Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12-2580
Members 1st Federal Credit Union Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, ?? //'?I, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. . NO.!/en? ,/n "5Ty L /V/ / ` l?v1y) Defendant : Civil Term NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 AN ATTORNEY AND FILLING 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 JUDGEMENT 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 PEOPERTY 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 THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) Members 1st Federal Credit Union 500 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 VS. Defendant(s) & Address(es) J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. (see attachment for addresses) Case No. ODU 0 Civil Term Civil Action PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: C-3 c r*trn Z-- cnrA r- X b? F;CD >$ --i N Cn -10 =a .;4 C?'7 =4i; Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Attorne / ire ff. P se Circ choi Date : 12 ig ture A Al omey Print Name: C. Grainger Bo Wan Address: 17 N. Second St., 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 • • 0 • • Telephone #: 717-231-4500 Supreme Court ID Number: 15706 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. ,4V / D ???'GL __?> / n Pr honotary/Cler , Clxi Division Date: ?(D 0/K by eputy 1o3. ?s-fc/O r 9 -7 at r7dRIC) Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. 5053 Ritter Road, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 J. Michael Brill 5053 Ritter Road, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. 5053 Ritter Road, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Lc t. 'T4ij E' ilia Sheriff Pf t ? 0 Jody S Smith Chief Deputy "012 MAY ] AN 9: 9 Richard W Stewart 'UMBERLAND C0UN, solicitor .?`"JF?? PENNSYLVANIA ?, Members 1st FCU vs Case Number . Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. (et al.) 2012-2580 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 05/03/2012 10:53 AM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on May 3, 2012 at 1053 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., by making known unto Jonna Godwin, Controller for J. Michael Brill and Associates, Inc. at 5053 Ritter Road, Suite 200, Mechanicsburg, umberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 its contents and at the same time handing to her onally said true and correct copy of the same. AWN HARRISON, DEPUTY 05/03/2012 10:53 AM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on May 3, 2012 at 1053 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: J. Michael Brill, by making known unto Jonna Godwin, Controller for J. Michael Brill and Associates, Inc. at 5053 Ritter Road, Suite 200, Mechanicsburg, Cumb I nd County, Pennsylvania 17055 its contents and at the same time handing to her pni na I said true and correct copy of the same. SV'AWN HARRISON, D 05/03/2012 10:53 AM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on May 3, 2012 at 1053 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Aaron M. Navarro, P.E., by making known unto Jonna Godwin, Controller for J. Michael Brill and Associates, Inc. at 5053 Ritter Road, Suite 200, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 its contents and at the same time handing to her p o Ily said true and correct copy of the same. S HARRISON, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $70.45 May 04, 2012 SO ANSWERS, r? RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF is Goun^;Suit'Shentt Ie!e:;s„tt in:. KAUFNIAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP Bv: Gre«ory F. Brown. Esquire gbrown(ci)kdvglaw.anm Attorney LD. No. 90239 Attorney for Defenaants, 1777 Sentry Park West J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Sch~~~oeder, P.E. Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. Blue Bell. PA 19422 Telephone: (2l5) 461-1100 Facsimile: (:215} 461-1300 MEI\~IBERS lst FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Plaintiff, ~~. .I. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E.. ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. and AARON M NAVARRO. P.E. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION ~- LA'~V ~ --~ :-- = ~ - .-~ - . ~: ~~ NO.: 12-280 c .' Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, J. Michael Brill, P.L., Erik T. Schroeder. P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro. P.E. with regard to the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GON7.0 LLP .r r '~~ l ~' ~'~' BY: ~~~ ~`~ ,~' - - --- -~ Gregory F. rown, Esquire ri'~ Attorney or Defendants. ,-' J. Michael I~'rill, P. E., Erik T. Schroedc~~•, F`. E. and Aaron ~1 Na>>arrc~, P.E. KAUFIVIAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO L:LP By: Gregory F. Brown, Esquire gbrown(z~kdvglaw.com Attorney 1.D. No. 901239 Attorney for Defendants, 177? Sentry Park West J. Michael Brill, P.1., Erik l Sch~~-~~eder, P.E. Gw-}~nedd Hall, Suite 301 and Aaron N1 1Vavayro, P.E. Blue Bell. PA 1942?. Telephone: (215) 461-1100 Facsimile: (215) 461-1300 MEMBERS 1 s~ FEDERAL CREDIT UNION. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLC:AS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, v. J. MICHAEL BRILL,, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER. P.E. ,end AARON M. NAV ARKO. P.E. CIVIL ACTION - I_,A'W NO.: 12-2.580 Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L Gregory F. Brown, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of my Entry of Appearance on behaLF of Defendants, J. Michael Brill,. P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P-~:. and Aaron M. Navar~°o. P.E. was served upon all Counsel listed below via First Class, U.S. 1ti1ai1. postage prepaid. C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 N. Second Street 18~~' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel-for Plaintiff KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP ,,~ ~~~ Gregory F,~Brown, Esquire Dated: October 17. 2012 ~'' 1 a~z~-~~~xa-,~9; , ~ '~ KALIFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP By: Anne R. Myers, Esquire amyers(c~kdvglaw.com Attorney 1.D. No. 201900 Attorney for Defendants, 1777 Sentry Park West J. Michael Brill, P.~~'., Erik T. Sc°ha°ocder•. P.E. Uw`~nedd Hall, Suite 301 and Aaron ,~1 .Navas^rq P. E. Blue Be1L PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 461-1100 Facsimile: (21 S) 461-1300 MEMBERS 1"FEDERAL, CREDIT UNION. Plaintiff. v. J. MICHAEL BRILL., P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. and AARON M NAVARRO. P.E. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSY"LVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW - - NO.: 12-2580 " '. Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, TO THE PROTHONOTARY: f- 3_ s Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, J. Michael Brill, P.F,., Erik T. Schroeder. P.F_:. and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. with regard to the above-captioned matter. Defendants hereby request a trial by jury on all claims. Respectfully submitted, KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GON7,0 LLP ~~ - ~_- .~ , BY: ,~ _ ~ ~ tom- - __._ __- ___- Anne R. Myers, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, .I. Michael ~~rilZ, P. E., Er~~k T. Schraede~~. 1'. E. and Aaron M. Navarro KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP >3y: Anne R. Myers, Esquire amyers~Cr~,kdvglaw.com Attorney I.D. No. 201900 Attorney for Defendants, 177? Sentry Park West J. Michael Brill, P.1~'., Frik T. Schroeder, P.E. Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. Blue Bell. PA 19422 Telephone: (21 ~) 461-1100 Facsimile: (215) 461-1300 MEMBERS 1 ~` FEDERAL CREDIT' iJNION. IN THE COURT' OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff. v. J. MICHAEL BRILL,. P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. and AARON M. NAVARRO. P.E. CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO.: 12-2580 Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Anne R. Myers, Esquire. hereby certify that a true and correct copy of my Entry of Appearance and Demand for a Jury Trial on behalf of Defendants. J. Michael Brilu. P.E., Erik R. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro. P.E. was served upon all Counsel listed belo~~~ via First Class. U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 N. Second Street 18r~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Plaintiff KAUFMAN DOLOWICH V©LUCK & GClNZO LLP ~` t ~, , Anne RJ. Myers, Esquire Dated: Ocrober 17, 2012 481 ~-2 F3`~-r)^~? ~ 1 Members 1 S` Federal Credit Union, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CiJMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PF,NNSYLVANIA v. NO. 12-2580 CIVIL TERM J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik Schroeder, P.E., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and Aaron M. Navarro, Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND TO: J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E. --- - - ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. _- T " -: AARON M. NAVARRO -- _= - You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Complaint within ~ ~~ twenty (7.0) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. C. Grainger Bowman K&L GATES LLP 17 North Second Street -- ~ 8`~ Floor Harrisburg PA 17101 717-231-4500 (O} 717-231-4501 (F) grainger.bowman@klgates.com Dated November 5, 2012 Attorneys for Plaintiff HA-27636 vl Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff v. J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CI;JMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-2580 CIVIL TERM. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Members 1 St Federal Credit Union ("Members 1st"), by and through its attorneys, K&L GATES LLP, files this Complaint against J. Michael Brill, P.E. ("Brill"), Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. ("Schroeder"}, and Aaron M. Navarra ("Navarro") (hereinafter collectively "Defendants"), and in support thereof states: The Parties 1. Plaintiff Members 1St is a business corporation with a principal place of business at 5000 Louise Drive, Mechanicsburg PA 17055. 2. Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, are all consulting licensed professionals and engineering personnel. Defendant Brill. and Defendant Schroeder and Defendant Navarro are also principals and/or employees of J. Michael Brill & Associates ("JMB&A"), which HA-27563 k ~:? is a corporation performing professional consulting engineering services with. an office and place of business at 5053 Ritter Road, Mechanicsburg PA l 7055. 3 . On or about July 18, 2006, Members 1St entered into a contract for professional engineering services with JMB&A ("JMB&A Professional Services Agreement") relating to a project known as the "New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Earl Street, Palmyra, Pennsylvania." The scope of services is more fully set forth in a document attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit 1 contains the underlying agreement, plus Supplemental Terms and Conditions for Proposal and/or Agreements plus Professional Services Supplemental Authorizations. 4. This case arises from. the failure and deficiency of design of an underground stormwater system located on t:he property of Members 1St at the "New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, :Earl Street, Palmyra, Pennsylvania." The underground. stormwater system was generally composed of a foundation, a pipe system, backfill materials and cover materials (hereinafter "underg;round stormwater system"). 5. In accordance with the JMB&A Professional Services Agreement, JMB&A agreed to prepare a limited Geotechnical Investigation, which included, inter czlia, the performance of a field investigation, laboratory analysis of soils, and a geotechnical report. The geotechnical report called for a determination of the 2 subsurface stratigraphy beneath the Project site, a series of~standard earth borings to specified depths or until the underlying bedrock was encountered, the sampling of soils and the measurement and recordation of rock quality designation of bedrock encountered, the determination of infiltration rate of subsurface soils in areas proposed far stormwater management under applicable township and state guidelines, the definition of the physical characteristics of the soils, and the provision of results and recommendations based on the scope of services described in the JMB&A Professional Services Agreement, and a design and specifications associated with underground stormwater management for the Project. 6. As provided in the JMB&A Professional Services Agreement, JMB&A agreed to design the underground stormwater system and to prepare all. applicable final design calculations and specifications and reports necessary for Final Subdivision /Land Development Plan review (i.e. stormwater management report, storm sewer design calculations, erosion and sedimentation control narrative, etc.). These professional services were to be performed by the Defendants. 7. L)ue to the requirement from the Borough of Palmyra for additional geotechnical investigation, a Professional Services Supplemental Authorization was agreed upon by Members 1st and JMB&A on or about February 1 ?, 2008,. and the scope of the geotechnical services to be provided by JMB&A was expanded and significantly modified. Among other things, the Professional Services 3 Supplemental Authorization called for three (3) separate reports, including some or all of the following information (italics in original): 1. Geologic Site Evaluation (including terrain description, brief geological history and surface drainage conditions 2;. Description of Subsurface Conditions (including description of exploration and sampling methods, soil identification and classifications) 3. Results of Geotechnical Analysis 4. Test Boring Logs 5. Test Boring Profiles 6. Test Boring Location Plan 7. Results of All Laboratory Testing 8. Recommendations Concerning: Foundation Types (including) (a) Allowable Bearing Capacity Values (b) Placement Depths (c) Design Frost Depths (d) Preparation of Foundation Areas Soil Strength Conditions (a) Stratification Characteristics and Correlated Soil Strengths (b) Potential for Construction and/or Differential Settlements (c) Lateral Earth Pressure Design Criteria General Earthwork Criteria (a) Use and Treatment of In-Situ Materials for Controlled Back:fill (b) Control of Surface Runoff Water and Groundwater (c) Quality Control Requirements During Foundation Construction (d) Subgrade Preparation for Slabs and Pavements 9. Potential for Sinkhole Development and Methods to Minimize the Impact of Sinkholes 10. Depth of Rock Excavation, if required, and Characteristics of Rock to be Removed 11. Suitability of on-site soils for use as fill These professional services were to be performed by the Defendants. 4 8. The Defendants prepared the design and specifications, but the design was later determined to be inadequate and incomplete, and was not prepared in accordance with the professional standard of care required for such a design. The design was structurally deficient, in that, the piping was not properly supported to guard against expected loading from the top down, was composed of materials and structural. systems which did not have sufficient structural integrity and became loose at: critical places (such as, joints), was inadequately covered, and otherwise was not: of sufficient structural strength to withstand the loading forces of the kind and nature to be expected at the location of the underground stormwater system on this Project. The structural integrity of the basin was not sufficient to carry the load of the underground stormwater system. 