Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-9129r ,LED-OFFICE ;C T Ir PPOTHONOTAR• AUSTIN, BOLAND, CONNOR & GIORGI By Clemson N. Page, Jr., Esquire Attorney ID 25616 44 North Sixth Street P.O. Box 8521 Reading, PA 19603 [610] 374-8211 Fax [610] 372-2361 E-mail: cnpage@abcglaw.com 2012 JAN _9 pM 1: 35 Attorney for PlaintifEUMRERLAND COUNTY File No. L00014-0006 PENNSYLVANIA SECCO, INC., vs. ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiff, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 11-9129 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -- LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant Advanced Geothermal Technology, and designate the address set forth above the caption for service of all pleadings, notices, correspondence and other papers filed in connection with this action. Dated: January 6, 2012. AUSTIN, BO By , CONNOR & GIORGI age, JP., Esquire For 00052097/ SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor OFF 1- =F rot r?-? Ir''r r z" ?''` 10 PM 4' .10 C .," U;1%C COWITY Secco, Inc. vs. Advanced Geothermal Technology Case Number 2011-9129 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 12/12/2011 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: Advanced Geothermal Technology, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of Berks County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 12/20/2011 10:40 AM - Berks County Return: And now December 20, 2011 at 1040 hours I, Eric J. Waknecht, Sheriff of Berks 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: Advanced Geothermal Technology by making known unto Don Creyts, adult in charge for Advanced Geothermal Technology at 1206 Carbon Street, Reading, Pennsylvania 19601 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $37.00 January 05, 2012 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF .1 Coup.*y Suan Sheriff. TESies? if ir; Y. 7 R ? * COUP COUNTY OF BERKS, PENNSYLVANIA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Courthouse- 3rd Floor Phone: 610.478.6240 633 Court Street Fax: 610.478.6222 Reading, PA 19601 Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff Anthony Damore, Chief Deputy AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE DOCKET NO. 11-9129 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF BERKS Personally appeared before me, Michael Gring, Deputy for Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff of Berks County, 633 Court Street, Reading, Pennsylania, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that on 12/20/2011 10:40:OOAM, he served the annexed COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION upon ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY, within named defendant, by handing a copy thereof to DON CREYTS, Person In Charge/, at 1206 CARBON STREET, City of Reading, Berks County, Pa., and made known to defendant the contents thereof. . V DEPUTY SHERIFF Off' BERKS COUNTY., PA Sworn and subscribed before me Michael Gring t s 2 day of c, 2011 ? ?? d ? A NOTARY PUBL , READING, BERKS CO., PA Services made as set forth above NOTARIAL SEAL REC ,A OXENREIDER MADRIG CIV Ilea pimic MM r?lon PAM rob 22# 2012 Sheriffs Costs in Above Proceedings $ 100.00 DEPOSIT $ 29.55 ACTUAL COST OF CASE $ 70.45 AMOUNT OF REFUND So Answers, SHERIF OF BERKS COUNTY, PA Eric J. Weaknecht All Sheriffs Costs shall be due and payable when services are performed, and it shall be lawful for him to demand and receive from the party instituting the proceedings, or any part liable for the costs thereof, all unpaid sheriffs fees on the same before he shall be obligated by law to make return thereof. _Sec. 2, Act of June 20, 1911, P.L/ 1072 Dedicated to public service with integrity, virtue & excellence www.countvofberks.com/sheriff C 2 12 3 VA". 23 F?+ 2' 06 ngssYLVANIA AUSTIN, BOLAND, CONNOR & GIORGI By Clemson N. Page, Jr., Esquire Attorney ID 25616 44 North Sixth Street P.O. Box 8521 Reading, PA. 19603 [610] 374-8211 Fax [610] 372-2361 E-mail: cnpage@abcglaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff File No. L00014-007 SECCO, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY, No. 11-9129 Civil Term Defendant. : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW NOTICE This pleading contains New Matter, including New Matter in the nature of affirmative defenses against the Plaintiffs claim. If you wish to defend against the statements set forth under the heading of New Matter, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this pleading and notice are served, by filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the matters stated therein. 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 with only such further notice as may be required by law, for any claim or relief requested by the 00052097/ -i- answering defendant. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (800) 990-9108 Or (717) 249-3166 00052097/ -ii- AUSTIN, BOLAND, CONNOR & GIORGI By Clemson N. Page, Jr., Esquire Attorney ID 25616 Attorney for Plaintiff 44 North Sixth Street File No. 1,00014-007 P.O. Box 8521 Reading, PA. 19603 [610] 374-8211 Fax [610] 372-2361 E-mail: cnpage@abcglaw.com SECCO, INC., vs. ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY, No. 11-9129 Civil Term IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Defendant. CIVIL ACTION -- LAW ANSWER BY ITS undersigned attorneys, Defendant Advanced Geothermal Technology responds as follows to the Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Admitted in part; denied in part. The Defendant admits only that the Plaintiff's Complaint speaks for itself as to the damages claimed. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the Plaintiff s allegation that it owes any damages to the Plaintiff; to the contrary, the Defendant fulfilled all of its undertakings as to the Plaintiff, and no damages are owed. 2. Admitted, upon information and belief. 3. Denied as stated. To the contrary, "Advanced Geothermal Technology" 00052097/ -1- is a registered fictitious business name owned by ECR Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation whose address is as stated in the Complaint. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. The Defendant admits SECCO is a plumbing, HVAC and electrical contractor. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegations regarding the Plaintiff's service area and that the Plaintiff is "well-established." Those allegations are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 5. The Defendant admits only that the Plaintiff's Exhibit A, if and when properly produced, authenticated and placed in evidence, will speak for itself as to its contents and legal significance, if any. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted only that the Defendant and the Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff would purchase, install and modify the indoor air handler unit for the System, as defined in the Complaint. