Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-4490 WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013 ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO.04- Q490 CIVIL TERM LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, 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 enteJ1ng 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 of relief requested by the PIllintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAYBE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 ~ E~ Wayne~de, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Plaintiffs WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 170]3 J. ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04- Lf4Qo CIVIL TERM LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT I. Plaintiffs ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL are adult individuals who reside at 53 Old Stone House Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. Defendant LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with offices at 6445 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 3. Defendant RANDY L. LAWRENCE is an adult individual who has, at all times pertinent hereto, been a shareholder, officer, agent, servant or employee of Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc., and who may be served at 6445 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050. 4. On or about February 27,2004, Plaintiffs purchased a 2003 Chevrolet Trailblazer Vehicle No. IGNET16S332173863 frorn Defendants. 5. Plaintiffs' sales representative for the transaction was Defendant Randy L. Lawrence. 6. Plaintiffs financed the transaction with Branch Banking & Trust Company, P.O. Box 1290, Whiteville, North Carolina 28472. 7. The financing was arranged by Defendant Randy L. Lawrence within the scope of his various capacities ~ith Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. 8. Because the transaction was financed with a third party lender, collision and comprehensive insurance coverages were required. 9. At the time of the transaction, Plaintiffs advised Defendant Randy L. Lawrence that their automobile insurance was Policy No. 5837B589746 with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company through the Roy Cook Agency at 67 West Main Street, WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney" L,w Mechanicsburg, Penns" Ivania 17055. 53 West Pomfret Street J Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 -2- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle. Pennsylvania ]70]3 10. At the time of the transaction, Plaintiffs elected both the required collision and comprehensive coverages with deductibles in the amount of $500 each. 11. Defendant Randy L. Lawrence represented to Plaintiffs that he was taking care of communicating the insurance requirements to Plaintiffs' insurance agent. 12. On June 8, 2004. the subject vehicle was involved in a collision with another vehicle, and it sustained damages in the amount of $8,402.17. 13. The original purchase price of the vehicle was $28,621, and the fair market value of the vehicle prior to the collision was in excess of $8,402. I 7. 14. Immediately after the collision, Plaintiff Kathy L. Ansel notified her insurance agent of the collision. 15. The insurance agent advised Plaintiff Kathy L. Ansel that the subject vehicle was not covered by collision insurance. -3- 16. When Plaintiff Kathy L. Ansel was advised that the subject vehicle was not covered by collision insurance, Plaintiffs imrnediately went to Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. and spoke with Defend,mt Randy L. Lawrence. 17. Defendant Randy L. Lawrence told Plaintiffs that he had faxed the insurance requirements to Plaintiffs' insurance agent. 18. In a follow-up telephone conversation with Plaintiff Kathy L. Ansel, Defendant Randy L. Lawrence told Plaintiff Kathy L. Ansel that he was holding the fax cover sheet in his hand as they spoke. 19. After said telephone conversation between Plaintiff Kathy L. Ansel and Defendant Randy L. Lawrence, Plaintiffs, by their attorney, made written request of Defendant Randy L. Lawrence, specifically on August 2, 2004, for transmission verification of a fax from Defendants to the offices of Plaintiffs' insurance agent. 20. Defendants have failed and refused to provide Plaintiffs with verification offax transmission of the required insurance coverages from Defendants to Plaintiffs' insurance WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law agent 53 Wesl Pomfret Street . Carlisle, Pennsylvania ]70]3 -4- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 .I 21. Plaintiffs aver that, when Defendant Randy L. Lawrence represented to Plaintiffs that he would communicate the required insurance coverages to Plaintiffs' insurance agent, his failure to do so constituted negligence which resulted in Plaintiffs' failing to have the required collision insurance coverage at the time of the collision. 22. When Defendant Randy L. Lawrence represented to Plaintiffs that he would communicate the required insurance coverages to Plaintiffs' insurance agent, he knew or should have known thal his failure to communicate the required insurance coverages to Plaintiffs' insurance agent would result in losses to Plaintiffs in the event that the subject vehicle were involved in a collision. 