Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-1606a TOBI L. HEISE, C. H. A MINOR BY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MARK HEISE AS NATURAL CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. ??, ?6O(o G TRUDI ROWE, Defendant, JURY TRIAL REQUESTED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY 13E ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORAMTION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.. -0z -- Cumberland County Bar Association S.. r-q- 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACC OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the Court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the Court. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. C 03.75 ,00'h* ??#a7a3r 7 TOBI L. HEISE, C. H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, V. TRUDI ROWE, Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. JURY TRIAL REQUESTED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, TOBI L. HEISE, C. H., and MARK HEISE, by and through their attorney Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and avers in support of this complaint as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for money damages brought pursuant to common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania due to the negligence of Defendant Trudi Rowe. 2. It is alleged that Defendant Trudi Rowe did operate her vehicle in a negligent and illegal manner, while under the influence of alcohol, causing injuries to Plaintiffs Tobi Heise and C. H. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise is an adult individual residing at 5 Ashton Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015. 4. Plaintiff C. H. is a minor child, born February 16, 2000, the natural son of Plaintiff Mark Heise, residing at 5 Ashton Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015. 5. Plaintiff Mark Heise is an adult individual residing at 5 Ashton Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015. 6. Defendant, Trudi Rowe, is an adult individual residing at 70 Conrad Street, Carlisle, 17015 FACTS 7. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 8. On the evening of November 18, 2010, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise was returning home from a family outing with her children, Plaintiff C. H. and E. H., both minors. 9. Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise stopped her vehicle at the traffic tight at the intersection of Ritner Highway and Allen Road, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. While Plaintiff's vehicle was stopped at said traffic light, Defendant Trudi Rowe did drive her vehicle into the rear-end of Plaintiffs vehicle. 10. Subsequent to the accident, Defendant Trudi Rowe was transported to Carlisle Regional Medical Center, where it was determined that she was intoxicated and suicidal. 11. At the time of the aforementioned incident, Defendant Trudi Rowe was driving under the influence of alcohol, at the highest rate of alcohol above a BAC of .16. 12. Also, at the time of the accident, Defendant had slashed her left wrist in an apparent attempt of suicide. 13. On July 5, 2011, Defendant Trudi Rowe plead guilty to Recklessly Endangering Another Person and DU 1: Highest Rate of Alcohol (BAC .16+). 14. Due to the impact from the collision, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise suffered injuries to her person, including but not limited to, her neck, upper back, lower back, and pelvic shift. 15. Due to her injuries, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise can no longer stand for periods of time in excess of 30 minutes without experiencing excruciating pain and/or leg weakness. 16. Plaintiff, C. H., as a result of the collision, has suffered from extreme mental and emotional anguish and distress, causing severe depression, frequent nightmares, stress, and anxiety, requiring psychological treatment. COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE CAUSING INJURIES TO PLAINTIFF TOBI HEISE 17. Previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 18. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Tobi L. Heise, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Trudi Rowe, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the road and traffic conditions then and there existing; b. In failing to have due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon the road and the condition of the highway, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §331 O(a); c. In failing to operate her vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing conditions or at a speed that would permit the driver to bring her vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361. d. In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of her vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; e. In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have her vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided; £ In otherwise driving her vehicle upon the roadway in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in violation or the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; g. In driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the DUI laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and h. In driving her vehicle in a severely distressed emotional state/suicidal state of mind. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise has suffered serious bodily injuries with lasting effect, including, but not limited to, strains of her neck, upper back, and lower back; and a shift of her pelvis. 20. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish, and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 21. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise can no longer stand upright for long periods of time without suffering from a great deal of pain 22. Plaintiff, Tobi L. Heise, had intended on attending cosmetology school. but due to her inability to stand for long periods of time, she will no longer be able to attend. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise, has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 24. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise has been, and probably will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties, to her great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. Those duties include, but are not limited to: a. Lifting her infant son, E.H., in and out of his crib and car seat; b. Lifting anything heavy; c. Unloading groceries from the car; d. Vacuuming the house; or e. Cleaning the house. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise, has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise can no longer wear high heels without experiencing horrible pain that runs up and down her legs and lower back. 27. Plaintiff Tobi L. Heise believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Tobi L. Heise, seeks damages from Defendant, Trudi Rowe, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IL• NEGLIGENCE CAUSING INJURIES TO C.H. 28. Previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 29. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, C. H., are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Trudi Rowe, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the road and traffic conditions then and there existing; b. In failing to have due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon the road and the condition of the highway, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3310(a); c. In failing to operate her vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing conditions or at a speed that would permit the driver to bring her vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361. d. In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of her vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; e. In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have her vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided; f. In otherwise driving her vehicle upon the roadway in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in violation or the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; g. In driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the DUI laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and h. In driving her vehicle in a severely distressed emotional state/suicidal state of mind. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff C.H., has suffered bodily injuries with lasting effect, including, but not limited to, myalgia of his lower legs. 31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff C.H. has suffered great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his great physical, emotional, and financial detriment and loss. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff C.H., has suffered a loss of life's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 33. Plaintiff C.H. believes and, therefore, avers that his injuries and emotional scarring are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, C.H., seeks damages from Defendant, Trudi Rowe, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT III: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UPON C.H. 34. Previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 35. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, C. H., the natural born son of Plaintiff Mark Heise, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of Trudi Rowe, generally and more specifically as set forth below: a. In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe the road and traffic conditions then and there existing; b. In failing to have due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon the road and the condition of the highway, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3310(a); c. In failing to operate her vehicle at a speed that was safe for existing conditions or at a speed that would permit the driver to bring her vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3361. d. In failing to exercise reasonable care in the operation and control of her vehicle, in violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3714; e. In failing to be continuously alert, in failing to perceive any warning of danger that was reasonably likely to exist, and in failing to have her vehicle under such control that injury to persons or property could be avoided; f. In otherwise driving her vehicle upon the roadway in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in violation or the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; g. In driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the DUI laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and h. In driving her vehicle in a severely distressed emotional state/suicidal state of mind. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff C. H. has suffered from extreme mental and emotional anguish and distress, causing frequent nightmares, stress, and anxiety, requiring psychological treatment. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff C. H., has suffered a loss of life"s pleasures, and will continue to endure the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, C. H., seeks damages from Defendant, Trudi Rowe, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM OF PLAINTIFF MARK HEISI 38. Previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 39. On November 18, 2010, and at all times mentioned in this complaint, Plaintiff Mark Heise and Plaintiff Tobi Heise were husband and wife. 40. As detailed in the preceding paragraphs, defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff Tobi Heise and breached that duty negligently causing injuries to the same. 41. Before suffering these injuries, Plaintiff Tobi Heise was able to and did perform all the duties of a wife and mother and did perform all these duties, including assisting in maintaining the home, and providing love, companionship, affection, society, moral support, and solace to Plaintiff Mark Heise. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff Tobi Heise, she was unable to perform the duties of a wife for an extended period of time, and to this date is still limited by great pain in attending to those duties; including, but not limited to: a. Cooking and cleaning; b. Laundry; c. Grocery shopping and the putting away of groceries; d. Caring for the family dog; e. Child-rearing of their youngest son, including but not limited to: i. Bathing him; and ii. Getting him in and out of the car seat, high chair, crib, etc... 43. Due to the nature of the injuries sustained by Tobi Heise;, she is now limited in participating in family, recreational, or social activities with Plaintiff Mark Heise because of her pain and suffering. 44. Due to the nature of the injuries sustained by Tobi Heise and the severe physical and psychological strains they cause her, plaintiffs spouse is no longer able to provide Plaintiff Mark Heise with love, companionship, affection, society, moral support, and solace. 45. Because of these injuries, Tobi Heise will be unable to perform these duties in the future from time to time due to severe pain. 46. Plaintiff, Mark Heise, is therefore deprived and will be permanently deprived of his spouse's consortium, all to plaintiffs detriment, in a total amount to be established by proof at trial. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment against Defendant Trudi Rowe in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interests and costs. Date:#Aich Q, X0, Respectfully submitted, ROMINQL R & ASSOCIATES ------------ Kar . Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Tobi Heise, verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: -t / Tobi Heise VERIFICATION 1, Mark Heise, verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: Mark Heise Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor ?yS?1t1?' CY ?9UUCat?, Heise L. Tobi vs. Case Number Trudi M. Rowe 2012-1606 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 03/19/2012 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: Trudi M. Rowe, but was unable to locate her in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the within Complaint and Notice as not found as to the defendant Trudi M. Rowe. Request for service at 70 Conrad Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015 the Defendant was not found. Deputies were advised, current residents have owned this property for the past two years, and do not know the Defendant. SHERIFF COST: $39.45 March 19, 2012 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY SO ANSWERS, -1?9 , RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson - Sheriff 4 Jody S Smith Chief Deputy