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. After reasonable information, and because the means of proof are within the Plaintiff's control, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation regarding the cost of installing the indoor air handler unit and the implication that the indoor air handler unit was properly installed. Those allegations are therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation that the air handler unit which the Plaintiff procured and installed "cannot be utilized on any other system." Strict proof is demanded, if relevant. -2- 00052097/ 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation that the air handler unit which the Plaintiff procured and installed was installed "properly." Strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 13. Denied. The Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendant "expressly approved the site and SECCO's installation of the System." is denied as stated. To the contrary, the Defendant inspected and approved the site for installation of the ground loop field; the Defendant made no formal inspection of, and issued no "express" approval of, the Plaintiff's procurement, installation and other work performed in connection with its part of the installation of the System. 14. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that the portion of the System for which the Defendant was responsible "failed to perform as intended and promised." To the contrary, after making corrections indicated by conditions at the site, the Defendant tested the exterior loop portion of the System, and that portion of the System tested satisfactorily and as promised. 15. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that "while in the heat mode, the System failed to adequately heat the home, had a low temperature rise on the indoor coil and had abnormal operating pressures." To the contrary, after making corrections indicated by conditions at the site, the Defendant tested the exterior loop portion of the System, and that portion of the System tested satisfactorily and as promised. 16. The Defendant admits that, because of conditions beyond its control, including but not limited to the abnormally low seasonal rainfall and abnormally high average daily temperatures at the time the exterior ground loop was installed, the cooling mode of the System did not perform satisfactorily. By way of further answer, the Defendant at its own expense modified the exterior ground loop system to correct this deficiency, then tested it and found the operation satisfactory. 17. The Defendant admits that, because of the abnormally low seasonal rainfall and abnormally high average daily temperatures at the time the exterior ground loop was installed, water had to be injected into the exterior ground loop 00052097/ -3- system. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 18. Denied. Because the interior portion of the System was the responsibility of the Plaintiff, not the Defendant, the Defendant specifically denies liability for the malfunction alleged in the Plaintiff's paragraph 18. By way of further answer, nevertheless, the Defendant suggested certain electrical modifications to address and possibly correct the alleged malfunction, but the Plaintiff did not respond to that suggestion. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 19; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 20; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 21. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 22. Denied as stated. The Defendant admits only that, to rectify problems with the exterior ground loop field, the Defendant returned to the site several times to make changes to the exterior ground loop field, which changes were satisfactorily and correctly made. The remainder of the Plaintiff's paragraph 22 is specifically denied as untrue. 23. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that the Defendant "failed to rectify the deficiencies with the System." To the contrary, 00052097/ -4- the Defendant successfully corrected the problems with the exterior ground loop field. The Defendant was not responsible for curing all defects with the System. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 24. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that it "recommended certain repairs which SECCO performed at AGT's direction." To the contrary, the Defendant supplied certain parts which the Plaintiff installed as part of its own contractual undertaking to its customers. 25. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Defendant supplied the alleged parts in compliance with its limited warranty to the end-users of the System. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 26; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 27. Denied. It is specifically denied as untrue that the Defendant "promised" it would "reimburse" the Plaintiff's costs of repairing defects in the portion of the System which was the Plaintiff's responsibility. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 28; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 29; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. The Defendant has no 00052097/ -5- record of having made any payment in response to the invoice alleged in the Plaintiff's paragraph 28. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 30; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 31; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 32; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 33; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 34; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 35; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation made in the Plaintiff's paragraph 36; that allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or 00052097/ -6- deny the allegations made in subparagraphsa through f of Plaintiff's paragraph 37; those allegations are specifically denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 38. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation set forth in the Plaintiff's paragraph 38. To the contrary, the Defendant asserts it has no liability to the Plaintiff whatsoever. 39. Admitted in part; denied in part. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue and. in any event as a conclusion of law the allegation that any sum whatsoever is "due" from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Defendant admits it has not made any payment to the Plaintiff. 40. Denied as conclusions of law, to which no response is required. Any factual content of the Plaintiff's paragraph 40 is specifically denied as untrue. Count I - Breach of Contract 41. The Defendant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 41 above, as if set forth here in full. 42. The Plaintiff's paragraph 42 states a conclusion of law, requiring no response. Accordingly, it is deemed denied. 43. The Plaintiff's paragraph 43 states a conclusion of law, requiring no response. Accordingly, it is deemed denied. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 44. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that it failed to provide the Plaintiff with "an operable System." To the contrary, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which, together with supplying the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. 00052097/ -7- 45. The Plaintiff's paragraph 45 states a conclusion of law, requiring no response. Accordingly, it is deemed denied. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 46. The allegation that the Defendant "materially breached the terms of the Contract" is a conclusion of law, requiring no answer. Accordingly, it is deemed denied. By way of further response, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 47. The allegation that the Defendant "breached" an alleged "Contract" is a conclusion of law, requiring no answer. Accordingly, it is deemed denied. After reasonable investigation, and in any event because the means of proof are within the control of the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the Plaintiff's allegation as to damages; that allegation is therefore denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further response, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court either dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, or enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff, in either case taxing all costs to the Plaintiff and granting such other and further relief as may appear warranted under the circumstances. Count II - Promissory Estoppel 48. The Defendant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 47 above, to the extent relevant, as if set forth here in full. 00052097i -8- 49. Denied as stated. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that its remedial efforts at the site constituted an "attempt" to make repairs. To the contrary, the Defendant at its own expense made corrections necessitated by the conditions at the site (including the unusually dry weather and the unusually high average daily temperatures), and then tested those repairs and found the exterior ground loop to be operating satisfactorily as a result of those repairs. 50. Denied. The Defendant incorporates paragraph 24 above, as if set forth here in full. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 51. Denied. The Defendant incorporates paragraph 27 above, as if set forth here in full. 52. Denied. Because the Defendant has specifically denied the allegation that it made a "promise" to the Plaintiff as alleged, it follows that the Defendant specifically denies as untrue that the Plaintiff "reasonably expected" any action or utterance on the Defendant's part "would induce" any actions on the part of the Plaintiff. In any event, the allegation constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no response, and is deemed denied. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 53. Denied. Because the Defendant has specifically denied the allegation that it made a "promise" to the Plaintiff as alleged, it follows that the Defendant specifically denies as untrue that the Plaintiff "acted by making the recommended repairs" in reliance upon any action or utterance on the Defendant's part. In any event, the allegation constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no response, and is deemed denied. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 54. The Plaintiff's paragraph 54 states a conclusion of law, requiring no response. .Accordingly, it is deemed denied. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 00052097i -9- 55. After reasonable investigation, and in any event because the means of proof are within the control of the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the Plaintiff's allegation as to damages; that allegation is therefore denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further response, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which, together with supplying the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking, and entitles the Plaintiff to no relief under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court either dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, or enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff, in either case taxing all costs to the Plaintiff and granting such other and further relief as may appear warranted under the circumstances. Count III - Breach of Express Warranty 56. The Defendant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 55 above, to the extent relevant, as if set forth here in full. 57. The Plaintiff's paragraph 57 contains a citation and conclusion of law, requiring no answer. Accordingly, it is deemed denied. 58. Denied as stated. The Defendant's Limited Warranty is intended for the benefit of the end-user of the System, not for the benefit of the Plaintiff as general contractor. In any event, the Defendant's Limited Warranty speaks for itself, and the Plaintiff's selective quotation is specifically denied in its limited context. 59. Denied. It is specifically denied as untrue that the Defendant "expressly affirmed" to the Plaintiff "that the System would be operable and would save the end user money in heating and cooling costs." To the contrary, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was 00052097/ -10- the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking to the Plaintiff. By way of further answer, the assertions under New Matter below are incorporated by reference as if set forth in. full. 60. Denied. Any representations made by the Defendant on its web site, if and when properly produced, authenticated and entered into evidence, will speak for themselves as to their contents and legal significance, if any. 61. Denied as a conclusion of law and for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 58 and 59 above. The allegation that the alleged affirmations "became part of the basis of the bargain" between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no answer; that allegation is therefore deemed denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny what considerations "induced" the Plaintiff to enter into its dealings with the Defendant. 62. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that "the System did not perform as promised" by the Defendant. To the contrary, (a) the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking, and (b) the Defendant's Limited Warranty was intended for the benefit of the end-users of the System, not the Plaintiff as general contractor. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 63. Denied. The allegation that the Defendant "breached" its "express warranty" constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no answer; it is therefore deemed denied. The allegation that the Defendant "failed to provide a product which was operable" is specifically denied as untrue. To the contrary, (a) the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking, and (b) the Defendant's Limited Warranty was intended for the benefit of the end-users of the System, not the Plaintiff as general contractor. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 00052097i - ll - 64. Denied. The allegation that the Defendant "breached" its "express warranty" constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no answer; it is therefore deemed denied. The allegation that the Defendant failed to make repairs in accordance with its Limited Warranty is specifically denied as untrue. To the contrary, (a) the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking, and (b) the Defendant's Limited Warranty was intended for the benefit of the end-users of the System, not the Plaintiff as general contractor. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 65. After reasonable investigation, and in any event because the means of proof are within the control of the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the Plaintiff s allegations as to contacts with the Defendant; that allegation is therefore denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. 