roof by improperly placing shingles; damaging the
roof by incorrectly sealing the shingles with caulking; damaging the ridge vent and roof
cap; creating and then leaving tar marks and finger prints on the shingles and siding;
destroying the recently completed paint job to the house; and by causing dents, creases,
and metal folds in the house's aluminum siding.
47. Moreover, as a direct result of Defendant Blank's negligence, Dr.
Rentschler's entire roof needed to be replaced; Dr. Rentschler had to pay to repair the
living room and bedroom ceilings that were damaged as a result of rainwater leaking
from the roof; Dr. Rentschler's siding needed to be repaired; Dr. Rentschler's house trim
needed to be repainted; Dr. Rentschler's flower beds were destroyed; and Dr. Rentschler
had to clear his yard from debris and trash that Defendants left in the yard.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for
compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the limits of compulsory arbitration,
along with costs, interest and attorney's fees.
COUNT IV- DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
48. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein.
49. "A cause of action under detrimental reliance or promissory estoppel
arises when a party relies to his detriment on the intentional or negligent representations
of another party, so that in order to prevent the relying party from being harmed, the
inducing party is estopped from showing that the facts are not as the relying party
understood them to be." Rinehimer v. Luzerne County Community College, 539 A.2d
1298, 1306 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988).
50. "The doctrine of promissory estoppel permits a claimant to enforce a
promise in the absence of consideration. To maintain a promissory estoppel action a
claimant must aver the following elements: `(1) the promisor made a promise that [it]
should have reasonably expected would induce action or forbearance on the part of the
promisee; (2) the promisee actually took action or refrained from taking action in reliance
on the promise; and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise."'
Sullivan v. Chartwell Inv. Partners, LP, 873 A.2d 710, 717-718 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
51. Here, Defendant Calaman promised Dr. Rentschler that he would return to
Dr. Rentschler's property and cure the defects that existed on the roof, at no additional
cost to Dr. Rentschler, due to poor workmanship by Defendant Blank.
52. In reliance upon the aforementioned promise, Dr. Rentschler did not hire
another roofing company to fix the defects, and reasonably believed that Defendant
Calaman would be able to cure the defects that Defendant Calaman himself noted.
53. As a result of Dr. Rentschler's reliance upon Defendant Calaman's
promise, Dr. Rentschler reasonably believed the roof's defects would be cured, and when
they weren't, the roof became susceptible to leaking, which occurred on June 9, 2010,
causing damage to the bedroom and living room ceiling, as well as the roof itself.
54. Therefore, an injustice can only be avoided by enforcing Defendant
Calaman's promise that he would fix the defects that existed on the roof due to poor
workmanship on the part of Defendant Blank.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Blank for
compensatory and consequential damages in an amount in excess of the limits of
compulsory arbitration, along with costs, interest and attorney's fees.
COUNT V- UNJUST ENRICHMENT
55. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein.
56. "The elements of unjust enrichment are benefits conferred on defendant by
plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such
benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the
benefit without payment of value. Whether the doctrine applies depends on the unique
factual circumstances of each case. In determining if the doctrine applies, we focus not
on the intention of the parties, but rather on whether the defendant has been unjustly
enriched." Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Berlin, 991 A.2d 327, 336 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010).
57. "Moreover, the most significant element of the doctrine is whether
enrichment of the defendant is unjust. The doctrine does not apply simply because the
defendant may have benefited as a result of the actions of the plaintiff." Id.
58. Here, Defendants Calaman and Blank both received benefits on behalf of
Dr. Rentschler, namely, $8000 dollars, which was presumably split between the
defendants.
59. Defendants fully appreciated the benefits that Dr. Rentschler conferred
upon them.
60. Moreover, Defendants accepted and retained such benefits under
circumstances that make it inequitable for them to retain, because although Dr.
Rentschler paid $8000 for roof work, the work was never completed, and the roof
eventually had to be redone after suffering damage from a rainstorm
61. The enrichment of the Defendants was unjust in that they received
monetary compensation without performing the roof work in a reasonable manner, and
caused Dr. Rentschler to have to expend additional money to have the roof work done
properly.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Blank for
compensatory and consequential damages in an amount in excess of the limits of
compulsory arbitration, along with costs, interest and attorney's fees.
COUNT VI- BREACH OF WARRANTY
62. All previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein.
63. Implicit in any construction or repair contract is an implied warranty that
the party responsible for the construction or repairs will perform the work in a
workmanlike manner.
64. Here, Defendants impliedly warranted to Dr. Rentschler that they would
perform their roofing work in a workmanlike manner when they contracted to perform
the work.
65. Dr. Rentschler reasonably relied upon Defendants' aforementioned
implied warranty.
66. Moreover, Defendants breached their implied warranty by failing to
perform their work in a workmanlike manner.
67. As a result of Defendants' breach of the implied warranty, Dr. Rentschler
had to pay a third party to replace his roof, had to pay to replace his flower beds, had to
pay to repair his damaged aluminum siding, had to pay to have his house's trim
repainted, and was forced to remove all the debris from his yard that was left by
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Blank for
compensatory and consequential damages in an amount in excess of the limits of
compulsory arbitration, along with costs, interest and attorney's fees
Respectfully Submitted,
ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES
Date: February 23, 2011
Kar Rominger, Esquire
15'5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717)241-6070
Supreme Court ID # 81924
Attorney for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
I verify that I am the plaintiff and that the statements made in the foregoing
Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to
authorities.
1
D-/ / 0
Date:; gx?q
e t R. Rentschler, Plaintiff
J
.Oam
542 SOUTH H,ANOVER STREET
TO-iHE 9 j
ORDER -Or' -e,
_ -1
T-_ _ 11 y- ? 3G-153 3'i?3
- DOLLARS
???
;3R
AV,
iia0.0 15 ?ii® ?;0 3 3 50 6r? 3_1, 000 4? 7ua
pt
S
>031315036<
Orrstown Bank
Shippensburg, PA 17257
Phone: 717-532-6114
Bus Date: 07/30/2009
Branch/Teller 0003/0048
07/30/2009 12:52:57
a PLAINTIFF'S
J EXHIBIT
a
I?
a
NEW ROOF CORRECTION REPAIRS
1. Replace all shingles damaged by unnecessary foot traffic caused by previous
workers.
2. Cut back and refit all shingles buckled up by improper placement.
3. Remove and replace all shingles incorrectly placed and sealed with caulking. All
caulking is to be removed and the area correctly seal by shingle.