23. As a result of the damages to the vehicle and the inability of Plaintiffs to obtain possession of the vehicle since completion of repairs to the vehicle, Plaintiffs are suffering continuing damages for loss of use of the vehicle. -5- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfrel Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount not in excess of $25,000 plus costs and interest. w~~a~~;'~ Supreme Court No. 15712 S3 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Plaintiffs -6- WAYNE F. SHAOE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, pennsylvania 17013 The statements in the foregoing Complaint are based upon information which has been assembled by my attorney in this litigation. The language of the staternents is not my own. I have read the statements; and to the extent that they are based upon information which I have given to my counsel, they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. er 3, ~~l d.. -Am.oo~ ~h~. A~ (""") Q~';':::. " cr: ;f.,. :: c.") I loL' ;_J LI.J ,~,~ ~.,- 2:: c..') u_ c'; _:j o ~~ <....J oJ /() u ~- ~ .-rO c- --rd \C') -:r- .\,{) o c-6 __ '<q cD :K) t \D:1t ~ 0 V)~ ~ "-1 '~U '--"- Ct- ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 04-4490 CIVIL TERM v. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO: Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary Please enter our appearance and acknowledgment of acceptance of service of a certified copy of the Complaint on behalf of the Defendants in the above-captioned matter. September 13,2004 KEEFER, WOOD, ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP BY~./ D aId . L is, Ill, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald M. Lewis ill, Esquire, one ofthe attorneys for defendants, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper upon counsel of record this date by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, P A 17013 KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP BY~ Dated: October i, 2004 ,.' ~,:;t: i," ,.., '.::;;'~'I :? C) c) M_.I I -(j C) -rl :.? .)... :!,} f\ll""" -T""'t'n :",'::;1 ,~) !.. :~)~.f)1 C.~:B ;<>,-n '':::'\ >" .~:J _..0<-:' <..-) ", r0 ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs No. 04-4490 CNIL TERM v. LA WRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN NAMED PLAINTIFFS: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed anSwer with new matter of defendants Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. and Randy L. Lawrence within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP . BY~ o . ewis III ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiffs No. 04-4490 CNIL TERM v. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, Defendants DEFENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendants Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc., and Randy L. Lawrence (hereinafter "defendants"), through their counsel, Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP, submit the following answer with new matter in response to plaintiffs' complaint, averring as follows: I. Admitted, upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Randy L. Lawrence (the individual defendant) is a shareholder, officer and employee of Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. (the corporate defendant). The averment that the individual defendant is an "agent" or "servant" of the corporate defendant constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 4. Denied as stated. The described vehicle was purchased by plaintiffs from Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. on February 27, 2004. It was not purchased from Randy L. Lawrence. 5. Admitted, with clarification. Randy L. Lawrence was the sales representative for Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. in the transaction. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. Financing for the transaction was arranged through the finance department at Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. 8. Admitted, with clarifieation. Collision and comprehensive insurance coverages were required by the lender to be obtained by plaintiffs, as the borrowers/ purchasers. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied as stated. At the time of the transaction, plaintiffs promised to satisfy the lender's requirements by obtaining comprehensive and collision insurance coverages with deduetibles in the amount of$500 each. 11. Denied. The transmission of information relating to insurance is handled by the finance department at Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. On the date they purchased the subject vehicle, plaintiffs understood that it Was their personal responsibility to verify that comprehensive and collision and insurance coverages for the subject vehicle would be in place beyond any grace period provided under their policy. Plaintiff Kathy Ansel acknowledged to Randy L. Lawrence at the time of purchase that she would need to follow up with plaintiffs' insurance agent. On information and belief, defendants aver that she neglected to do so. Nonetheless, copies of the terms of the transaction, including insurance information, were faxed from Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc., on February 27,2004, to plaintiffs insurance agents at Roy Cook Agency and to Nationwide Insurance Company. 12. Admitted, with clarification. On information and belief, defendants admit that plaintiffs' vehicle was involved in an accident on or about June 8, 2004. Defendants further -2- admit that the vehicle sustained damages. The cost of repairs, at Lawrence Chevrolet's usual and customary rates, was $8,402.17. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit the purchase price of the vehicle was $28,621. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the condition or fair market value of the vehicle prior to the accident and, therefore, deny the remaining averments of this paragraph. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, whieh are, therefore, denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 16. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs spoke with defendant Randy L. Lawrence over the telephone, but did not meet with him in person. Plaintiffs brought the subject vehicle to the body shop at Lawrence Chevrolet and instructed the shop to perform repairs. After reasonable investigation, defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied and proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 17. Denied as stated. Defendant Randy L. Lawrence told the plaintiff\s) that the terms of the transaetion, including plaintiffs' insurance information, were faxed to plaintiffs' insurance agent. By way of further answer, defendants aver that the information was in fact faxed to Roy -3- Cook Agency, plaintiffs insurance agent; and to Nationwide Insurance Company on February 27, 2004, the date plaintiffs purchased the subject vehicle. Defendants aver that any failure to procure collision coverage for plaintiffs' vehicle was the sole fault and responsibility of plaintiffs and possibly their insurance agent, Roy Cook Agency. 18. Denied as stated. Defendant Randy L. Lawrence told plaintiff Kathy L. Ansel that he was holding in his hand copies of the documents that were faxed, on February 27,2004, to plaintiffs' insurance agent. Defendant Randy L. Lawrence did not refer to a "fax cover sheet." 19. Admitted. 20. Denied as stated. Defendants have not refused to provide the requested item, but are unable to provide a transmission verification report for February 27, 2004, because at the time in question, the fax machine at Lawrence Chevrolet was not set to generate such reports. 21. Denied as a legal conclusion with which defendants disagree. By way of further answer, defendants aver that details regarding the transaction, including insurance information, were transmitted to plaintiffs' insurance agent on the date plaintiffs purchased the subject vehicle, but defendants deny they had any obligation to procure collision coverage for plaintiffs. 22. Denied as a legal conelusion with which defendants disagree. By way of further answer, defendants aver that details regarding the transaction, including insurance information, were transmitted to plaintiffs' insurance agent on the date plaintiffs purchased the subject vehicle, but defendants deny they had any obligation to procure .collision coverage for plaintiffs. 23. Denied. Defendants deny any liability for damages allegedly arising from the loss of use of the vehicle because defendants had no obligation to procure comprehensive and/or -4- collision insurance coverage for plaintiffs. By way of further answer, defendants aver that plaintiffs have failed to mitigate any damages allegedly arising from the loss of use of the vehicle. WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint and to enter judgment in defendants' favor, together with costs of suit and such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just. NEW MATTER 24. Defendants incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 23 of this answer with new matter as if fully set forth at this place. 25. The complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted as against defendants. 26. The complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted as against defendant Randy L. Lawrence, whose alleged acts and omissions were committed solely within the course and scope of his employment by Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc. 27. To the extent this action is based on the theory of negligence, it is barred by the economic loss doctrine. 28. Defendants had no duty to obtain collision insurance for plaintiffs. 29. On the date they purchased the subject vehicle, plaintiffs understood and agreed that it was their personal duty and responsibility to verify that comprehensive and collision insurance coverages for the subject vehicle would be obtained by them. -5- 30. Plaintiff Kathy Ansel acknowledged to Randy L. Lawrence at the time ofpurchase that she would need to follow up with plaintiffs' insurance agent to make sure that comprehensive and collision insurance coverages would be in place. On information and belief, defendants aver that she neglected to do so. 31. Copies of the terms of the transaction, including insurance information, were faxed from Lawrence Chevrolet on February 27,2004, to plaintiffs insurance agent at Roy Cook Agency and to Nationwide Insurance Company. 32. Any failure to procure comprehensive and/or collision insurance coverage for plaintiffs' vehicle Was the sole fault and responsibility of plaintiffs and possibly their insurance agent, Roy Cook Agency. 33. The losses allegedly sustained by plaintiffs were caused solely, or were contributed to, by their own negligence, lack of due care, or other fault. The degree of such negligence was equal to or greater than any fault on the part of defendants, which is denied in any event. 34. No act or omission on the part of defendants was the cause, in law or fact, of plaintiffs' alleged damages. 35. In the alternative, if any breach of duty on the part of defendants is found to exist, which is specifically denied, such conduct was not the legal or proximate cause of plaintiffs' alleged damages. 36. To the extent plaintiffs are permitted to state a claim based on the theory of negligence, the action is barred due to plaintiffs' contributory negligence, consisting, inter alia, -6- of plaintiffs' failure to contact their insurance agent on or after the date of purchase, failure to review their insurance policy, failure to add collision coverage to their policy for the subject vehicle, and failure to pay the additional premiums that would have been required for such additional coverage. 37. To the extent plaintiffs are permitted to state a claim based on the theory of negligence, the action is barred because plaintiffs' own negligence constituted an intervening and/or superceding cause. 