9. T'he design and the specifications of the underground stormwater system were not free from. defect, and they were flawed. 10. The Defendants impliedly warranted that the reports referenced above and the design and specifications created pursuant to the stormwater management report and the storm sewer design calculations would be sound and constructible, that is, if constructed in accordance with the design and specifications, the design and specifications would be free of defect and structural flaw. 11. The Defendants breached this implied warranty by their professional negligence. 5 12. The Defendants had a duty to provide on-site geotechnical engineering services or to oversee on-site geotechnical engineering services relating to the construction of the underground stormwater system. The Defendants retained for this purpose the following subconsultant geotechnical engineers on this Project: CMX, lnc. and/or Advantage Engineers LLC. 13. The Defendants did not engage in adequate construction consultation. with its geotechnical engineering subconsultants, in that, inter alia, the Defendants did not recommend the taking of additional or adequate numbers of test borings in the actual location of the underground stormwater system, and the Defendants did not take steps to address or properly guard against evidence of design or construction defects during the construction observation of the geotechnical engineering subconsultants. 14. (?n April 27, 2010, following the completion of the Project, failures occurred on the driveway surface and the parking and other ground surfaces proximate to the driveway and parking surfaces. A sink hole appeared and the failures were deep. All of the failures were above and proximate to the underground stormwater system. All of these failures were caused by a failure or collapse of the underground stormwater system at the Palmyra :Branch Project. The failures were of an ongoing nature and created repeated and successive failures to the detriment of Members 1 sc 6 15. The failure and collapse described herein was caused by a defect in the design and specifications and/or construction observation of the Defendants, and/or the geotechnical engineering subconsultants, or other persons for whom. the Defendants were responsible, in not less than the following particulars: a_ failure to design the underground stormwater system specifying materials that would provide a functioning system as sought by Members 1St; b. failure to provide the proper protection of the underground stormwater system from construction operations that would perform :heavy construction work and installation of asphalt pavement on top of the underground stormwater system; c. failure to advise l~'Iembers 1St about the hazards associated with placing the underground stormwater system in the location where it failed; d. changing the design and moving the underground stormwater system from an original location where it was not endangered by the construction hazards to a location that: eventually permitted its failure, and further, changing the location of the underground stormwater system without recommending or performing appropriate testing and taking appropriate test borings to assure that the change in location was reasonable and proper; 7 e„ failure to design the underground stormwater system in a manner that would withstand the load to which it was exposed in the location where it failed; f, failure to design and specify an underground stormwater system in a manner to withstand forces that caused it to fail; g. failure to advise representatives of Members 1st about its options, including but not limited to the risks and advantages of the location of the underground stormwater system on the Project site and to provide reasonable time to permit Members 1st to consider those options; h. failure to provide stabilization of subsurface areas subject to the surface loading and the loading of the underground stormwater system itself b,y designing proper grouting design, piers, columns, or other support mechanisms designed to guard against deflection of the components of the underground stormwater system and to guard against its failure and~or collapse. 