J F Richard W Stewart Solicitor Heise L. Tobi Case Number vs. Trudi M. Rowe 2012-1606 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 04/12/2012 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 12, 2012 at 1208 hours, he was unable to serve a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Trudi M. Rowe. After several attempts the Complaint and Notice has expired. SHERIFF COST: $34.45 SO ANSWERS, April 12, 2012 RONK'Y R ANDERSON, SHERIFF TOBI L. HEISE, C. H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, V. TRUDI ROWE, Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 12-1.606 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT -r, ,`_ -» TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please reinstate the original Complaint in the above captioned matter, a copy of which is attached for certification and service. Respectfully submitted, Rominger & Associates Date: June 1, 2012G Lee Mandarino, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 312895 Attorney for Plaintiff C# ?Fs'ql ,9-?a-WoS? SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith ?r?? ptg?+nfrr111110 Chief Deputy - c y Richard W Stewart Solicitor ,+?`y Heise L. Tobi vs. Trudi M. Rowe Case Number 2012-1606 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 06/05/2012 03:33 PM - Michael Barrick, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on June 5, 2012 at 1533 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Trudi M. Rowe, by making known unto herself personally, at 75 Bonnybrook Road, Trailer #7, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing tc her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $34.45 June 07, 2012 MI EL eBA'ORRICK, DEPUTY SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF ?f CtL ,r'JJ ".A C? LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive.com Attorney Identification No. 91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 610-832-1801 HC FILE 015J2-9734 TOBI L HEISE, C.H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDIVIDUALLY, V. TRUDI ROWE r? iL. - -OF' I- GL ff HE PROTHONOTAR T 2012 JUN 28 AM !!= 51 IUV# YLYAN?A TY Attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 12-1606 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Trudi Rowe, in the above-captioned matter. LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: i LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, DATE: Trudi Rowe /Z NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. By &V?z Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire Attorney for Defendant LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive. com Attorney Identification No. 91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 610-832-1801 HC FILE 015J2-9734 TOBI L HEISE, C.H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDIVIDUALLY, V. TRUDI ROWE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached pleading upon all other parties or their attorneys by: X regular mail ? certified mail ? other By 5eA44w- ap Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire Attorney for Defendant r M x C _ Attorney for Defendant, rte.. x Trudi Rowe ACS =C x© C =' o ? COURT OF COMMON PLEAS cn CUMBERLAND COUNTY -< co NO. 12-1606 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 1. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 2. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 3-5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without know or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Admitted. 7. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through inclusive, of her answer to plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same rn r... 't3 C7° :- Cn Z `*ti a-n d -,4M 6, herein set forth at length. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11-13. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. 14-16. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE CAUSING INJURIES TO PLAINTIFF, TOM HEISE 17. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through inclusive, of her answer to plaintiffs Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same herein set forth at length. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and i is 6, response is required. 19-27. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE CAUSING INJURIES TO C.H. is 28. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through q.7, inclusive, of her answer to plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same herein set forth at length. 29. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 30-33. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. I is WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. COUNT III: NEGLIGENCE INFLICTION EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UPON C.H. 34. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, of her answer to plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same herein set forth at length. 35. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 36-37. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. COUNT IV: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM OF PLAINTIFF, MARK HEIST is 38. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through 17, inclusive, of her answer to plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same herein set forth at length. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 40. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 41-46. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no independent knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. NEW MATTER 47. Plaintiffs; Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 48. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 49. If Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in their Complaint, same were caused by other entities or parties over which Answering Defendant had no control. 50. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole and/or in part, by the appropriate Statute Limitations. 51. Plaintiffs voluntarily adopted a dangerous and hazardous method or manner performing the actions that she was then undertaking when there was a safe method a and she thereby assumed the risk of injury in performing her actions. 52. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, or must be reduced, as a result of Plaintiffs' negligence, which was the proximate cause of the incident described in Plaintiffs' pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7100. 53. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Motor Vehicle Fi is Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S. Section 1701, et seq. 54. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle No- Fault Insurance Act. 55. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the within action. 56. If Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in their Complaint, same were not proximately caused by any action or failure to act on behalf of Defendant. 57. Answering Defendant avers that Plaintiffs' cause of action is barred or limited by Sudden Emergency Doctrine. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: L"uisa F. Borelli Esquire Attorney for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire, aver that I am the attorney for the Defendant in this case, I aver that the averments contained in the foregoing pleadings are true and correct to the bestlof my knowledge, information and belief; and that the statements therein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive.com Attorney Identification No. 91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 610-832-1801 HC FILE 015J2-9734 TOBI L HEISE, C.H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDIVIDUALLY, V. TRUDI ROWE IL ED -QFF1 PRO TNONO T alp 7012 JUL -6 AM to: 58 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 12-1606 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendant, Trudi Rowe, hereby demands trial by twelve (12) jurors. BY: LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant . NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. By Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire Attorney for Defendant LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive.com Attorney Identification No. 91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 610-832-1801 HC FILE 015.12-9734 TOBI L HEISE, C.H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDIVIDUALLY, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached pleading upon all other parties or their attorneys by: X regular mail ? certified mail ? other By te'" - Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire r Attorney for Defendants ©' may. ?-- «,pr O j? so T? Attorney for Defendant, "t .C Trudi Rowe COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. TRUDI ROWE NO. 12-1606 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 1. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 2. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 3-5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Admitted. 7. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through 6, inclusive, of her answer to plaintiffs Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same herein set forth at length. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledgi or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and no response is required. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11-13. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. 14-16. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE CAUSING INJURIES TO PLAINTIFF, TOBI HEISE 17. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through 1 inclusive, of her answer to plaintiffs Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same is herein set forth at length. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 19-27. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE CAUSING INJURIES TO C.H. 28. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through inclusive, of her answer to plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same herein set forth at length. 29. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 30-33. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. COUNT III: NEGLIGENCE INFLICTION EMOTIONAL DISTRESS UPON C.H. 34. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through 33, inclusive, of her answer to plaintiff's Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same herein set forth at length. 35. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 36-37. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. COUNT IV: LOSS OF CONSORTIUM OF PLAINTIFF, MARK HEIST is 38. Answering defendant incorporates, by this reference, paragraphs 1 through ?7, inclusive, of her answer to plaintiffs Civil Action Complaint as fully as though the same herein set forth at length. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 40. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, and response is required. 41-46. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law, J no response is required. By way of further response, answering defendant has no independent knowledge of what, if any, injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained. Further, it is denied that the alleged injuries, if truthful, are serious, permanent or causally related to the incident set f rth in plaintiffs complaint. Furthermore, all averments are denied, and strict proof thereo is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. NEW MATTER 47. Plaintiffs; Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 48. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 49. If Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in their Complaint, same were caused by other entities or parties over which Answering Defendant had no control. 50. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole and/or in part, by the appropriate Statute Limitations. 51. Plaintiffs voluntarily adopted a dangerous and hazardous method or manner ? f performing the actions that she was then undertaking when there was a safe method avai and she thereby assumed the risk of injury in performing her actions. 52. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, or must be reduced, as a result of Plaintiffs' negligence, which was the proximate cause of the incident described in Plaintiffs' pursuant to the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7100. 53. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Motor Vehicle Fi Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S. Section 1701, et seq. 54. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle No- Fault Insurance Act. 55. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the within action. 56. If Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in their Complaint, then same were not proximately caused by any action or failure to act on behalf of Answer ng Defendant. 57. Answering Defendant avers that Plaintiffs' cause of action is barred or limited b) Sudden Emergency Doctrine. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in her favor. HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: - Luisa F. Borelli Esquire Attorney for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire, aver that I am the attorney for the Defendant in this case, I aver that the averments contained in the foregoing pleadings are true and correct to the best Of my knowledge, information and belief, and that the statements therein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive.com Attorney Identification No. 91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 610-832-1801 HC FILE 015J2-9734 TOBI L HEISE, C.H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDIVIDUALLY, V. TRUDI ROWE FILE -OFFICL: Oil` If HE PROTNONOTAR 2012 JUL I I AM 11: 2 6 , A Attorney for DCOUNTY Trudi Rowe COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 12-1606 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendant, Trudi Rowe, hereby demands trial by twelve (12) jurors. LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant • 3 LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive.com Attorney Identification No. 91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 610-832-1801 HC FILE 015J2-9734 TOBI L HEISE, C.H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDIVIDUALLY, V. TRUDI ROWE FILED-OFFICE CF THE. PROTHONOTARY' 1012 JUL 13 PM 1: 35 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 12-1606 PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached verification of the Defendant, Trudi Rowe, for that of counsel, with respect to the Defendant's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Civil Complaint. HUBSHMAN & FLOOD 144 ...... By: Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire Attorney for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Trudi Rowe, aver that I am the defendant in this case and aver that answers contained in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of y knowledge, information and belief and that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. DATE TRUDI TOBI L. HEISE, C. H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, V. TRUDI ROWE, Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANI CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 12-1606 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED =?T ANSWER TO NEW MATTER 47. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is at trial. 48. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is at trial. 49. Denied. By way of further answer, Defendant Trudi Rowe drove her vehicle the rear end of Plaintiff's stopped vehicle, and there were no other vehicles involved in the collision. 50. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is at trial. 51. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is at trial. 52. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To --t Y,__. r- extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is at trial. 53. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is at trial. 54. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is dem at trial. 55. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is at trial. 56. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is at trial. 57. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To extent a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is dem at trial. WHEREFORE, t e Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor. Date: Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Lee Mandarino, squire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 312895 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lee Mandarino, Esquire, certify that I this day served a copy of the within Answer New Matter upon the following by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage paid, via first class delivery, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire Hubshman & Flood 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Date: ( C7\'- Respectfully submitted, RO NGER & IATES ?. G1?. Lee Mandarino, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 312895 Attorney for Plaintiff ATTORNEY VERIFICATION Lee Mandarino, states that he is the attorney for Plaintiffs in this action; that he makes this affidavit as attorney because he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: July 23, 2012 Lee Mandarino, squire . I LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive. com Attorney Identification No. 91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 610-832-1801 HC FILE 015J2-9734 TOBI L HEISE and MARK HEISE V. TRUDI ROWE Attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 12-1606 ... r4 a c? " • C) " ? Ica = ,°; Defendant, Trudi Rowe (hereinafter "moving Defendant") moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019 compelling Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise, to answer certain discovery propounded upon Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise, by moving Defendant in this matter. In support of this motion, moving Defendant avers the following: 1. On July 9, 2012, Defendant served upon Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise's counsel, Interrogatories to be answered within thirty (30) days. See Correspondence attached as Exhibit "A". 2. As of this date, Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise, have not fully answered these Interrogatories nor objected to these Interrogatories, which is in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. The said Interrogatories are relevant, material and necessary, and Defendant will be prejudiced if full and complete Answers to these interrogatories are not filed. 4. In addition, on July 9, 2012, Defendant served upon Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise's counsel, Request for Production of Documents to be answered within thirty (30) days. See Correspondence attached as Exhibit "A". 5. Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise, have not fully answered nor objected to these Request for Production of Documents, which is in violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. b. If Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise, do not provide the information requested in Defendant's Request for Production of Documents, Defendant will be severely prejudiced in the defense of this case. The said Request for Production of Documents are relevant, material and necessary to the defense of this case. 7. On August 23, 2012, Defendant's counsel sent correspondence to Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise's counsel in follow up to the initial request. A copy of the August 23, 2012 correspondence is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit B. 8. Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise's counsel has not provided responses. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court enter an Order directing Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise, to file full, complete and specific, answers to Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: DATE: tle 12 LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Luisa_F_Borelli@a Progressive.com Attorney Identification No. 91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 610-832-1801 HC FILE 015J2-9734 TOBI L HEISE and MARK HEISE V. TRUDI ROWE Attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY : NO. 12-1606 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY 1. Matter Before the Court: Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery in the form of a Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Responses to Request for Production of Documents. 2. Statement of Ouestion Involved: Is Defendant entitled to an Order compelling Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise to answer Interrogatories and respond to Request for Production of Documents which were forwarded to Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise more than thirty (30) days ago and are now overdue? Suggested Answer: Yes. 3. Facts: On July 9, 2012, Defendant's Counsel forwarded to Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise's Counsel, Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. More than thirty (30) days have now elapsed, and Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise have failed to respond to the requested discovery. On August 23, 2012, Defendant's Counsel sent a request to Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise's Counsel to forward answers to Defendant's Interrogatories and respond to Request for Production of Documents within ten (10) days. 4. ArLyument: Pa. R. C. P. 4005, titled, Written Interrogatories to a Party permits one party to serve any other party with written interrogatories. Pa. R. C. P. 4006 requires a party to provide written, verified interrogatories within thirty (30) days after service of the interrogatories. Pa. R. C. P. 4009. 