38. Defendant Lawrence Chevrolet fully complied with its obligation to obtain proof of financial responsibility, as required by 75 Pa. C.S. 9 1318 and 67 Pa. Code ~ 43.5(d), in order that a temporary registration card could be issued to plaintiffs. Defendant Randy L. Lawrence, as an individual employee, had no independent obligation to plaintiffs with respect to their insurance requirements. 39. Plaintiffs, because of their own conduct, including acts and failures to act, are estopped from recovery. 40. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 41. The damages alleged in this action are well within the amount requiring referral to mandatory arbitration under the rules of the Cumberland County Court of COmmon Pleas. -7- WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint and to enter judgment in defendants' favor, together with costs of suit and such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just. Respectfully submitted, KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP Dated: October ~, 2004 By j~Y1.-a'?' ~on dM ewisill I.D. 510 Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr. I.D. # 23702 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1963 717-255-8038 and -8051 Attorneys for defendants -8- O'ct 01 04 01:21p 09/29/04 14: 34 p.1 NO.579 P010/01? YER'FlCATlO!S' The undersigned. RlIIldy L. Lawrence, hereby verifies find slates that: 1. He is Vice President of defendant Lawrence Chevrolet, Inc,; 2. He is authorized to make this verification on its behalf; Knowledge, infonnation. and belief; and 3. The facls set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and com::ct to the best of his Pa.C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unSWorn falsification to authorities. 4. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject 10 the penalties of 18 ~2~ ~andy J.-" rence - Dated: September~, 2004 I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald M. Lewis III, Esquire, one of the attorneys for defendants, hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper upon counsel of record this date by depositing a true and Correct copy of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP ~ By ~ ./ Do. . Lewis III Dated: October L, 2004 -,~ ; Cl --1'\ ---' ~Ef~ -':1 r,11 :"'~"; \-.( (l.:,) ~:': '~i:' ) (~) ;:;~~:'"n :;~ I ,.l.:.:'~ -:-1 (f! ,'~,) N ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-4490 CIVIL TERM LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS ' REPLY TO NEW MATTER Plaintiffs ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, by their attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, submit the following Reply to the New Matter of Defendants: 24. The averments' of,\!,\!l through 23 of the Complaint and Answer, being at issue, no response is required. 25. - 27. The averments' of,\!,\!25-27 inclusive of Defendants' New Matter, being conclusions of law, no response is required. 28. The averments of,\!28 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs aver that, when Defendants undertook to notifY Plaintiffs' insurance agent of the purchase of the subject vehicle and of the specific insurance requirements, they placed themselves under a special obligation to Plaintiffs to follow through with that WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law d ak' 53 West Pomfret Street un ert lng. Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 29. The averments of'\[29 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs aver that, on the date that they purchased the subject vehicle, Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that Defendants were undertaking to notify Plaintiffs' insurance agent of the insurance coverages that were required in connection with Defendants financing for the transaction. 30. The averments of '\[3 0 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs aver that, when Defendants undertook to effect the required insurance coverages, Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon the fact that Defendants would do so. 31. The averments of'\[3 1 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied; and proof thereof is demanded at trial, ifrelevant. 32. The averments of'\[32 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph, which are, therefore, denied; and proof thereof is WAYNE F. SHADE Attomeyat L,w dernanded at trial, if relevant. 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 -2- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 33. The averments' of~33 of Defendants' New Matter, being conclusions oflaw, no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiffs aver that, when Defendants undertook to effect the required insurance coverages, Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon the fact that Defendants would do so. 34. The averments of~34 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs aver that, when Defendants undertook to effect the required insurance coverages, Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon the fact that Defendants would do so. 35. The averments' of~35 of Defendants' New Matter, being conclusions oflaw, no response is required. 36. The averments of~36 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs aver that, when Defendants undertook to effect the required insurance coverages, Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon the fact that Defendants would do so. 37. The averments' of~37 of Defendants' New Matter, being conclusions oflaw, no response is required. -3- WAYNEF. SHAOE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013 38. The averments of~38 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs aver that, when Defendants undertook to effect the required insurance coverages, Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon the fact that Defendants would do so. 39. The averments' of~39 of Defendants' New Matter, being conclusions oflaw, no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiffs aver that, when Defendants undertook to effect the required insurance coverages, Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon the fact that Defendants would do so. 40. The averments of~40 of Defendants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs aver that Defendants would not release their vehicle to them without payment of the repair bills and that they recovered the vehicif: as soon as they were able to obtain the necessary funds to regain possession of the vehide at substantial financial hardship to themselves. 