4. Repair the ridge vent and roof cap so that they are finished correctly
5. Install a galvanized cap overhang at the top of the new standing seam metal roof
and replace the shingle caps now present. A new front cover of shingles shall be
placed to cover the new metal galvanized roof cap.
6. Completely redo the damaged paint job recently completed. Entire paint job is to
be redone including all work necessary to remove all tar marks from the shingles
and fingerprints. All work is to be done by the original painters.
7. Repair as much of the damage as possible to the metal siding caused by the
roofers without removing any metal siding. Example: dents, creases, metal
folds etc
Since the original agreement specified the construction of a new roof for Dr.
Rentschler and the final result was a roof with many mistakes, poor workmanship,
many areas in need of repairs, damage to both the house, it's new paint job
involving the metal trim, and the new roof just placed, I, Mike Calaman, declare
that I will correct these stated problems and any other problems that arise
associated with the roof. Further, I will return to correct any problems that occur
with the roof and maintain the roof because of the poor workmanship performed
by the roofing crew that I hired. I will return for as long as needed to repair any
problems with the roof or for a minimum of five years.
f
Mike Calaman
Q PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
J
J
Q
Kent R Rentschler, DMD
M
NO. 11-2169r .F
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 6
Attorneys for Defendant:
Amos Blank
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
n?
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA:
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: [717) 975-8114 Direct Dial: ( 717) 760-7502
Fax: [717) 975-8124
E-Mail: rkroll@margolisedelstein.com
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
:PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
KENT R. RENTSCHLER
VS.
MICHAEL CALAMAN II, and
AMOS BLANK
Defendants.
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, AMOS BLANK, in the
above-captioned matter.
Resperty submitted,
Date:
STEIN
ROLF KRIDYL, ESQUIRE
PA. ttorney I.D. No. 47243
35 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7504
Fax: (717) 975-8124
Email: rkroll(a-margolisedelstein.com
Attorney for Defendant: Amos Blank
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE on all parties of record by placing the same in
the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the
day of '2011, and addressed as follows:
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
Rominger & Associates
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Michael Calaman, II
1577 Boiling Springs Road
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Ronny R Anderson
Sheriff
Jody S Smith
Chief Deputy
Richard W Stewart
Solicitor
Kent R. Rentschler
vs.
Michael Calaman, II (et al.)
a?
FILED-OFFICE
OF THE PROTHONOTARY
2011 MAR 29 AM 8: 22
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
Case Number
2011-2169
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
02/24/2011 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: Amos Blank, 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.
02/28/2011 03:21 PM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on
February 28, 2011 at 1521 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the
within named defendant, to wit: Michael Calaman II, by making known unto him f personally, at 23
Valley Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents d t the same time
handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. (00 ?
SON,DEPUTY
03/03/2011 11:19 AM - Franklin County Return: And now March 3, 2011 at 1119 hours I, Dane Anthony, Sheriff of
Franklin County, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within
Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Amos Blank by making known unto Ruth
Blank, adult in charge at 12540 Mongul Hill Road, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257 its contents and at
the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same.
SHERIFF COST: $48.24
March 25, 2011
SO ANSWERS,
RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2011-00048 T
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN
KENT R RENTSCHLER
VS
AMOS BLANK 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
BLANK AMOS the
DEFENDANT , at 1119:00 Hour, on the 3rd day of March , 2011
at 12540 MONGUL HILL ROAD
SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to
TITTTTT T T TTTT7
a true and attested copy of COMP CIVIL ACTION together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing .00
Service .00
Affidavit .00
Surcharge .00
.00
.00
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this day of
A.D.
&A-
Notar r
So Answers:
ANGEL L
By
Deputy Sheritt
03/21/2011
ROMINGER AND ASSOCIATES
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
NOTARIAL SEAL
RICHARD D. McCARTY, Notary PubNc
Chambetaburg Boro., Frankly County
My Comm orlon Expires Jan. 29, 2015
1
KENT R. RENTSCHLER,
Plaintiff
V.
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II and,
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2011-2169 CIVIL TERM
r
m
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE' G
3'• Z
To the Prothonotary: j
rn
-ar
m
C-) o
?-n
-o ? -n
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the defendant, MICHAEL CALAMAN, II, in
the above captioned case.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN & *cKNIGI-R, P.C.
By:
?"//c
Marcus A. McKnigpt H, Esquire
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-2353
Attorney for defendant
Date: April 14, 2011
KENT R. RENTSCHLER,
Plaintiff
V.
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II and,
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2011-2169 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached Praecipe for
Entry of Appearance was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the
same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date
referenced below and addressed as follows:
Karl E. Rominger, Esq. Rolf E. Kroll, Esq.
Rominger & Associates Margolis & Edelstein
155 South Hanover Street 3510 Trindle Road
Carlisle, PA 17013 Camp Hill, PA 17011
IRWIN & McKNIGHT, g.C.
i
l
By: Marcus A. McKnig t, II Esquire
60 West Pomfret Stre
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Date: April 14, 2011
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE U t L t r ;' t; i C; J T `? ^?
Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
" -'
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 r [ r , ` 5 E
Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Direct Dial: 760-7502
Fax: [717J 975-8124 (717) 46orneys for Defendant:
AMOS BLANK
E-Mail: rkroll@margolisedelstein.com
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
VS.
NO. 11-2169
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II, and
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: KENT R. RENTSCHLER
c/o Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
Rominger & Associates
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II
c/o Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight, P.C.
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the enclosed NEW MATTER within
twenty (20) days of service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you.
Date: 1
TEIN
A. A rney I.D'No. 47243
,ttor eys for Defendant,
AMOS BLANK
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7504
Fax: (717) 975-8124
Email: rkroll(a?margolisedelstein com
ROLF E. KROLL, ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Direct Dial: (717) 760-7502 Attorneys for Defendant:
Fax: [717] 975-8124 AMOS BLANK
E-Mail: rkroll@margolisedelstein.com
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
VS.
NO. 11-2169
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II, and
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM
PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. NO. 2252(d) OF DEFENDANT AMOS BLANK
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Amos Blank ("Mr. Blank"), by and through his
counsel, Margolis Edelstein, to answer the Complaint of Plaintiff, Kent R. Rentschler
("Plaintiff'), and in support thereof avers the following:
THE PARTIES
1-2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these
paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
3. Admitted.
FACTUAL MATTERS
4. Paragraphs 1 through 3 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied. By way of further
answer, this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint refers to a writing which speaks for
itself and is the best evidence of all it contains, and accordingly, no further response
or pleading thereto is required.
7. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Mr. Blank performed certain roofing
work.
8. Admitted.
9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied. By way of further
answer, it is specifically denied that any workmanship performed by Mr. Blank was
poor or otherwise unacceptable, and strict proof is demanded at trial.
11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
-2-
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
12. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint refers to a
writing which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of all it contains, and
accordingly, no responsive pleading thereto is required.
13. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Blank is in any way responsible
to Plaintiff for any claim set forth in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and strict
proof to the contrary is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically
denied that the damages as plead in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint exist
and/or exist to the extent alleged by Plaintiff, and strict proof to the contrary is
demanded at trial.
14. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Blank admitted that any work
was unsatisfactory. All statements made by third parties other than Mr. Blank are not
binding upon the work performed by Mr. Blank, and strict proof to the contrary is
demanded at trial.
15. Denied. The allegation in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint states
conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore
denied. By way of further answer, 114 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied. By way of further
-3-
answer, this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint states a conclusion to which no
responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied. By way of further
answer, any statement or implication that any leak had any causal connection with
the work performed by Mr. Blank is specifically denied, and strict proof to the
contrary is demanded at trial.
18. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint
constitute conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is
therefore denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that any work
performed by Mr. Blank is causally related to any damages sustained by Plaintiff, and
strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
19. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint are
specifically denied and are further denied as conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied. By way of further
-4-
answer, any statement or implication contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs
Complaint that Plaintiffs damages are causally related to the work performed by Mr.
Blank are specifically denied, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
23. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mr. Blank left the work in an
unprofessional manner. By way of further answer, Plaintiff precluded further cleanup
and thus, failed to mitigate his own damages.
24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied. By way of further
answer, Mr. Blank specifically denies and statement or implication that any damages
sustained by Plaintiff are causally related to the work he performed, and strict proof to
the contrary is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, these allegations in
Plaintiffs Complaint refer to special damages which should be specifically plead and
supported by the documents from which they arise. None are supplied in connection
with Plaintiffs Complaint.
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT CALAMAN
25. Paragraphs 1 through 24 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
-5-
26-33. Denied. The allegations of these paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are
directed to a Defendant other than Mr. Blank, and accordingly, no further responsive
pleading is required. By way of further answer, any statement or implication
contained in any of these paragraphs or this Count of Plaintiffs Complaint that
Plaintiffs damages are caused by any work performed by Mr. Blank or that said work
was substandard in any way is specifically denied, and strict proof to the contrary is
demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Amos Blank, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT BLANK
34. Paragraphs 1 through 33 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
35. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matters asserted pertaining
to the contract allegedly entered into between Defendant, Michael Calaman, II ("Mr.
Calaman"), and Plaintiff. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs allegation asserts that a
contract existed, but is between Mr. Calaman and Mr. Blank and yet failed to supply a
copy of said contract which, being a writing, would speak for itself and is the best
evidence of all it contains.
-6-
37. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer, Mr. Blank was not a party to any contract with Plaintiff or Mr.
Calaman, and ¶36 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
38-39. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore
denied. By way of further answer, T136 and 3 7 hereof are incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
40. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer, 1 T36 and 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Mr. Blank's
workmanship was poor or causally related to any damage Plaintiff allegedly sustained.
41. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer, IT36 and 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Amos Blank, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE
42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if
-7-
set forth in full.
43-45. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore
denied.
46-47. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore
denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Mr. Blank breached
any duty to Plaintiff, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Amos Blank, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNT IV - DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
49-50. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore
denied.
51. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer, it is specifically denied that any of the work performed by Mr.
Blank exhibited poor workmanship, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at
trial.
-8-
52. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same is therefore denied. By way of further
answer, the allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and the same is
therefore denied.
53. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same is therefore denied. By way of further
answer, the allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and the same is
therefore denied.
54. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of
law which is both factually and legally incorrect, and strict proof to the contrary is
demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Amos Blank, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNT V - UNJUST ENRICHMENT
55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
56-57. Denied. The allegations of these paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint
-9-
constitute conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is
therefore denied.
58. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint
constitute conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is
therefore denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Mr. Blank
received any benefit of any monies afforded to Mr. Calaman, and strict proof to the
contrary is demanded at trial.
59. Denied. By way of further answer, 1158 hereof is incorporated herein by
reference as if set forth in full.
60. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint
constitute conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is
therefore denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Mr. Blank
received any benefit of any monies afforded to Mr. Calaman, and strict proof to the
contrary is demanded at trial.
61. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
Moreover, it was Mr. Calaman and Plaintiff who were unjustly enriched by the
uncompensated work performed by Mr. Blank, and strict proof to the contrary is
demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Amos Blank, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
-10-
COUNT VI - BREACH OF WARRANTY
62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if
set forth in full.
63. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required, and strict proof to the contrary is
demanded at trial.
64. Denied. Mr. Blank warranted nothing to Plaintiff and accordingly, this
allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law which is both
factually and legally incorrect.
65. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint
constitutes a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and the
same is therefore denied. By way of further answer, $64 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in full.
66. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint
constitutes a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and the
same is therefore denied. By way of further answer, 1164 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in full. By way of further answer, Mr. Blank asserts that all
of his work was performed in a workmanlike manner, and strict proof to the contrary
is demanded at trial.
67. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint
constitutes a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and the
same is therefore denied. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation,
-11-
Mr. Blank is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and strict proof to the
contrary is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Amos Blank, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
NEW MATTER
68. Mr. Blank incorporates by reference its responses contained in
Paragraphs 1 through 67 hereof as if set forth in full.
69. Based upon Plaintiffs claims we are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
70. To the extent any claim is based in whole or in part upon a breach of
warranty theory, same is barred by the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of
Limitations.
71. The roof was not in the same condition at the time of the leak alleged in
Plaintiffs Complaint, if any existed, as it was when it left the supervision and control
of Mr. Blank, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
72. The allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint against Mr. Blank are
barred by the Equitable Doctrine of Laches, Waiver and/or Estoppel.
73. To the extent the damages alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint are established,
which is specifically denied, then said damages, losses and expenses were caused by
the negligence and/or breach of contract or warranty of other entities over whom Mr.
-12-
Blank had no control or legal responsibility and not by any action or inaction on the
part of Mr. Blank.
74. Plaintiff and/or other third parties may have misused and/or abused the
roof and are thereby intervening superseding causes of any damages Plaintiff
sustained which damages are specifically denied.