1, titled, Production of Documents and Things, permits a party to serve or request upon any party to produce designated documents, including writings, drawings, grafts, charts, photographs, electronically created data, and other compilations of data from which information can be obtained. Pa. R. C. P. 4009.12 provides that a party shall respond to said request within thirty (30) days. Thirty days have now elapsed since Defendant forwarded Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise' and Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise have failed to respond or otherwise object to these discovery requests. 5. Relief: Wherefore, Defendant respectfully requests this Court grants Defendant's Motion and issue an Order compelling Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise to respond to Defendant's discovery requests within twenty (20) days. BY: LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, ?lZ Trudi Rowe DATE: LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive.com Attorney Identification No. 91620 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Attorney for Defendant, 610-832-1801 Trudi Rowe HC FILE 015J2-9734 TOBI L HEISE and MARK HEISE COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. : TRUDI ROWE : NO. 12-1606 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire, attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff, Tobi L Heise and Plaintiff, Mark Heise's Response to Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to be mailed by First Class, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on , 20 to: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD BY: DATE: e lZ LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe VERIFICATION I, Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire, aver that I am the attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe, and I aver that the averments contained in the forgoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; and that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: fo BY: LAW OFFICES OF HUBSHMAN & FLOOD LUISA F. BORELLI, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Trudi Rowe B?IBIT «A,? Bridget E. Akard Law Offices of Hubshman & Flood Keith V. Bauerle Not a Partnership Luisa F. Borelli Peter A. Dorn 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Andrea J. Bullock Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Brian J. Dougherty Ph: 610-832-1801 James M. Flood Fax: 610-828-5625 Paul S. Gambone Salaried Employees of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company Writer's Information: Direct Dial: 610-832-1803 Email: Luisa_F Borelli@progressive.com Lee Manderano, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 July 9, 2012 RE: Heise v. Rowe Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County: 12-1606 File No.: 015J2-9734 Claim No.: 104347846 Dear Mr. Manderano: Brianne L. Hoffler Melissa A. Hubshman Theresa Martin LoStracco Katherine K. Nosari Leonard S. Sabato Therese T. Schweikert Lynn A.Zikoski Enclosed please find Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents addressed to the Plaintiffs' in reference to the above captioned matter. Kindly have your clients' answer in the time allowed under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, I have enclosed a Notice of Deposition scheduling your clients' depositions for Monday, August 27, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. at Rominger & Associates, 155 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, PA 17103. My office will be providing the court reporter at that time. If this date does not work for you, kindly contact me to reschedule. In addition, if you would like my client's deposition at that time, please advise. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Luisa F. Borelli LFB:deg Enclosure EyatIBTT "B" Law Offices of Hubshman & Flood Bridget E. Akard Keith V. Bauerle Not a Partnership Luisa F. Borelli Andrea J. Bullock 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Peter A. Dorn Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Brian J. Dougherty Ph: 610-832-1801 James M. Flood Fax: 610-828-5625 Paul S. Gambone Writer's Information: Direct Dial: 610-832-1803 Email: Luisa_F_Borelli@Progressive.com Salaried Employees of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company August 23, 2012 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Heise v. Rowe Common Pleas, Cumberland County: 12-1606 File No.: 015J2-9734 Claim No.: 104347846 Dear Mr. Rominger: Brianne L. Hoffler Benjamin C. Hoffman Melissa A. Hubshman Theresa Martin LoStracco Katherine K. Nosari Leonard S. Sabato Therese T. Schweikert Lynn A.Zikoski Please allow this correspondence to serve as a follow-up to my previous letter dated July 9, 2012, wherein I enclosed Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents addressed to your clients, Tobi L Heise and Mark Heise. To date, I have not received your client's responses to same. Accordingly, please forward your client's discovery responses within ten (10) days from the date of this letter, or I will have no alternative other than to file a motion to compel the same. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation with regard to this matter. Very truly yours, Luisa F. Borelli LFB:deg TOBI L. HEISE, C. H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, v. TRUDI ROWE, Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 12-1606 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED PETITION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SETTLE AND COMPROMISE MINOR'S CLAIM ~ ~-,-~ -~ 3 ,~, -i ~W ~ mr= r ~~ ~ ~o r-- z -~ Q ~ ° -o ~ i _, cn _~ _~, c~ Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 2039(a), Petitioners, by and through their attorney, Lee Mandarino, Esquire, petitions this Honorable Court for leave to settle and compromise the personal injury claim of Connor Heise, a minor, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is Mark Heise, is the natural father of Connor Heise, a minor. Mark Heise has full legal and physical custody of his son, Plaintiff Connor Heise. Please see attached custody order marked as Exhibit "A". 2. Petitioner Mark Heise and his son Connor, reside at 5 Ashton Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, along with his wife Tobi and other minor son. 3. The minor child, Connor Heise, was born on February 16, 2000, and is 12 years of age. 4. On or about November 18, 2010, the minor child, Connor Heise, was a passenger in a motor vehicle accident in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. Connor suffered limited physical injuries and emotional distress from said motor vehicle accident. 6. Progressive Insurance is a corporation, and by and through its representative, Michael Rains, has offered to tender a settlement under the Policy which belongs to the Defendant, Trudi Rowe, and covers under its portions said accident. 7. Counsel has worked extensively in negotiation and litigation for the last two (2) years and Counsel believes it is in the best interests of his clients to settle at this time. 8. Progressive Insurance and Mark Heise have agreed to settle the claim for Connor Heise for $4,000. (See Exhibit `B"). 