66. Denied. After reasonable investigation, and in any event because the means of proof are within the control of the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the Plaintiffs allegation as to damages; that allegation is therefore denied and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. The allegation that the Plaintiff is entitled to damages from the Defendant constitutes a conclusion of law requiring no answer and is deemed denied. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court either dismiss the Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice, or enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff, in either case taxing all costs to the Plaintiff and granting such other and further relief as may appear warranted under the circumstances. Count IV - Warranty of Merchantability 67. The Defendant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 66 above, to the 00052097/ -12- extent relevant, as if set forth here in full. 68. The allegations set forth in the Plaintiff's paragraph 68 constitute conclusions of law, requiring no answer; accordingly, they are deemed denied. To the extent the subject paragraph alleges any factual content, it is specifically denied as untrue. To the contrary, in accordance with its undertaking to the Plaintiff, the Defendant delivered the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and installed, tested, corrected and re-tested the exterior ground loop assembly, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 69. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation that "the System did not properly heat and cool the home at which it was installed"; that allegation, therefore, is denied, and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further response, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 70. Denied as stated. The Defendant admits only it supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operableexterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 71. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that it "recommended" certain repairs to the System. To the contrary, the Defendant supplied certain parts in response to an order from the Plaintiff for those parts. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation that the Plaintiff actually "performed certain repairs to the System"; that allegation, therefore, is denied, and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further response, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior 00052097/ -13- ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 72. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation that the "System never performed is functions" for which the Plaintiff purchased it; that allegation, therefore, is denied, and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that the Defendant "attempted" to "remedy the defective System"; to the contrary, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operablwxterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 73. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant cannot admit or deny the allegation set forth in the Plaintiff's paragraph 73; that allegation, therefore, is denied, and strict proof is demanded, if relevant. By way of further response, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 74. Admitted in part; denied in part. The Defendant admits that it has not accepted any return of the "System," nor has it tendered any refund to the Plaintiff. By way of further response, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 75. Denied. The allegation that the Defendant has breached the implied warranty of merchantability constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no answer; that allegation is therefore deemed denied. The suggestion that the ground loop assembly (which, together with supplying certain items of equipment ordered by the Plaintiff, was the sole extent of the Defendant's responsibility) "could not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description" is specifically denied 00052097/ -14- as untrue. To the contrary, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 76. Denied. The allegation that the Defendant "breached" the implied warranty of merchantability constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no answer; that allegation is therefore deemed denied. The suggestion that the ground loop assembly (which, together with supplying certain items of equipment ordered by the Plaintiff, was the sole extent of the Defendant's responsibility) was the cause of any "damages" to the Plaintiff is specifically denied as untrue. To the contrary, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court either dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, or enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff, in either case taxing all costs to the Plaintiff and granting such other and further relief as may appear warranted under the circumstances. Count V - Fitness for Particular Purpose. 77. The Defendant incorporates paragraphs 1 through 76 above, to the extent relevant, as if set forth here in full. 78. Admitted in part; denied in part. The allegation that the Defendant "had reason to know the particular purpose for which the System was required" constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no answer; accordingly, it is deemed denied. The Defendant admits it is in the business of supplying, installing and servicing geothermal home heating and cooling systems. By way of further response, the Defendant incorporates by reference the assertions set forth in New Matter below. 00052097/ -15- 79. Admitted in part; denied in part. The Defendants admits it has supplied equipment and services to the Plaintiff in the past. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that it "knew the expectations" of the Plaintiff and its customers. To the contrary, in this case, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the responsibility of the Plaintiff, not the Defendant. 80. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies as untrue the allegation that the Plaintiff "relied upon the skill and judgment" of the Defendant "to furnish a suitable System" as alleged. To the contrary, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. Any reliance by the Plaintiff upon the Defendant with regard to the "System", as opposed to the items of equipment and the ground loop assembly as components of the "System," was misplaced. 