75. The roof defects alleged in Plaintiffs complaint are the result of the
conduct of third parties not under the supervision and control of Mr. Blank, and strict
proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
77. The defects alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint were the result of actions of
third parties for which Mr. Blank is not legally responsible.
78. Mr. Blank was not a party to any contract with Plaintiff.
79. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Blank conducted his business in a
reasonably careful, cautious and prudent manner under the circumstances, and strict
proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
80. Any recovery which is permitted against Mr. Blank should be reduced and
or barred in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act due to the comparative negligence on the part of Plaintiff
and/or other parties.
81. The only rights which can be asserted against Mr. Blank set forth in any
express written contract or warranty delivered with the roofing work performed and
that he agreed to provide, the existence of which is specifically denied.
82. Mr. Blank believes and avers that the damages at issue were caused by hail
-13-
and severe weather and not through any poor workmanship on his part.
83. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can
be granted.
84. The acts and omissions of other individuals or entities may have
constituted a superseding intervening cause of the damages and/or injuries alleged to
have been sustained by Plaintiff.
85. Plaintiffs claims against Mr. Blank are barred by the terms and conditions
of a contract, release, and/or by the Doctrines of Accord and Satisfaction.
86. Mr. Blank received no compensation of any kind for the work he
performed.
87. Mr. Blank had no further contact with Mr. Calaman, and strict proof to the
contrary is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Amos Blank, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
CROSS-CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. NO. 2252(d)
AMOS BLANK v. MICHAEL CALAMAN. II
88. Paragraphs 1 through 85 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
in full.
89. To the extent Plaintiff sustained any damages as alleged in his Complaint,
which is specifically denied, and said damages were caused by the negligence,
carelessness, recklessness or breach of warranty of Mr. Calaman.
9o. If Mr. Blank is found liable to Plaintiff, any such liability being strictly
-14-
denied, then Mr. Calaman is solely liable to Plaintiff, jointly and or severally liable
over to Mr. Blank by way of contribution, or full indemnity with regard to all claims
made by Plaintiff herein.
WHEREFORE, should judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendant, Amos Blank, liability for which is specifically denied, then Defendant,
Amos Blank, demands that judgment be further entered against Defendant, Michael
Calaman, II, by way of contribution and/or indemnity in accordance with the facts of
this case and applicable Pennsylvania law.
RespectWy s)hbmitted,
Date:
Z
By:
E. KAOL" L, ESQUIRE
PA. Attor y I.D. No. 47243
Attorney or Defendant,
AMOS BLANK
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7504
Fax: (717) 975-8124
Email: rkrollRmargolisedelstein.com
-15-
VERIFICATION
I, AMOS BLANK, have read the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND
CROSS-CLAIM OF DEFENDANT, AMOS BLANK, TO THE COMPLAINT OF
PLAINTIFF, KENT R. RENTSCHLER, which has been drafted by my counsel. The
factual statements contained therein are known by me and are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief.
This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities, which provides that, if I
knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties.
Date:- w ! 1l _," s? K??
AMOS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. NO.
2252(d) OF DEFENDANT, AMOS BLANK, on all counsel of record by placing the
same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid,
on theZ?aday of , 2011, and addressed as follows:
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
Rominger & Associates
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight, P.C.
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
B
nn . Nelson, Secretary
KENT R. RENTSCHLER,
Plaintiff
V.
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II and,
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants
TO: KENT R. RENTSCHLER
c/o Karl E. Rominger, Esq.
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2011-2169 CIVIL TERM
• s --f
F-5--
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOTICE TO PLEAD
r ?; o
CD
< c -j
W --" ;
c-r:x YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE
ENCLOSED ANSWER TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS WITHIN TWENTY (20)
DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C.
By:
Marcu§ A. McKnk it, III, Esquire
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222
(717) 249-2353
Supreme Court ID. No. 25476
Attorney for Defendant
Michael Calaman, II
Date: May 5, 2011
KENT R. RENTSCHLER,
Plaintiff
V.
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II and,
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants
NO. 2011-2169 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
OF DEFENDANT, MICHAEL CALAMAN. II
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND NOW, this 5th day of May 2011, comes the Defendant, MICHAEL CALAMAN,
II, by his attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and makes the following Preliminary Objections to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and in support thereof avers the following:
1.
The Defendant, Michael Calaman, II, did not perform the work on the Plaintiff s roof and
informed the Plaintiff that he could not do so.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
2.
The Defendant, Amos Blank, agreed to perform the work on the Plaintiffs roof and
worked directly with the Plaintiff regarding the time and performance of the work. At no time
was the Defendant, Amos Blank, working for or supervised by Defendant, Michael Calaman, II.
3.
There were no written contracts between any of the parties to this litigation.
2
4.
Subsequent to the work performed by Defendant, Amos Blank, the Plaintiff's roof was
damaged by hail from a storm on or about June 9, 2010. The Plaintiff had the roof repaired
and/or replaced pursuant to his insurance claim.
5.
The Complaint of the Plaintiff fails to state any cause of action against the Defendant,
Michael Calaman, II, which makes him legally responsible for the work of Amos Blank. The
Defendant, Michael Calaman, II, therefore demurs to the Complaint of the Plaintiff, Kent R.
Rentschler, and seeks its dismissal.
6.
The Complaint of Kent R. Rentschler, fails to state with any sufficiency, the relationship
between the Defendant, Amos Blank, who performed the work, and the Defendant, Michael
Calaman, II, who did not perform the work.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Michael Calaman, II, respectfully requests that the
Complaint against him be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN & MQfNIGHT, V,-Ot.
l
By: ilViarcus/A. Mc ght, III, E uire
60 Wes omfret treet
Carlisle, Pennsyly
(717) 249-2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Attorney for Defendant
Michael Calaman, II
Date: May 5, 2011
3
KENT R. RENTSCHLER,
Plaintiff
V.
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II and,
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2011-2169 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcus A. McKnight, 111, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached document was
served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States
mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and
addressed as follows:
Karl E. Rominger, Esq. Rolf E. Kroll, Esq.
155 South Hanover Street Margolis Edelstein
Carlisle, PA 17013 3510 Trindle Road
Attorney for Plaintiff Camp Hill, PA 17011
Kent R. Rentschler Attorney for Defendant
Amos Blank
IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C.
By: M us A. McKnight, ,Esquire
6 West Pomfret Street
Car ' , PA 17013
(717) 249-x T53---
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Date: May 5, 2011
4
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 2011-2169 CIVIL TERM
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II and,
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW :;t rn c M-
r-
ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIM ?