9. It is proposed that the monies, once received, be distributed as follows: (a) Thirty-three and one third (33.3%) percent as a fee pursuant to a fee agreement signed with Rominger Law Offices (See Exhibit "C"); (b) The remaining balance is to be placed in an account for the minor, who is federally insured and interest bearing and to be held until Order of Court and otherwise managed in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure. 10. Petitioner believes and therefore avers that a settlement and distribution of funds for the minor is fair and just and should be approved by the Honorable Court and have executed an Affidavit of Consent which is attached hereto and made part hereof and identified as Exhibit "D." WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court approve the above-described settlement proposed on behalf of the minor child. Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES ,, :1 Dated: November 20, 2012 f ~---'--" Lee Mandarino, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 312895 Attorney for Petitioner TOBI L. HEISE, C. H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEI5E INDVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, v. TRUDI ROWE, Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 12-1606 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lee Mandarino, Esquire, attorney for Petitioners, do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the Petition for Leave of Court to Settle and Comprise Minor's Claim upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire HUBSHMAN & FLOOD 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 f Dated: November 20, 2012 Lee Mandarino, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner EXHIBIT °tA" --~ ". i _.._, zv~T~~-i rt T; ' ~<^ <, ~II~`,J'~~ ~~S~3oni~~nt ORDER GRAlYTING PETITIONER SOLE CUSTODY O~ THE PARTIES' MINOR CHILD NOW ON THIS --t- day of January 2008, the above matter camas an befi~re the Court on the Petitioner's motion to change custody from joint custody to sole custody. Petitioner, dark D. Heise, {hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner"), appears in person and by his attorney, Robert D. Beall. Respondent, Julie E. Heise, (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"), does not appear. THEREUPON the Court being advised in the premises makes findings of fact on the record which are incorporated herein by reference, and further finds that it is in the best interest of the minor child of the parties, Connor Heise, DOB: 2/16!2000, for Petitioner w have sate legal custody with the right to decide matters concerning the health, education and welfare ofthe children. IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Petitioner have sole ie~al custody of the minor child of the parties, Connor Heise, DUB: 2116!2000, with the right to decide matters concerning the health, education and welfare of the child. ,~'`~`i ; '---~ ~, ,.~.- IT iS SO ORDERED. .~~~ Dis ' t Judge ~ __~ Submitted By: Robert D. Beall, #45868 ~- __ 529 Delaware P.O. Box b9 Leavenworth, Kansas 66448 {913} 682-3822 {913}b82-7136 {fax} bob-rd heal l~ kc. rr. co m attorney for Petitioncr EXHIBIT "B" 11/09/2012 16:31 FAX PROGRESSIVE CLAIMS 3950 HARTZDALE DR CAMP HILL, PA 17011 LEE MANDARINO 155 SOIRH HANONER STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 Claim Information Dear Mr. Mandarino: ~ ~: Proghassiw M11Nr~d InsuraAC! ~~~ claim Number: 10-4347846 Loss Date: November 18, 2010 Doaxnere Date: November 9, 2012 Page 1 of 1 claatirs.proyr~siw.can Track the status and details of your claim, e-mail your representaUVe ar report a new claim. Please let this letter confirm our agreement to settle Connor Heise's bodily injtuy claim against our insured, Trudy Howe, for 114,000.00. I have instructed our defense wunsel, Luisa Borelli, to forward you the release. Upon her receipt of the exewUed release and copy of the court order approving the minor's settlement, she will forward the settlement check to you. Please be advised that a copy of ibis correspondence is being forwarded to your dierrt pursuant to 31 Pa. Code, Section 146.10. Thank you for your cooperation throughout the handling of this file, MICHAEL RAINS Claims Department 1-717-730-1583 1-800-PROGRESSIVE (1.800-776-4737) Fax: 1.717-730-1409 MICHAEL RAINSQPROGRESSIVE.COM cc TOBI L HEISE ronn zse~ xK roime- • rn ~ 002/002 EXHIBIT "C" POWER OF ATTORNEY AND CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENT We, Tobi Heise and Mark Heise, the undersigned, for ourselves and on behalf of our minor children, Connor Heise and Eli Heise, hereinafter called "Client" hereby retain, appoint, and nominate ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES, its members and associates, hereinafter called "attorney" to represent Client as legal counsel for all purposes in connection with an automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of Allen Road and Ritner Highway / US Route 1 1, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on or about November 18, 2010. Client and attorney hereby agree as follows: 1. Initial Evaluation -Attorney will undertake an initial investigation and evaluate the merits of this case. No attorney fee will be charged for attomey work in connection with the evaluation. Client shall provide in advance a retainer of 0 to be used for the purposes of paying the costs associated with the initial investigation. Attorney will review the pertinent records and will advise the Client concerning the probable merits of the case. If the initial evaluation of the merits of the claim is favorable, attorney will advance the costs of prosecuting the case. These costs shall be repaid by Client as specified in paragraph 5 below. Attorney reserves the right to terminate the Agreement after the initial evaluation if the case is determined not to have merit, at which time any balance remaining in the trust account after payment of expenses shall be returned to Client. 2. Attorney Fees - In payment for the services performed by the attorney, Client hereby agrees that attorneys fees shall be paid as follows: (a) Prior to the filing of a Complaint or a request for arbitration, payment for services shall be twenty-five (25%) percent contingency fee on the total amount paid in settlement of the claim; and (b) If a Complaint is filed or arbitration is requested, payment for services shall be thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3`d %) percent contingency fee on the total amount paid by either settlement or verdict. In the event of a settlement in the form of a structured settlement, it is agreed that attorney fees shall be paid according to the above terms based on the cost of the structured settlement to the settling party(s). It is further understood and agreed that the amount to be paid as the attomey fees on the structured settlement shall be paid on a lump sum basis at the time the structured settlement is entered into by the Client. 3. Settlement - No settlement of this case may be made without the Client's prior approval. 4. Distribution of Proceeds -Client further agrees that from the proceeds of any recovery, whether by settlement, judgment or otherwise, the attorney may deduct the attorneys fees to which it is entitled, together with all costs and expenses which have been advanced or remain unpaid; and Client further agrees that the attorney may deduct the amount of all unpaid bills for professional services and make disbursements of such funds directly to the creditors involved. 