81. Denied. The allegation that "there exists an implied warranty" that the goods and services which the Defendant provided "shall be fit for [the intended] purpose" constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no answer; that allegation is therefore deemed denied. The suggestion that the ground loop assembly (which, together with supplying the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, was the sole extent of the Defendant's responsibility) was the cause of any breach of warranty to the Plaintiff is specifically denied as untrue. To the contrary, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 82. Denied. The allegation that "there exists an implied warranty" that the goods and services which the Defendant provided "shall be fit for [the intended] purpose" constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no answer; that allegation is 00052097i -16- therefore deemed denied. The suggestion that the ground loop assembly (which, together with supplying the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, was the sole extent. of the Defendant's responsibility) was the cause of any breach of warranty to the Plaintiff is specifically denied as untrue. To the contrary, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operable exterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 83. Denied. The allegation that the Defendant "breached" the alleged implied warranty constitutes a conclusion of law, requiring no answer; that allegation is therefore deemed denied. The suggestion that the ground loop assembly (which, together with supplying the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, was the sole extent of the Defendant's responsibility) was the cause of any "damages" to the Plaintiff is specifically denied as untrue. To the contrary, the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with the items of equipment which the Plaintiff ordered, and with a tested, corrected and ultimately operablwxterior ground loop, which was the full extent of the Defendant's undertaking. Correct functioning of the "System" was the Plaintiff's responsibility. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court either dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, or enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff, in either case taxing all costs to the Plaintiff and granting such other and further relief as may appear warranted under the circumstances. NEW MATTER By way of further answer and defense, the Defendant asserts that: 1. All of the defensive material set forth in the previous 83 numbered paragraphs is incorporated herein, as if set forth in full. 2. Attached hereto, collectively marked Exhibit 1 and incorporated by -17- 00052097/ reference are accurate copies of: (A) The Defendant's contract proposal to the Defendant dated March 20, 2009; (B) The Defendant's Terms and Conditions for Field Installation with Rock Drilling Equipment, and (C) The Defendant's Terms and Conditions for Equipment. 3. The items attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are deemed integral parts of the Defendant's understanding of its responsibilities to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff either expressly or implicitly accepted the terms and conditions stated by the Defendant as set forth in Exhibit 1, which constitutes the complete extent of the Defendant's undertaking with respect to the matters stated therein. 4. The Plaintiff determined its requirements for the System, and in its capacity as general contractor communicated those requirements to the Defendant as subcontractor in the form of the purchase order attached to the Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit A. 5. The Defendant supplied to the Plaintiff the items of equipment listed on Plaintiff's Exhibit A. 6. The items of equipment which the Defendant supplied in response to the purchase order it received from the Plaintiff exactly met the Plaintiff's requirements as expressed in writing to the Defendant, according to the Plaintiff's Exhibit A. 7. At all times relevant hereto, the parties understood that, in addition to supplying the items of equipment specified by the Plaintiff, the Defendant would install, test, correct (if necessary) and re-test (if necessary) the exterior ground loop assembly, as the Plaintiff has defined it in its Complaint, subject to the matters stated in the Defendant's Terms. 8. The Defendant properly installed, tested, corrected and re-tested the 00052097i -18- exterior ground loop assembly. 9. Upon completion by the Defendant of its work on the ground loop assembly, that portion of the System (as the Plaintiff has defined it) had been tested and was functioning as designed and intended. 10. In addition, the Defendant, at the Plaintiff's request, provided certain additional parts for installation in the interior portion of the System, which installation was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 11. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant provided materials, labor and corrective services in a workmanlike fashion and in strict accordance with its agreed undertakings to the Plaintiff. 12. Any deficiencies in the operation of the System (as opposed to the exterior ground loop assembly) are properly chargeable to the Plaintiff, not to the Defendant. 13. As the contractor dealing with the end-users of the System, the Plaintiff had the primary duty to install the System so that it would operate in accordance with its intended purpose and in compliance with all warranties and standards of workmanship. 14. For purposes of the Defendant's Limited Warranty, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B to the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff was deemed a "factory authorized service representative" and owed a duty to its customers to install its portion of the System in such a way that it would function in accordance with its intended purpose. 15. The Defendant's Limited Warranty, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B to the Plaintiff's Complaint, was intended for the benefit of the end-users of the System, not for the benefit of the Plaintiff as the installing contractor. 16. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 00052097/ -19- 17. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver. 18. The Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 19. The Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of performance. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court either: (a) dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice; (b) enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff, or (c) after such evidentiary proceedings and findings of fact as may appear warranted, apportion whatever damages may be shown to have been sustained between the parties as equity and justice may dictate. In addition, the Defendant requests such other and further relief as may appear just and equitable, and that the costs of this action be taxed to the Plaintiff. Dated: January, 2012. AUSTIN, BO ND, CONNOR & GIORGI By. Clemson e, Jr., squire For Defendant. 00052097/ -20- Exhibit 1 January 20, 2012 (3 pages) A DVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY by ECR Industries, Inc. makers of The Great Aire Comfort System' P.O. BOX 6469, READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19610 610-736-0570 • 610-796-1450 • Fax 610-736-0571 • www.advgeo.com March 20, 2009 Secco Home Services Mr. Brian Suchy 1111 Primrose Ave Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dear Brian: We are pleased to provide a quote for a 2.5 Ton System. Qty Model No. Ratins (Btuthr) Earth Taps Price 1 GC-30-3ZK0-NW 38,000 5 $10,663.00 Each system comes with a compressor assembly, earth taps & manifolds. We will be responsible for installing the earth taps and back filling the holes with sand. We will connect the manifolds to the earth taps and run the line sets (45 feet max.) up to the building and pressure test them. We will cover the manifolds and line sets with sand and rough grade the area. Additional details are co d Terms and Conditions. We offer a HOT WATER OPTION for an addi ' nal $1,910.00. yes It is our understanding that the geology in the area is primarily rock with a minimum of overburden. We will therefore be bringing our rock drill to the site to drill the holes for the earth taps. We understand that you will be responsible for all interior equipment and services including setting and hookup of the compressor assembly, final pressure test, evacuation, charging, and startup. We will provide technical support for the installation & startup of our portion of the HVAC System- Sincerely, Rick Rohall 4 ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY by ECR Industries, Inc. makers of The Great Aire Comfort SysterW ' P.O. BOX 6469, READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19610 610-736-0570 • 610-796-1450 • Fax 610-736-0571 • www.advgeo.com Terms and Conditions for Equipment 1. To keep prices as low as possible, all prices quoted are based on a COD/FOB Factory basis and are subject to change with out notice. 