16. The defects enumerated above are the result of inadequate professional services and advice and/or the inadequate and improper design and specifications prepared by the Defendants, their employees and/or agents and representatives, and not the result of any actions or any contributing behavior of Members 1st 8 17. To date, Members lst has been required to expend significant sums of money in excess of $100,000.00 to remedy the defects caused by the Defendants" defecti~re design, and Members ls` expects to expend additional sums in the future to correct the deficiencies inherent in the flawed design and the flawed construction inspection regarding the installation of the underground stormwater system. The Defendants' Own Professional Negligence 18. T'he Defendants, acting through its employees and/or agents and representatives, were negligent in their preparation of the design and specifications of the underground stormwater system, in that: a. the Defendants failed to exercise the ordinary care and skill required o:f a consulting professional engineers for the Palmyra Branch Project; b. the Defendants failed to recommend the performance of or actually perform proper testing (particularly, but not limited to, test boring) for the actual location of the underground stormwater system; c. the Defendants failed to prepare design plans and specifications with proper structural components to protect against failure of the underground stormwater system; 9 d. the Defendants failed to seek necessary consultation from other experts of professionals in the design of the underground stormwater system; e. the Defendants failed to prepare design plans and specifications with properly designed foundational elements; f. the Defendants failed to prepare design plans and specifications with properly sized materials for the underground stormwater system; g. the Defendants failed to properly locate the underground. stormwater system on t:he Project site; h. the Defendants failed to consult with Members lit or its representatives to offer alternative options for design plans and construction for the underground stormwater system before making critical design and location decisions; i. the Defendants failed to monitor and to provide necessary professional oversight on the Project of the geotechnical engineer whom the Defendants had engaged to provide geotechnical services, which failure permitted a flawed design for the underground stormwater management system to become a part of the Project; j. the Defendants were otherwise negligent under the circumstances. 10 Defendants' Negligent Failure to Protect Members 1St From the Prafessional Negligence of Others 19. The Defendants failed to adequately monitor CMX, Inc. and/or Advantage Engineers LLC in the performance of their subconsultant geotechnical engineering duties. 20. As licensed professionals, the Defendants failed to guard the interests of Members 1st against the negligence of the geotechnical engineering subconsultants engaged by them for this Project, and as a result, the Defendants failed to inform Members 1 S` at the time of design of the underground stormwater system and. at the time of construction that the underground stormwater system demanded serious re- design and/or re-location in order to avoid a flawed and structurally deficient underground stormwater system. In particular, the geotechnical engineering subconsultants: a. failed to exercise the ordinary care and skill required of a consulting professional geotechnical engineer, and failed to provide employees and/or agents and representatives who possessed the ordinary care and skill. required of a consulting geotechnical engineering professional, for the Palmyra Branch Project; b. failed. to take steps by calling for the taking of proper test borings for the actual location of the underground stormwater system, or by calling for 11 the proper structural components to protect against failure of the underground stormwater system; c. failed to seek necessary consultation with JMB&A in the design of the underground stormwater system; d. failed to highlight the need for data necessary to address the proper foundational elements of design (or failed to highlight the absence of necessary data); e. failed to consult with Members 1St or its representatives before permitting the making of critical design and location decisions; h, failed to monitor and to provide necessary professional oversight on the Project, which failure permitted a structurally deficient design for the underground stormwater management system to become a part of the Project; i. were otherwise negligent under the circumstances. The Defendants should have protected Members 1St against these failures. 21. In all of the above respects, the Defendants did not perform (or did not perform within the proper standard of care) the professional services undertaken for Members 1St in the design and the construction of a proper underground stormwater system., and consequently the Defendants' failure also undermined the failed areas described in paragraph 14 above and caused their failures. 12 22. The April 27, 2010 collapse and/or failure of the underground stormwater systems, and the consequential. failure of the surfaces described in paragraph 14 above and proximate to the underground stormwater systems, were directly and proximately caused by the professional negligence and/or the performance without adherence to the proper standard of professional care of the Defendants. The collapse and/or failure of the underground stormwater systems and the failure of the driveway and parking surface and ground surfaces rendered the driveway and parking. surface and ground surfaces dangerous and unusable and rendered the underground stormwater systems dangerous and unusable. COUNT ONE Members 1St vs. Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro Professional Negligence 23. All preceding and succeeding paragraphs are incorporated herein. by reference, and made a part hereof. 24. At all relevant times, Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro owed a duty imposed by the common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to skillfully, prudently, and properly perform their professional duties to Members 1st in such a manner as is required of a consulting professional engineering firm. 13 25. Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro failed to perform as licensed professionals by providing a design plan and specifications which were defective and otherwise failed (as set forth above} to meet the professional standard of care required of a consulting professional engineers, who held themselves out as professionally skilled in commercial projects of similar size and scope as described in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Defendants breached their duty of care. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the professional negligence of Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro and the aforesaid breach of duty Members 151 suffered damages and losses and will continue to suffer damages as a direct and proximate cause of the breach. 14 WHEREFORE, Members 1st demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. in an amount in excess of $100,000 plus interest, costs, attorney's fees and such other relief as the Court deems reasonable and proper. K&L GATES LLP /-, ji /~ - y: G Grainger Bowman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 15706 17 North Second Street, 18t" Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 T: 717-231-4500 F: 71'7-231-4501 Attorneys for Members ls~ Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff Date: lyfovember~,.~ , 2012 15 .. ~1. ~cihae/~rr~i(rT ASSO4~~TES, I~TCo , CONSULTING ENGINIJERB HAND DELIVERED July 11, 2006 Mr. John Lippa- VP Faalities & Specialties Services Members 1~ Federal Credit Union 5000 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Fax: (717) 795-6047 RE: Proposed Members 1~ F.C.U. Branch Office Situa#ed on Main Street (S_R. 0422) Borough of Palmyra, Lebanon County, PA AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 /yfQp..~,.q~S f~ ~r~j c~7~#GS-J- OG -J'F~ Dear .John: ~~~~ JUL ' E ~O6 J Michael Brill & Associates Consulting Engineers In accordance with our recent telephone conversation an July 7, 2006, I am pleased to submitthis Agreement for Professional Services with respect to work involved in the Subdivision J Land Development Planning of the above referenced project The project will consist of constructing a new Members 1~ branch banking facilfi/ along East Main Street (S.R. 0422} in Palmyra, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. The structure is expected to measure approximately 3,500 SF in building footprint area with associated parking areas, drive lanes, and subsurtace utilities. Said Development will also consist of three (3) proposed undeveloped tracts ranging from 1.25 to 1.75 acres. J. Michael Brill & A.s-sociates, Inc. {JMB) believes and knows thatwe can be a great assetin the development of your project. I also believe and know that JMB will provide you with a product which is second to none! With the above in mind, JMB would propose a detailed scope of work as follows: Provide General Consulting :>ervices for the project. This work may include, but not be limited to, reviewing existing plans, reports, correspondence and other information; contacting and obtaining information from the client, client representatives, muniapality, county and other gavemment officials regarding the project; coordinating with and obtaining information from outside engineers, outside consultants and others regarding the project; and perform other background and general consulting work for the project as needed or requested by the client. Coordinating with other professionals including architects, attorneys, other consultants, a#c. Prepare correspondence, letters, transmittals, minutes from meetings and teleconferencing and the like. 2. Perform a Site Feasibility Study. This would include having both a Phase I Environmental Assessment, a wetland delineation and a limited Geotechnical Investigation prepared; performing an overall review of Township Ordinances and utility requirements; and also attending meetings with Borough officials, Borough Authority officials, PennDOT and utility company officials. An initial Conceptual Plan was completed as per your verbal authorization and will be utilized for the purpose of meetings with Palmyra Borough, Utility and PennD01` officials. Any additional work on the Conceptual plan will be done at this time and will be included in Phase 200 (Item #6) ofthis Agreement. The proposed scope of work for the Phase I Environmental Assessment / Geotechnical Investigation will inctude having a field investigation, laboratory anatys~ of soils, and a geotechnical engineering report completed. In addition, JMB will also have completed a Phase [ Emrironmental