41. Admitted. By way of further response, Plaintiffs aver that their demand for a jury trial is in the event of an unfavorable result in judicial arbitration. -4- WAYNEF.SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendants' New Matter be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants. tt~ ~" Wayne ~de, Esquire - Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Plaintiffs -5- WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 170]3 The statements in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are based upon information which has been assembled by my attorney in this litigation. The language of the statements is not my own. I have read the statements; and to the extent that they are based upon information which I have given to my counsel, they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false staternents herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. dQ~~.~QQ Kat&y L. I WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, Plaintiffs v. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 04-4490 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, do hereby certifY that I have this date served a copy of Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter in the above-captioned rnatter upon Defendants herein by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to thdr counsel of record, Donald M. Lewis, III, Esquire, Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal, LLP, 210 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108. Date: October 21, 2004 ~E~ E~ Wayne . Shade, EsqUire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Plaintiffs r-> c::-, C::J' ,-~) ':-::\1 ~ '-,l c";. ---< ....,.) ---:' 1"") .[":- WAYNEF.SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-4490 CIVIL TERM LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Wayne F. Shade. Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, respectfully represents, as follows: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of Plaintiff in the action is $7,902.17 plus costs and interest. 3. There is no counterclaim. 4. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counselor are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, and Donald M. Lewis, III, :Esquire, and Eugene E. Pepinsky, Jr., Esquire, of Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal, LLP, attorneys for Defendants. WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that your Honorable Court appoint three arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Date: February 8, 2005 ~~~~ Wayne F. hade, EsqUire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Plaintiffs ~)R ~ ~. ~5cJ 1 ~ 0\ ~ t:::J, ~\ ~~'~ '::0"' .-1 ""'\1 :' ~ ~, I',. cO \ c:> . , , -"" - ' r~? (::) -' ~ , WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West PomtTct Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-4490 CIVIL TERM LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT (' AND NOW, .;;c ~ ~ /0 , 2005, i~ consideration of the within Petition,~:U(~~ G'ltttiIL.- ,Esquire, /!/un (& ~ ' 11, it ,;/ Esquire, and /2~d .LJ ~ , Esquire, are appointed as arbitrators in the , above-captioned action. By the Court, JM1rl In. ~~~,' '7 ~ ~ !fl. ;(~ - ~ N ~ - I /' $J\. J)~/oS- 1, i.'.;\ ,....1 {\ ';, -' ;, ~ ~ ;.; In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland kw({II\C;' (A-wVD\~~ .....( Ro.nJ7 k'vJt'1:"Ce.. Defendant County, Pennsylvania No.'Q.!:L- 11 L.j q 0 Civil Action - Law. Oath We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. ~~tk- Si ature ,,,-0 ' ~Ir ' 2$1.(. . ~ho.t\l~ f. d.er-tk. N e (Chairman) Sf" ~~ d\fj , 19nature 58"1 Sll leI> q b ~ Cfi5 Signature 1"'/- 4 'i' - J,{;,tf ::KIC }JA.z.DrZ -<i~ Name 'EllCtt' J Name {;;s IC/fClL/ ,--OS ~P-N Lcw (JF':::-,<E'-'> Law Firm [,41</ /I'??te tJ;:' tA~E r (;;rt/'ilt-L,p5 Law Firm tal W,~"thev s+. Address n IN,,:> +- ~h. Q-."<2.er- Address /0 E, LCI./TItCfl. ST , (.f( /lJ''''1l.. Address Grkj)e, , PA City, ' 110(3 Zip co\ \ \~(p..... eo City, . Zip nCJ /'<;' tIf/2vJ t.t; fr1 City, ' Zip J/ It, 717 /t-tJl.]> "/050'1 Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) ;:Of!r#iO' f?L/l/A/1/;Ct=^ /,1/ Tif'!; /QutJl/,Vt 0;:- 11 ~dOC! . .-.E..-_ . Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if applieable.) Date of Hearing: S/zb/o5 Date of Award: 'i/ulbs (Chairman) Notice of Entry of Award Now,the .}t" (f dayof 7k.~ ,20 05 ,at 1;/2.. , P .M.,theaboveawardwas entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ ;2 'ftJ.I.J-<! By: Deputy othonotary -1',21.,..05 {Yt.~ ~ & ~ tuWA ,~. tvcu/,,-<-:f S~, &, ""~ " --h ::~J ,",,", '.:~ "', r",) WAYNEF.SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ROBERT M. ANSEL, JR. and KATHY L. ANSEL, Plaintiffs v. LAWRENCE CHEVROLET, INC., and RANDY L. LAWRENCE, Defendants TO: Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 04-4490 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please mark the docket in the above-captioned matter "Settled and Discontinued" with costs to the Plaintiffs. Date: June 27, 2005 ~~ ~!~ Wayn~ F. Shade, Esquire Attoffil~Y for Plaintiffs (') r::', ~, c:? l."~ GJ' ;~r .....' -l ~, ~- ...!. <;j?, --' ::(...., 1'''\1'..:.:'' -'1 CD ~{), <-) ~;::;:' :,:;\i'\ ;::::,\ "'.. ?1 - r:-:? \'-) J:::+