2. Equipment includes the Compressor Assembly, Earth Taps, and the two Manifolds plus the Full Condensing Hot Water Assembly or the Desuperheater Water Heating Assembly Option, if ordered. 3. The Hot Water Assembly (WH) water heating option includes a circulator and a full condensing refrigerant/water heat exchanger, and requires the matching compressor assembly (WH). 4. The Desuperheater Assembly (DW) water heating option includes a circulator, a desuperheating refrigerant/water heat exchanger, and requires the matching compressor assembly (DW). 5. All factory warranties are based on qualified personnel performing all aspects of the installation and servicing of the Great Aire Comfort SystemTM in accordance with the appropriate requirements and specifications and are void if the System is not so installed or serviced. Qualifications, requirements, and specifications are determined by ECR Industries, Inc. 6. The Buyer is responsible for the payment of all taxes and any costs incurred as a consequence of the proper taxes not being paid. 7. All equipment is sold subject to the Limited Warranty in effect at the time of shipment of the equipment. In general, all labor warranty expense is for the account of the Selling Contractor and should be factored into the selling price. ECR Industries, Inc. will provided (free of charge) replacement parts for any parts that are determined by ECR Industries, Inc. to be defective. Any warranty expense that is for the account of ECR Industries, Inc, must be approved by ECR Industries, Inc., in writing, prior to it being incurred. 8. Payment of all invoices is due on receipt of the invoice. All invoices are subject to a 1.5% service charge per month after 15 days ($5.00 minimum) and subject to all reasonable collection costs after 45 days. 9. Annual Average Performance Characteristics are based on mean earth temperature of 530F and air temperatures of 70OF return/300F rise in heating mode and 750F return/15017 drop in cooling mode. The System must be sized to the larger of either 1) the heat loss calculated in accordance with ACCA Manual J plus IOoF or 2) the heat gain calculated in accordance with ACCA Manual J. Lower earth temperatures decrease heating capacity and seasonal COP and increase cooling capacity and seasonal EER. Higher earth temperatures increase heating capacity and seasonal COP and decrease cooling capacity and seasonal EER. 10. As an option, a Full Condensing Hot Water Assembly is available with a COP of 0.5 less than heating seasonal COP and a capacity of 10% less than the heating capacity. This hot water heating system is limited to a maximum refrigerant discharge pressure of 350 psig which limits bulk water tank temperature to slightly less than 120F. If the Full Condensing Hot Water Assembly option is selected, the System must be sized to the larger of either 1) the heat loss calculated in accordance with ACCA Manual J or 2) the heat gain calculated in accordance with ACCA Manual J. 11. Note that the Desuperheater Assembly Hot Water Heating Option will reduce refrigerant temperatures to the air handler in the heating mode and thus reduce supply air temperatures. Also note that the desuperheater option only works when the compressor assembly is operating either in the heating or cooling mode. Copyright 0 2006 ECR Industries, Inc. Rev 061208 w ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY by ECR Industries, Inc. makers of The Great Aire Comfort System' P.O. BOX 6469, READING, PENNSYLVANIA 19610 610-736-0570 • 610-796-1450 • Fax 610-736-0571 • www.advgeo.com Terms and Conditions for Field Installation with Rock Drilling Equipment A. The quoted price is based upon expected ground conditions in the drilling, trenching and manifold pit area. If ground conditions are not as expected and require the use of additional materials, equipment and/or labor, this additional work will be performed on a time and material basis. Some examples of unexpected ground conditions are substantial water requiring casing and/or erosion and sedimentation control, large surface/subsurface rocks, tree roots, or frozen ground in the drilling, trenching and manifold pit areas, areas that have been previously backfilled, unstable soils, foreign material, voids, and clay. B. Because site specific geological data is not available, the Seller's price is based on an average rock drilling time of one (1) hour per earth tap. Drilling time in excess of this estimate will be billed at a rate of $225.00 per hour. The Seller's price is also based on assumed geological and installation conditions permitting the use of a small backhoe/trencher with a maximum operating time of three (3) hours per system. Additional time required to use the backhoe/trencher will be billed at the rate of $100.00 per hour. C. Drilling activities generally result in the production of dust, water, and/or mud. The Buyer is responsible for any required cleanup of the resulting dust, water, and/or mud. D. On occasion, geological conditions will dictate installation of the earth taps in a manner different than originally planned. The Buyer will be notified of any change and the reason. All changes are at the discretion of the Seller's site manager. E. The maximum trench length is 45 feet due to the use of a 50-foot line set. Longer lines will be installed at additional cost. Setting of the compressor assembly and any penetrations through walls are the responsibility of the Buyer. F. All disturbed earth will be rough graded. Final grading, seeding, etc., is the responsibility of the Buyer. Disposal of any excess earth, rocks, tree roots, foreign material, etc. is also the Buyer's responsibility. G. All schedules are best estimates and are subject to modification due to inclement weather, unexpected geological conditions, subcontractor performance or other conditions beyond the Seller's control. H. Due to safety considerations, only working personnel are allowed in the work site area, and they shall not be disturbed during the course of their work. 1. Buyer will provide the Seller with clear and unencumbered access to all work areas. Water and electricity are required by the Seller and are to be supplied on site by the Buyer. J. The Buyer is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and the costs incurred for those permits or any costs incurred as a consequence of the proper permits not being obtained. The Buyer is also responsible for the payment of all taxes and any costs incurred as a consequence of the proper taxes not being paid. K. A Site Location form must be signed by the property owner and be in the possession of the Seller prior to the Seller commencing any work on the