Site Assessment (ESA). Specific items included within each of these tasks are presented as follows: www.TMichaelBrill. com 5053 Ritter Road ~ Suite 200 ~ Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6925 Phone: (717) 691-0200 ~ :Fax; {717) 691-7654 ~ e-mail: jmb@JMir_haelBrill.com l-1(LIXI~( i~Tl(~ ASSOCr~~TFS, INC. Mr_ John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 2 of 16 PHASE }ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT The objective of the proposed environmental engineering scope of work for this project will be to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the referenced property. This objective will be accomplished through performance of a detailed site reconnaissance and an environmental engineering analysis of the data collected. The performance of the Phase 1 ESA will be conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials~(ASTM) E 1527 documenttitJed "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process"_ Specific tasks to be performed as part of the scope of work for this project are outlined below. Review of Available Database Information The applicable federal and state environmental databases will be accessed regarding environmental violations or incirients which have occurred during past proprietorship ofthe site. The review of these databases will also apply to adjacent sites situated within the "approximate minimum search distance", as specified in the ASTM E 15'7 document, of the subject site. Record sources to be reviewed include the following: • Federal NPL site list • Federal TRl list • Federal RCRA generators list • State lealang UST I~;ts - Sta#e registered UST lists • Federal CERCLIS list • Federal RCRA TSD facilities list • Federal ERNS list • State lists of hazardous waste sites • Sta#e landfill and solid waste disposal site lists In order to further review the site and provide additional information regarding past usage of the property, a search of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps farthe site will be comple#ed. This search will be conducted in an effort to determine if items, such as underground storage tanks, are or have been loca#ed on the property. Chain of Title The chain of title for the property will be obtained extending a minimum of fifty (50) years in the past The title records will be used to determine whether corporate entities associated with environmental concerns have held title to the property_ Detailed Site Reconnaissance A detailed site reconnaissance of the property will be conducted. This reconnaissance will include a visual evaluation of the project site and an analysis of surface features and structures that may cant' potential environmental liability. During the site reconnaissance, several specific conditions are routinely inspected. A partial list of the '.items of interest is presented below: J ~cfu>'e~Qri(l ~ASSOC~.AT~;S, INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFES51ONAL SERVICES JMt3 Project #1212 Page :3 of 16 • The nature of current and past activities at the property and adjoining properties.. + Materials used or stored at the property. • Evidence of past spills such as stained or discolored soils, chemical. releases or similar incidents. • Nature and condition of other unique circumstances atthe site including discolored ortvrbid water, and areas exhibiting stressed or no vegetation. Presence and condition of electrical transformers, underground storagetanks, and other binding components. • Existing monitoring wells, areas of waste and raw material storage, indications of previous dumping of materials, or other inusual site conditions. • Indications of past or present use of hazardous materials, oils, solvents, degreasers, petroleum products, or other hazardous materials. An evaluation of the environmental impacttha# surroinding properties may have on the project site will aisa be conducted during the site reconnaissance. Commercial properties adjacent to the site that conduct activihies assoaated with environmental hazards such as gasoline service stations or ardustrial facilities will be noted. The locations of areas of distressed vegetation, storm sewers, stockpiled materials, extensive fill, and other significant features present on adjacent properties will also be documented and presented in the final report. Environmental Site Assessment Report Based on the data gathered during pertormance of the tasks outlined above, an environmental assessment repor# will be provided for the project site. The report will include conclusions and recommendations prepared for the project in addition to the following: • Narrative description of the property and the surrounding area. • Presentation of past land uses and their potential environmental impact on the property. • Results of the site reconnaissance including description of the property, significant features encountered and potenfia[ impact from adjacent sites. • Professional opinion regarding environmental liabilities assoaated with the property based on available information. • Determination of whether additional work is required to quantitatively delineate environmental areas of concern and preparation of a scope of work to further define tfiese areas if requested. r!