5. Cost Advance -Attorney shall have the authority to make advances and to incur such costs as the attorney determines necessary in the processing of the Client's case. Such advances and costs include but are not limited to: (a) Fees for physicians, psychologists, accountants and other experts which attorney deems necessary to assist in handling of Client's case; (b) Copying charges, travel expenses, court costs, deposition expenses, long distance telephone calls, postage. In the event of a monetary recovery, Client agrees to reimburse attorney for the above- referenced expenses incurred. After the attorneys fees are deducted from the settlement and/or verdict, the expenses shall be repaid to attorney out of the remaining balance of the settlement and/or verdict. If Client rejects a settlement offer that attorney believes is reasonable and equitable under the circumstances, Client agrees to be responsible for any and all out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the pursuit of their claim, irrespective of a monetary recovery. 6. Withdrawal - If, during the pursuit of this case, the attorney determines that, under the existing circumstances, it is not feasible or practicable to prosecute this case, upon notification to the Client of such facts, the attorney may withdraw from representation under this agreement. Client agrees to execute all documents and take all steps requested by attorney that are necessary to facilitate the withdraw of representation. 7. Appeal - If the Client authorizes an appeal of this case, the attorneys' fees shall be increased by 10% more than the fee set forth above to cover the additional work involved in handling of the appeal. 8. Fee Division - In the event that Client was referred to Rominger & Associate Law Offices by a referring attorney, Client does not object to the division of the attorneys fees being charged to the Client between the attorney and the referring attorney. Client understands that she will not pay any additional fee as a result of the division of the fee between attorney and referring attorney. 9. Termination of Agreement by Client - In the event that the Client seeks legal representation elsewhere regarding the incident described herein and after the instant fee agreement is executed, Client agrees to immediately reimburse attorney for all expenses incurred to date. Moreover, for the work performed by the attorney up to the date of separation of attorney and Client, Client agrees that, in the event of an ultimate monetary recovery, attorney is entitled to reasonable compensation (quantum merit) from any verdict or settlement. 10. Arbitration -Any dispute between the attorney and the Client shall be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrators shall be members of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. The attorney shall select one arbitrator. The Client shall select one arbitrator. The two arbitrators shall select a third arbitrator. The arbitrators shall, by majority vote, establish all rules pertaining to the arbitration, including determining how the cost of arbitration shall be paid. If the dispute is not resolved, the rules of the American Arbitration Association in effect at the time shall apply and control. 11. Termination -This agreement applies only to the attorney's pursuit of the claim specified above. This agreement terminates upon the final distribution of proceeds recovered on behalf of the Client through verdict, settlement or otherwise, if not terminated before such time. In the event Client desires additional services performed by attorney, whether related to the above-described incident or not, the fees and costs to be charged by the attorney in the event representation is undertaken, is subject to other agreement. I have read the above agreement and understand and agree to its terms. There are no o agreements between the parties hereto. This agreement is entered into this ~~ day of 2011. ~~ Tobi Heise ~~ Mark Heise -Father of minor child: Conn,~Heise /1 Mark Heise .~ ~_ r' ~ ark Heise - Fath r of minor child: Eli Heise APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY: arl E. Rominger, Esquire Date: ~ ~ 2 u / EXHIBIT °'D" TOBI L. HEISE, C. H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, vi. TRUDI ROWE, Defendant, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 12-1606 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT AND NOW, comes, Mark Heise, the father of Connor Heise, and requests that the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas grant the Petition for Leave of Court to Settle and Compromise Minor's Claim. This request is made as the parent and legal guardian of Connor Heise. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date:~6~t~ ~~ ~ f'~• ` Mark Heise TOBI L. HEI5E, C. H., a minor by IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MARK HEISE AS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL GUARDIAN and MARK HEISE INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs V. TRUDI ROWE, Defendant N0.2012 -1606 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28TH day of NOVEMBER, 2012, a hearing on the Petition to Settle and Compromise a Minor's Claim is scheduled for MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom # 3. By t ourt, Edward E. Guido, J. ~' ~/ Lee Mandarino, Esquire ~ ~ ,~ ~ 1-.-, ~r'Tt .p F"rt __ ~ Luisa Borelli, Esquire • (,~ ~ ~ ~ Ma, ~.-..~. ~~ti; :sld ~ glfdl fir? ~" -:~-, p ~; . ~~ . . TOBI L. HEISE, C. H. A MINOR BY MARK HEISE AS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs v. TRUDI ROWE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANIA ~~ N _; : :~ - . ;, ...a,.-, ~~_ NO. 2012-1606 CIVIL TERM ~~ ~;- ~ ..; rv ,LL~, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW, comes Mark Heise as Natural Guardian of the minor C.H., by and through his privately retained counsel, Lee Mandarino, Esquire, and in support. of this Motion avers as follows: 1. The above-captioned case was listed for a Hearing on a Petition on Monday, December 10, 2012. 2. Plaintiff respectfully requests a continuance due to a work related scheduling conflict, which requires his presence in the State of Washington. 3. Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire has been contacted and does not oppose this request for a continuance. 4. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the above-captioned case be continued. Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Date: ' ~ 3 ~ l7 c~l ! Lee Mandarino, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 312895 Attorney for Plaintiff TOBI L. HEISE, C. H. A MINOR BY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MARK HEISE AS NATURAL :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GUARDIAN, AND MARK HEISE INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs v. TRUDI ROWE, Defendant NO. 2012-1606 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lee Mandarino, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, Mark Heise as Natural Guardian of the minor C.H., do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the Motion For Continuance upon the following via U. S. Mail, addressed as follows: Luisa F. Borelli, Esquire HUBSHMAN & FLOOD 5165 Campus Drive, Suite 200 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19465 Respectfully submitted, Rominger & Associates Date: ~ ~ ~ Lee Mandarino, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 312895 Attorney for Plaintiff