"D
CD -Tj
OF AMOS BLANK v. MICHAEL CALAMAN, II
AND NOW, this 6th day of June 2011, comes the Defendant, MICHAEL CALAMAN,
II, by his attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and makes the following Answer to the Cross-
Claim filed by Defendant, Amos Blank:
88.
The averments of fact contained in paragraph One (1) through Eighty-Eight (88), of the
Answer and New Matter of the Defendant, Amos Blank, are specifically denied and proof thereof
is demanded.
89.
The averments of fact contained in paragraph Eighty-Nine (89) of the Cross-Claim are
specifically denied. The Defendant, Michael Calaman, II, did none of the work which is now the
subject of the Complaint filed by Kent R. Rentchler. All that work was performed by Defendant,
Amos Blank, who should be solely responsible for any defects or repairs of said defects.
90.
The averments of fact contained in paragraph Ninety (90) of the Cross Claim are
conclusions of law to which no answer is required. They are therefore denied and proof thereof
is demanded.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Michael Calaman, II, respectfully requests that the Court
dismiss the cross claim of the Defendant, Amos Blank, with any costs paid to the Defendant,
Michael Calaman, II.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN & MVKNIGHT, P.C.
By: MarcuA. Mc?t, I, esquire
60 West Pomfre eet
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Attorney for Defendant
Michael Calaman, II
Date: June 6, 2011
VERIFICATION
The foregoing document is based upon information, which has been gathered by my
counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this
document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I
understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section
4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
MICHAEL CA AMAN, II
Date: June 6, 2011
KENT R. RENTSCHLER,
Plaintiff
V.
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II and,
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2011-2169 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcus A. McKnight, IIl, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached document was
served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States
mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and
addressed as follows:
Drew F. Deyo, Esq.
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
Kent R. Rentschler
By:
Rolf E. Kroll, Esq.
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Defendant
Amos Blank
IRWIN & M5;)KNIGHT, P.C.
Marcus A. Mc i , Es
60 Wes Pomfr t S eet
Carlisle, PA 17 3
(717) 249-2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Date: June 8, 2011
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
vs.
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II, and
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants.
~ ~_~
...~
NO. 11-2169 " ` ~°'
r;~~-1a
-, a~
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVE SUBPOENAS
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
~;'~:~ ._
!~ fs` ~~
Y ~ "':... ....P :"
~~ ~~..) r -`.
,.... ~ h~ ~} .
?-y Yw, 'Y...,.
As a Prerequisite to service of a Subpoena for Documents and Things pursuant to Rule
4009.22, Defendants hereby certify that:
1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoenas with a copy of the Subpoenas attached
thereto was mailed to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on
which the subpoenas are sought to be served.
2. A copy of the Notice of Intent including the proposed subpoenas are attached to
this Certificate.
3. Opposing counsel has verbally waived the twenty day notice period for service of
these subpoenas on November 8, 2012.
4. The Subpoenas which will be served are identical to the Subpoenas which are
attached to the Notice of Intent.
submitted,
Date:
~61f E. Kr611
PA. Attorney I.D. No. 47243
Attorney for Defendant, AMOS BLANK
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 760-7502
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
vs.
NO. 11-2169
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II, and
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THIlVGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21
To: Plaintiff
c% Drew Deyo, Esquire
50 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Defendants intend to serve Subpoenas identical to those that are attached to this Notice.
You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon
the undersigned an objection to the Subpoena. If no objection is made the Subpoena may be
served.
ay:
PA. Atto~(ey I.D. No. 47243
Attorney for Defendant AMOS BLANK
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 760-7502
Respectfully submitted,
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
vs.
NO. 11-2169
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II, and
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
t~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ : ~ i ~.~ Jul .r r. e~1-Mf4L~~
TO: Records Custodian
Claims Department
Cincinnati Insurance Company
6200 South Gilmore Road
Fairfield, OH 45014
Within twenty (20) days after service of this Subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce
the following documents or things: a complete copy of your claims fde pertaining to Claim Number
1356685, for Date of Loss: 05/14/2010, for a claim by Kenneth Rentschler for bail damage at
property located at 1841 Basin Hill Blvd, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, including, but not limited to, any
and all claims notes, estimates, photographs, correspondence, releases, etc., at the offices of
Margolis Edelstein, 3510 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this
Subpoena, together with the Certificate of Compliance, to the party making this request at the address
listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or
producing the things sought.
If you fail tv produce the documents or things required by this Subpoena within twenty (20) days
after its service, the party serving this Subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with
it.
This Subpoena was issued at the request of
Rolf E. Kroll, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 47243
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
(717)975-8114
Attorney for Defendant Amos Blank
Date:
BY THE COURT:
(Prothonotary)
(Seal of the Court)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF
INTENT, on counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill,
~~
Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the ~ day of November, 2012, and
addressed as follows:
Drew Deyo, Esquire
50 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight, P.C.
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate
Prerequisite to Service of Subpeonas, on counsel of record by placing the same(i~n the United
States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the ~ 7 ~ day of
November, 2012, and addressed as follows:
Drew Deyo, Esquire
50 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight, P.C.
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
R y
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 2011-2169 CIVIL TERM
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II and, ->
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
To the Prothonotary: -=
Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the defendant, MICHAEL CALAMAN, II;'
in the above captioned case.
Respectfully submitted,
#Pomfr GHT, P.C.
By:
ght,III,Esquire
reet
ia 17013
Date: • /S a 01
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
To the Prothonotary:
Please enter my appearance on behalf of the defendant, MICHAEL CALAMAN,II, in
the above captioned case.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Brian O. Williams, Esq.
17 West South Street
Date:
1 S Carlisle, PA 17013
aH
a - r
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
V. NO. 2011-2169 CIVIL TERM
MICHAEL CALAMAN,II and,
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached Praecipe for
Withdrawal and Entry of Appearance was served upon the following by depositing a true and
correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows:
Drew Deyo, Esq. Rolf E. Kroll, Esq.
50 East High Street Margolis& Edelstein
Carlisle, PA 17013 3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
IRWIN & cKNIGHT,P.C.
f'
By: M
cu
. McKnight, III,Esquire
60 est P fret Street
lisle, PA 7013
( 17 - 53
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Date: 15�aDl Z.-.
Brian O.Williams
Pa. Supreme Court ID 209610
Bayley&Mangan
17 W. South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Attorney for Defendant:
Telephone:(717)241-2446 MICHAEL CALAMAN,II
Fax:(717) 241-2456
E-Mail:brianw @bayleymangan.com
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANJA
: CIVIL ACTION- LAW
vs.