site. Also, rough grade must be established by the Buyer prior to the start of site work by the Seller. L. With certain types of soil, generally clay, a watering system may need to be installed to keep refrigerant discharge pressures at a reasonable level during the cooling season. Also with certain types of soil, primarily acidic soils, a corrosion protection system may need to be installed. If required, either system will be installed on a time and materials basis. M. On rare occasion, underground conditions will be such that there is no economical way to drill and install the earth taps. If these conditions are determined by the Seller to exist, then the Seller, at his option, may terminate any agreement requiring installation of the earth taps. Copyright 2005 ECR Inch., tries, Inc. Rev 051218 f (SECCO v. ECR (AGT) L00014-007) VERIFICATION I, Don S. Creyts, Jr., hereby verify that I am President of ECR Industries, Inc., owner of the entity which conducts business in Pennsylvania as Advanced Geothermal Systems, named as Defendant in the foregoing pleading, and that in my capacity as such officer I am authorized to make this Verification on the Defendant's behalf. I have read the foregoing pleading. The facts stated therein are true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge information and belief. I make this verification subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904, which penalizes unsworn falsifications to authorities. Dated: January, 2012. For ECR Industrie Inc. t/d/b/a Advanced Geothermal ',- t , Defendant. it AUSTIN, BOLAND, CONNOR & GIORGI By Clemson N. Page, Jr., Esquire Attorney ID 25616 Attorney for Plaintiff 44 North Sixth Street File No. L00014-007 P.O. Box 8521 Reading, PA 19603 [610] 374-8211 Fax [610] 372-2361 E-mail: cnpage@abcglaw.com SECCO, INC'., vs. ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 11-9129 Civil Term Defendant. CIVIL ACTION -- LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I served true and correct copies of the Plaintiff's Answer with New Matter upon the party named below, by placing the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows, on January 20, 2012: Timothy J. Woolford, Esquire Woolford Law, P.C. Wheatland Place 941 Wheatland Avenue, Suite 402 Lancaster, PA 17603 And via fax to 717-290-1196 Dated: January 20, 2012. WOOLFORD LAW, P.C. a iE PROTHONOTARY By: Timothy J. Woolford, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78941 4812 FEB _ g AM 4p: 01 Wheatland Place 941 Wheatland Avenue, Suite 402 CUMBERLAND 8@MVror Plaintiff, Lancaster, PA 17603 t3 C sJ Y LINO, Inc. SECCO, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. No. 11-9129 ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff SECCO, Inc. ("SECCO"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Woolford Law, P.C., who hereby files this Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Advanced Geothermal Technology ("AGT") 1. Paragraph 1 is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, SECCO hereby incorporates its Complaint by reference as if set forth fully herein. 2. Denied. The written documents referenced in Paragraph 2 speak for themselves and, therefore, the averments in this paragraph are denied. 3. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 3 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary and is therefore deemed denied. 4. Denied. The parties' contract, as a written document, speaks for itself and, therefore, the averments in this paragraph are denied. 5. Admitted with clarification. It is admitted that Defendant supplied equipment to SECCO, however, any inference that the equipment was installed correctly is specifically denied. I 6. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 6 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary and is therefore deemed denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff incorporates its response to Paragraph 5 as if set forth fully herein. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant was required to supply equipment and install, test, correct (if necessary) and re-test (if necessary) the exterior ground loop assembly. The remaining averments in this paragraph are deemed denied. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant properly installed, tested, corrected and re-tested the exterior ground loop assembly. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that the ground loop assembly functioned as designed and intended. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant, at the Plaintiffs request, provided certain additional parts for installation in the interior portion of the System, which installation was the Plaintiff's responsibility. 11. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 11 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary and is therefore deemed denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Defendant provided materials, labor and corrective services in a workmanlike fashion and in strict accordance with its contract with Plaintiff. 12. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 12 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary and is therefore deemed denied. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that any deficiencies in the operation of the System are the responsibility of SECCO. 13. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 13 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary and is therefore deemed denied. 2 14. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 14 refers to a writing which speaks for itself and is therefore deemed denied. 15. Denied. The Limited Warranty, as a written document, speaks for itself and, therefore, the averments of this paragraph are deemed denied. 16. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 16 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary and is therefore deemed denied. 17. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 17 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary and is therefore deemed denied. 18. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 18 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary and is therefore deemed denied. 19. Denied. The allegation contained in Paragraph 19 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary and is therefore deemed denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SECCO, Inc. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Advanced Geothermal Technology and award damages in its favor in the amount of $17,906.24 and any other further relief the Court deems just, proper and equitable. Respectfully submitted, WOOLFORD LAW, P.C. B. imo Attorney I.D. o. 78941 Wheatland Place 941 Wheatland Avenue, Suite 402 Lancaster, PA 17603 P: 717-290-1190 F: 717-290-1196 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy J. Woolford, an attorney with Woolford Law, P.C., certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following via United States, postage prepaid, first class mail: Clemson N. Page, Jr., Esquire Austin, Boland, Connor & Giorgi 44 North Sixth Street P.O. Box 8521 Reading, PA 19603 Date: February 8, 2012 4 SECCO, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. ; CIVIL No. 11-9129 ' ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY r. Defendant. cn -- C, PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS �' w = '-j- o -�, C11 CD TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Candace N. Edgar, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiff, Secco, Inc. in the above action, respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of Plaintiff in the action is $17,906.24. The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is N/A. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: N/A. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. o WOOLFORD LAW, P.C. u° z By:_ -� > Timothy J. Woolford °CD Cn r Attorney I.D. No. 78941 ° Candace N. Edgar Attorney I.D. No. 209127 ►- c2 101 North Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200 a Lancaster, PA 17601 4, -pd Q (717) 290-1190vt+ (717) 290-1196 ORDER OF COURT a?7 717 AND OW, , 2013 in consideration of the f re ing petition, , Esq., and Esq., and Q Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above-captioned tion s prayed for. (/ By the Court, Zoo f Kevin A. Hess, P. . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Candace N. Edgar, an attorney with Woolford Law, P.C., certify that on this date, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following via United States, postage prepaid, first class mail: Clemson N. Page, Jr., Esquire Austin, Boland, Connor& Giorgi 44 North Sixth Street, P.O. Box 8521 Reading, PA 19603 Date: March 8, 2013 Candace N. Edgar SECCO, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA• vs. • CIVIL ACTION—LAW : NO. 11-9129 CIVIL ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL • TECHNOLOGY, • Defendant • ORDER AND NOW, this S` day of December, 2013, the appointment of John Mangan, Esquire, as a member of the Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case is VACATED. John Abom, Esquire, is appointed in his place. BY THE COURT, Kevi . Hess, P. J. /Ron Turo, Esquire Chairman /Court Administrator :rim C-oPy /Ma, led /a./g/3 C) - , r: rte,; rTi r-3 `"r ; C�= 5 N CW - Se49c O, Lic In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland A (11,QA/Cy,0 (;-004.V",1444.-- Pl�intiff 94) c ° ' County, Pennsylvania No. // - ndant Civil Action - Law. We d• solemnly swear and /gnature /2 /4--ti"1-G Name (Chairman) P � /�� °/l1 Law Firm Addres Oath we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States this Commonwe.. -)and th, t we vv 11 d. rge the duties of our offce with fidelity. City, Zip gnat Name d1; OP GP-4(OR Y Law Firm Cj o d /.t -tic4.T Address L-0,4Yw City, Viff.ctif iL Signat Jot.) 4 44.-- Name Law Firm Address /3q- (-)6Y3 Oa" Zip City, 4- 17-0/3 Zip Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated. Uve 419 I N --Pow �y 1 ce;n.4, P� ) q 3 h e.. 5 c)15��� �� c�.�s�c Y�Oh,eO•whe� Ga,, � a7J'�, '� or,/ .Ar , itrator, dissents. (Insert - applicable.) J- -on, Pie Date of Hearing: Date of Award: �d Now, the p2 3 day of' , 20 /V , at / /0 , .M., the above award was entered upon the docket and ndtice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ , SO b4Avi.t. �Qux:LL Prothonotary (Chairman) Notice of Entry of Award Deputy FiLED-OFFiCE OF THE PROTHONOTARI 20114 APR 23 PM 1:15 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Seca -(y.toe,4 ioersok=et il>, 6/e74.sobi 4,2. id.),/bv 0. WOOLFORD LAW, P.C. By: Timothy J. Woolford, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78941 By: Bradley N. Sprout, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 203182 101 North Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200 Lancaster, PA 17601 SECCO, INC. Plaintiff v. ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff SECCO, Inc. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL No. 11-9129 PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON COMPULSORY ARBITRATION AWARD TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter judgment against the Defendant, Advanced Geothermal Technology, in the amount of $4,069.31, plus costs of recoupment. This judgment is being entered in accordance with the Board of Arbitrators' Award in this matter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which stated as follows: We find in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $3319.31 representing repairs and $750.00 representing homeowner compensation for a total award of $4069.31 plus cost of recoup. Respectfully submitted, WOOLFORD LAW, P.C. Date: December , 2014 By: 1 Timoth Attorney I.D. No. 78941 Bradley N. Sprout Attorney I.D. No. 203182 101 North Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200 Lancaster, PA 17601 (717) 290-1190 / (717) 290-1196 �lbso (tot.tec ,_T__4-w4(40y f\J&QI-Par-1083 Amer. d CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Bradley N. Sprout, an attorney with Woolford Law, P.C., certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Enter Judgment on Compulsory Arbitration Award upon the following via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Date: December 1 , 2014 Clemson N. Page, Jr., Esquire Austin, Boland, Connor & Giorgi 44 North Sixth Street P.O. Box 8521 Reading, PA 19603 2 o, )41C /4 ,11.1viref0 (`-; e-00 fivr,6144-- We d and e In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland Pl� intiff 7"c -A ` • County, Pennsylvania No. ndant •Civil Action — Law. Oath solemnly swear or . a we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States )and tht we vv 11isd' eharge the duties of our o_e with fidelity. /1. 99/.) onst this Commonwe "rgnat reigna 012 Ct-tf �1415ilrh Name (Chairman) //o/L) Law Firm /0) r giSi— Addres e. I %W/! City, Zip Name offi'm GP.4(,YViftoitit. Law Firm qJ o d Mii-te4T �T Address Lc►.�yM � (h}- (",6 Y 3 City, Zip Signa Name ,w-�- LLf Law Firm e,J'— 14_ 5`f Address City, 4- ice/ Zip Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are award they shall be separately stated. UVe -R-..12I N 4\04s/4\04s/e`4 L- „..1 /c ;A 1, C )4, yas- Vn-On'e0140„e: .Ar Date of Hearing: Date of Award: ,,/ et•- 14/ a'191 -W L'V4- rtrator, dissents. (Insert applicable.) eY (Chairman) d Now, the 3 i day 6f- Apel L , 20 /1,/ , at / .' / S , .M.; the above award was entered upon the docket and ndtice thereof given bymailto the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ g i6 , 5'O Notice of Entry of Award A�iib lJ .''L L Prothonotary EXHIBIT HLED-OFF ICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 20114 APR 23 PM I:15 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA seeco .Z4e: -i•ruekt eleksoil 4). 3-7-. 4", 1/A)Vb WOOLFORD LAW, P.C. By: Timothy J. Woolford, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78941 101 North Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200 Lancaster, PA 17601 SECCO, INC. Plaintiff v. ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL TECHNOLOGY Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff SECCO, Inc. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL No. 11-9129 PRAECIPE TO SATISFY, SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above -captioned matter satisfied, settled, discontinued and ended. WOOLFORD LAW, P.C. Date: January 3 , 2015 By: imot J. . olford Attorney I.No. 78941 101 North Pointe Boulevard, Suite 200 Lancaster, PA 17601 (717) 290-1190 / (717) 290-1196 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy J. Woolford, an attorney with Woolford Law, P.C., certify that on this date I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Date: January , 2015 Clemson N. Page, Jr., Esquire Austin, Boland, Connor & Giorgi 44 North Sixth Street P.O. Box 8521 Reading, PA 19603