:NO. 11-2169
MICHAEL CALAMAN II and
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDzw- - -
US -r3
NOTICE TO PLEAD c
C7.
TO: KENT R. RENTSCHLER AMOS BLANK
c/o Drew Deyo, Esquire c/o Rolf E. Krull . ..
50 East Nigh Street Margolis Edelstein
Carlisle, PA. 17013 3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the enclosed NEW MATTER within
twenty (20) days of service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you.
DATE:
Brian O. Williams
Pa. Supreme Court ID 209610
Bayley&Mangan
17 W. South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone:(717)241-2446
Fax: (717) 241-2456
E-Mail: brianw @bayleymangan.com
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANJA
CIVIL ACTION- LAW
vs.
:NO. 11-2169
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II, and
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM
PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P.NO. 2252(d) OF DEFENDANT, MICHAEL
CALAMAN III
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Michael Calaman, II ("Mr.Calaman"),by and
through his counsel, Brian O. Williams,to answer the Complaint of Plaintiff,Kent R.
Rentschler("Plaintiff), and in support thereof avers the following:
THE PARTIES
1. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Mr. Calaman is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these
paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
2. Admitted.
3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Calaman is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these paragraphs of
Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
FACTUAL MATTERS
4. Paragraphs 1 through 3 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
5. Admitted in part and Denied in part. By way of further answer, on or about July 29,
2009, Plaintiff and Mr. Calaman made an agreement regarding the replacement of Plaintiff's
roof. The exact nature and substance of the agreement is disputed and direct proof of the
agreement is demanded.
6. Admitted.
7. Denied as stated. Itis admitted that Mr. Blank performed certain roofing work.
8. Admitted.
9. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Mr. Calaman is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Calaman is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
11. Admitted.
12. Denied. By way of further answer, Mr. Calaman merely noted Plaintiff's complaints,
but made no comment on Mr. Blank's work The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs
Complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of all it contains,
and accordingly, no responsive pleading thereto is required.
13. Denied. Itis specifically denied that Mr. Calaman is in any way responsible to
Plaintiff for any claim set forth in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and strict proof to
the contrary is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the
damages as plead in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint exist and/or exist to the extent
-13
alleged by Plaintiff, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
14. Denied. Itis specifically denied that Mr. Calaman admitted that any work was
unsatisfactory. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint refers to a writing which
speaks for itself and is the best evidence of all it contains, and accordingly, no responsive
pleading thereto is required.
15. Denied. The allegation in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint states
conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer, the allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint refers to a
writing which speaks for itself and is the best evidence of all it contains, and accordingly,no
responsive pleading thereto is required.
16. Denied as stated. Mr. Calaman did some additional work on the roof and the work
was satisfactory when completed,by way of further answer this paragraph of Plaintiffs
Complaint states a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is
therefore denied.
17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Calaman is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs Complaint,and same are therefore denied. By way of further answer, any statement
or implication that any leak had any causal connection with the work performed by Mr.
Calaman is specifically denied, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
18. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute
conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By
way of further answer, it is specifically denied that any work performed by Mr. Calaman is
causally related to any damages sustained by Plaintiff, and strict proof to the contrary is
-14
demanded at trial.
19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Calaman is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint,and same are therefore denied. By way of further
answer,the allegations of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint are denied as
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore
denied.
20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Calaman is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs Complaint,and same are therefore denied.
21. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Mr. Calaman is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs Complaint,and same are therefore denied.
22. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Mr. Calaman is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs Complaint, and same are therefore denied.
23. Denied. Itis specifically denied that Mr. Blank left the work in an unprofessional
manner. By way of further answer, Plaintiff precluded further cleanup and thus, failed to
mitigate his own damages.
24. Denied. After reasonable investigation,Mr. Calaman is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs Complaint,and same are therefore denied. Byway of further answer, Mr. Calaman
specifically denies and statement or implication that any damages sustained by Plaintiff are
-15
causally related to the work he performed, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at
trial. Byway of further answer,these allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint refer to special
damages which should be specifically plead and supported by the documents from which
they arise. None are supplied in connection with Plaintiffs Complaint.
COUNT =- BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT CALAMAN
25. Paragraphs 1 through 24 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
26. Admitted.
27. Denied,by way of further answer, after reasonable investigation Mr. Calaman is
without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the actions of Mr. Blank. Mr. Calaman did exert
efforts to clear the area of debris.
28. Admitted.
29. This is a conclusion of law and no response is required. In so much as a response is
required,the allegations are denied.
30. This is a conclusion of law and no response is required. In so much as a response is
required, the allegations are denied.
31. This paragraph refers to a writing which speaks for itself and requires no answer.
In so much as a response is warranted, Mr. Calaman interprets the writing of September 21, 2009
differently and specifically denies that any admission of faulty workmanship was made.
32. Denied. As way of further answer, Mr. Calaman returned to the residence on more
than one occasion and made any necessary adjustments leaving the Plaintiff with a complete and
well-made roof.
-16
33. Denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendant,Michael Calaman, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNT II-BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DEFENDANT BLANK
34. Paragraphs 1 through 33 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
in full.
35. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
36. Denied. By way of further answer,Plaintiffs allegation asserts that a contract
existed,but is between Mr. Calaman and Mr. Blank and yet failed to supply a copy of said
contract which,being writing would speak for itself and is the best evidence of all it contains.
37. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By way of further
answer, Mr. Calaman was not a party to any contract Mr. Blank.
38-39. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a conclusion of law
to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By way of further
answer, Paragraphs 36 and 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
40. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
41. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Michael Calaman, demands judgment in his favor and
-17
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNT III-NEGLIGENCE
42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in
full.
43-45. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a conclusion of law
to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
46-47. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a conclusion of law
to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By way of further
answer, it is specifically denied that Mr. Calaman breached any duty to Plaintiff, and strict
proof to the contrary is demanded at trial, Further Mr. Calaman is not liable for the actions of
Mr. Blank, if it is found that Mr. Blank breached a duty.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Michael Calaman, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNT IV- DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE/PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
in full.
49-50. Denied. These allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute a conclusion of law
to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
51. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By way of further
answer, it is specifically denied that any of the work performed by Mr. Calaman failed to fix and
perceived defects and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
-18
52. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Calaman is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs Complaint, and same is therefore denied. By way of further answer, the allegation of
this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to which no responsive
pleading is required, and the same is therefore denied.
53. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mr. Blank is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of
Plaintiffs Complaint, and same is therefore denied. By way of further answer, the allegation of
this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to which no responsive
pleading is required, and the same is therefore denied.
54. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law
which is both factually and legally incorrect, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE,Defendant, Michael Calaman, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNT V- UNJUST ENRICHMENT
55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
56-57. Denied. The allegations of these paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint
constitute conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore
denied,
58. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute
conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. By
-19
way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Mr. Calaman received any benefit of
any monies received from Plaintiff, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
59.. Denied. By way of further answer, Paragraph 58 hereof is incorporated herein
by reference as if set forth in full.
60. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitute
conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied.
61. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, and same is therefore denied. Moreover, it was
Plaintiff who was unjustly enriched by the uncompensated work performed by Mr. Calaman
and Mr. Blank, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Michael Calaman, demands j u d g m e n t in his favor
and against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNT VI- BREACH OF WARRANTY
62. Paragraphs 1through 61 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
in full.
63. Denied. This allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
64. Denied. Mr. Calaman warranted nothing to Plaintiff and accordingly, this
allegation of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a conclusion of law which is both factually
and legally incorrect.
65. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and the same is therefore denied.
66. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and the same is therefore denied.
-20
67. Denied. The allegation of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint constitutes a
conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, and the same is therefore
denied. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, Mr. Calaman is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Michael Calaman, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
NEW MATTER
68. Mr. Blank incorporates by reference its responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through
67 hereof as if set forth in full.
69. Based upon Plaintiff's claims we are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
70. To the extent any claim is based in whole or in part upon a breach of
warranty theory, same is barred by the Uniform Commercial Code Statute of Limitations.
71. The roof was not in the same condition at the time of the leak alleged in Plaintiffs
Complaint, if any existed, as it was when it left the supervision and control of Plaintiff, and
strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial.
72. The allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint against Mr. Calaman are
barred by the Equitable Doctrine of Laches,Waiver and/or Estoppel.
73. To the extent the damages alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint are established, which is
specifically denied, then said damages, losses and expenses were caused by the negligence
and/or breach of contract or warranty of other entities over whom Mr. Calaman had no control
-21
or legal responsibility and not by any action or inaction on the part of Mr. Blank or Plaintiff.
74. Plaintiff and/or other third parties may have misused and/or abused the roof and
are thereby intervening superseding causes of any damages Plaintiff sustained which
damages are specifically denied.
75. The roof defects alleged in Plaintiffs complaint are the result of the conduct of third
parties not under the supervision and control of Mr. Calaman, and strict proof to the contrary is
demanded at trial.
76. The defects alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint were the result of actions of third
parties for which Mr. Calaman is not legally responsible.
77. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Calaman conducted his business in a reasonably
careful, cautious and prudent manner under the circumstances, and strict proof to the contrary is
demanded at trial.
78. Any recovery which is permitted against Mr. Calaman should be reduced and or
barred in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence
Act due to the comparative negligence on the part of Plaintiff and/or other parties.
79. Mr. Calaman believes and avers that the damages at issue were caused by hail
and severe weather and not through any poor workmanship on his part.
80. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
81. The acts and omissions of other individuals or entities may have constituted a
superseding intervening cause of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by
Plaintiff.
82. Plaintiff's claims against Mr. Calaman are barred by the terms and conditions of a
contract, release, and/or by the Doctrines of Accord and Satisfaction.
-22
83. Mr. Calaman received no compensation of any kind for the work he
performed.
84. Mr. Calaman had no further contact with Mr. Blank, and strict proof to the contrary is
demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE,Defendant, Michael Calaman, demands judgment in his favor and
against Plaintiff with cost of suit assessed to Plaintiff.
COUNTER CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 2252(b)
Michael Calaman, II v. KENT R. RENTSCHLER
Breach of Contract
85. Paragraphs Ithrough 84 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full.
86. On or about July 29, 2009 Dr. Rentschler and Mr. Calaman entered into an
agreement to replace the roof on Dr. Rentchler's residence at 1841 Basin Hill Road, Carlisle,
PA 17013.
87. The total cost for the roof would be fifteen thousand and one hundred dollars.
89. Mr. Calaman received an initial payment of eight thousand dollars to pay for
materials and begin work.
90. Work was completed on or about August 15, 2009.
91. Full payment was never made,when payment was demanded,Mr. Rentschler
filed a civil suit.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Calaman requests a judgment in his favor and full payment of
seven thousand, one hundred dollars plus interest and attorney fees.
-23
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
92. Paragraphs 1 through 91 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full.
93. Mr. Calaman had a roof installed on Mr. Rentschler's property
94. Work was completed on August 15, 2009 and the roof was destroyed by hail
damage on June 9, 2010.
95. Mr. Calaman was never fully compensated for the new roof on Mr.
Rentschler's property.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Calaman demands a judgment in his favor for the balance of the
work performed,plus interest and attorney's fees.
CROSS-CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. NO. 2252(d)
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II v. A M O S BLANK
96. Paragraphs 1 through 95 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
97. To the extent Plaintiff sustained any damages as alleged in his Complaint, which is
specifically denied, and said damages were caused by the negligence, carelessness,recklessness
or breach of warranty of Mr. Calaman.
98. If Mr. Blank is found liable to Plaintiff, any such liability being strictly denied,
then Mr. Calaman is solely liable to Plaintiff,jointly and or severally liable over to Mr.
Blank by way of contribution, or full indemnity with regard to all claims made by Plaintiff
herein.
-24
WHEREFORE, should judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendant, Michael Calaman, liability for which is specifically denied, then Defendant,
Michael Calaman, demands that judgment be further entered against Defendant, Amos Blank,
by way of contribution and/or indemnity in accordance with the facts of this case and
applicable Pennsylvania law.
Respectfully Submitted,
BAYLEY&MANGAN
Date: l.� Brian O. Williams
Pa. Supreme Court ID 209610
17 W. South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone:(717)241-2446
Fax: (717) 241-2456
E-Mail: brianw @bayleymangan.com
-25
J
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §
4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Al-
Date Michael man, II
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Brian O. Williams, Esquire do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the
forgoing document upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail,postage
prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Drew Deyo, Esquire
50 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Rolf E. Krull
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Brian O. Williams, Esquire
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Cl
V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW
DOCKET NO. 11-2169
z c�
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II, and C� C1
AMOS BLANK, c
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT CALAMAN'S NEW MATTER,
AND COUNTER CLAIM TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Kent R. Rentschler, M.D.,by and through his counsel,
Drew F. Deyo,Esquire, and in support of his Answer to Defendant Calaman's New Matter, and
Counter Claim to Plaintiff's Complaint, avers as follows:
68. Paragraph 68 is an incorporation clause to which no response is required.
69. Paragraph 69 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Paragraph 69 is denied.
70. Paragraph 70 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required,Paragraph 70 is denied.
71. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
72. Paragraph 72 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Paragraph 72 is denied.
73. Paragraph 73 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Paragraph 73 is denied.
74. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
75. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
76. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
77. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
4
78. Paragraph 78 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Paragraph 78 is denied.
79. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
80. Paragraph 80 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required,Paragraph 80 is denied.
81. Paragraph 81 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Paragraph 81 is denied.
82. Paragraph 82 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent
a response is required, Paragraph 82 is denied.
83. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
84. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
COUNTER CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P.2252(b)
Michael Calaman,II v.KENT R. RENTSCHLER
Breach of Contract
85. Paragraph 85 is an incorporation clause to which no response is required.
86. Admitted.
87. Admitted.
88. No response required.
89. Admitted.
90. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
91. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial.
Uniust Enrichment
92. Paragraph 92 is an incorporation clause to which no response is required.
93. Admitted in part and denied in part. While Defendant Calaman performed subpar
work on Dr. Rentschler's roof, at no point was the roof properly installed on Dr. Rentschler's
house.
94. Denied. Byway of further answer,the work on Dr. Rentschler's roof was never
completed, and the work that was complete was well below professional and industry standards.
95. Denied. By way of further answer, Defendant Calaman never completed the work
on Dr. Rentschler's roof.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in his favor as previously pled.
Respectfully Submitted,
DEYO & KULLING
Date: 20 —
Drew F16eyo, EsOuire
50 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 386-5639
Attorney I.D. # 308857
Attorney for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
Drew F. Deyo, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for Plaintiff, Kent R. Rentschler,
M.D., in this action;that he makes this affidavit as attorney because he has sufficient knowledge
or information and belief,based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the
foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.
Pa.C.S. §4904,relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date:
Drew tOeyff, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff,Kent R. Rentschler, M.D.
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW
DOCKET NO. 11-2169
MICHAEL L CALAMAN, II, and
AMO$
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1,Drew F. Deyo,Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff,do hereby certify that I this day served a
copy of this Answer upon the following by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first
class postage prepaid, at Carlisle,Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Brian O. Williams, Esquire
17 West South Street
Carlisle,PA 17013
Attorney for Defendant, Michael Calaman,11
Rolf E.Kroll,Esquire
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Respectfully Submitted,
DEYO & KULLING
Date:
Dre Deyo, Esquid
50 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
{717}386-5639
Attorney I.D. # 308857
Attorney for Plaintiff
C!
ROLF E.KROLL,ESQUIRE 4 1 LJ
Pa.Supreme Court I.D.No.47243 C' T t; o f'0 N�TA�`Y
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road J 1-3 AUG 2 3 .AVI 1 +
Camp Hill,Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: [717]975-8114 Direct Dial;�1 ( 6bi ''AW C O U h Attorneys for Defendant:
Fax: [717]975-8124 PENNSYLVANIA AMOS BLANK
E-Mail: rkroll @margolisedelstein.com
KENT R. RENTSCHLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION- LAW
VS. ;
NO. 11-2169
MICHAEL CALAMAN, II, and
AMOS BLANK,
Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: MICHAEL CALAMAN, II
c/o Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Irwin& McKnight, P.C.
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3222
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the enclosed NEW MATTER and NEW
MATTER CROSSCLAIM within twenty(20) days of service hereof, or a default judgment
may be entered against you.
sp t 1 s
G IN
Date: By
RO E. L, ESQUIRE
Attorn I.D.No. 47243
Attorneys r Defendant,
AMOS BLANK
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7504
Fax: (717) 975-8124
Email: rkrollkmargolisedelstein.com
ROLF E.KROLL,ESQUIRE
Pa.Supreme Court I.D.No.47243
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill,Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone: 17171975-8114 Direct Dial: (717)760-7502 Attorneys for Defendant:
Fax: 17171975-8124 Amos Blank
E-Mail: rkroll@margolisedelstein.com
KENT R. RENTSCHLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION- LAW
VS.
NO. 11-2169
MICHAEL CALAMAN II, and
AMOS BLANK
Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT,AMOS.BLANK TO THE CROSSCLAIM
OF DEFENDANT, MICHAEL CALAMAN,II PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO 2252(d)
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Amos Blank, by and through his counsel, Margolis
Edelstein, to Answer the Cross-claim of Michael Calaman, II, and in support thereof avers the
following:
96. The substantive paragraph of Defendant Blank's Answer with New Matter are
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
97. Admitted.
98. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, in the event judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendant, Amos Blank, then Defendant Blank demands that judgment be further entered against
Defendant, Michael Calaman, II, by way of contribution and/or indemnity in accordance with the
facts of this case and Pennsylvania law.
NEW MATTER IN THE NATURE OF A CROSSCLAIM
1. Plaintiff alleges damages as a function of work performed by Defendants,
Michael Calaman, II, and Amos Blank. Defendant, Michael Calaman, II, prays that in the event
judgment is entered against him, Defendant Blank should be liable over or should be jointly
liable with Defendant Calaman.
2. In the event judgment is entered against Defendant, Amos Blank, liability for
which is denied, it is asserted that Defendant, Michael Calaman, II, is solely liable to Plaintiff, or
is jointly and severally liable with Defendant, Amos Blank, and Defendant, Amos Blanks rights
to contribution and indemnity are now and hereby asserted and preserved.
WHEREFORE, in the event judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendant, Amos Blank, then Defendant Blank demands that judgment be further entered against
Defendant, Michael Calaman, II, by way of contribution and/or indemnity in accordance with the
facts of this case and Pennsylvania law.
R ectfully bmitted,
R O D IN
Date: y
LF E. VSQUIRE
A. Attom y I.D. No. 47243
3510 Trin le Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-8114 Direct: (717) 760-7504
Fax: (717) 975-8124
Email: rkroll&margolisedelstein.com
Attorney for Defendant: Amos Blank
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel
of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class
postage prepaid, on the day of 2013, and addressed as follows:
Drew Deyo, Esquire
50 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Brian O. Williams, Esquire
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
By:
M:\mdir\1 Mutual Benefit\21150.4-00020 Rentschler v.Blank,et al\Pleads\Answer to CrosscWrn.8-16-13.wpd
i