~chae(~~ril! ,ASSO(I,~1T~S, INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 4 of 16 WETLAND DELINEATION Detailed Site Reconnaissanre A detailed site reconnafssance of the property will be conducted. JMB will perform a survey to determine if anywetland areas are present on the above mentioned property: if so, JMB will conducta delineation of the wetland areas located on the property. This reconnaissance will include a visual evaluation of the project site and an analysis of surface featrrres. Wetland del~reationstypicalyindude flagging and surveying of wetland boundaries. For this project, JMB will "flag" or otherwise clearty mark in the field the boundaries afthe wetlands on the property. The project area wiN be reviewed for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and signs of hydrology- The U.S. Army Carps of Engineers requires that all three parameters be present for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland- Wetland Assessment Report Based on the data gathered during performance of the tasks outlined above, a wetland assessment report will be provided for the project site. The report will include conclusions and recommendations prepared for the project in addition to the foAowing: • Narrative description of the property and the surrounding area. Presentation of wetland indicators on the property • Results of the site reconnaissance including descrpton of the property, pertinent features encountered and wetland assessment. GEOTECHNICAL /SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Field Investigation In an effort to determine the subsurface stratigraphy beneath the project site, a series of standard earth borings will be comple#ed in accordance with the following schedule: Three (3) test borings to a depth of 20 feet within the footprint of the proposed structure. • Four (4) test borings to a depth of '{ d feetwithin the proposed parking area, drive-thru canopy, and starmwater management area. The test borings will extend to the depths specified above or until the underlying bedrock is encountered. The test borings will be conducted using atruck-mounted drill rig, equippedmlh hollaw- stem augers and split spoon :samplers. Samples of the soils encountered will be recovered at suitable intervals and the Standard Penetration Resistance Test (SPT) values will be recorded. All sampling procedures will be performed in accordance with the applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. Should the underlying bedrock be enwuntered priorto reaching a depth of appra~arnatelyten (10) feet, one (1} bedrock core sample will be recovered from a representative test boring location with the use of Nx ~chael t3rr`ll ~ assacx,~~~~ ~c. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREE~REM FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #12'12 Page ~ of 16 size coring equipmerrt. The percent recovery and rock quality designation (RQD} of the bedrock sample will be measured and recorded. In order to determine the infiltration rate of the subsurface soils at the project site, field percolation testing wil! be completed in areas proposed for stormwater management. The infiltration testing will be completed in accordance with applicable township and state guidelines. Laboratory Analysis of Soils In order to define the physical characteristics of the soils encountered, it is proposed that laboratory analysis of soils, consisting of a USGS classification, be conducted in accordance with ASTM 2~t87 standards and specifications. This testing will include Atterberg limits determination, mechanical gradation analysis, and natural moisture content testing. It is proposed that one {1) standard classification test be performed on a representative sail sample obtained from the project site. Geotechnical Engineering Analysis and Report A geotechnical engineering analysis and report presenting our results and recommendations, based on the scope work outlined above, will be prepared forthe Members Firstwhich will include the following: • Geologic Site Evaluation (ncluding terrain destxiption, brief geological history, and surface drainage conditions) • Description of Subsurface Conditions (nciuding description of exploration and sampling methods, soil identification and classification) • Results of Geo#echnirai Analysis • Test Boring Logs • Test Boring Profiles • Test Boring Location Plan • . Results of All Laboratory Testing • Recommendations Concerning: Foundation Types (including) (a) Allowable Bearing Capacity Values (b} Placement Depths (c) Design Frost Depths {d} Preparation of Foundation Areas Soil Strength Condtions {a) Stratification Characteristics and Correlated Sail Strengths (b) Potential for Construction and/or Differential Settlements Genera{ Earthwork Criteria (a) Use and Treatment of In-situ Materials for Controlled Saclfiil (b) Control of Surface Runoff Water and Groundwater (c} Quali~j/ Control Requirements During Foundation Construction (d) Subgrade Preparation for Slabs and Pavements • Lateral Earth Pressures for Design of Walls Below Grade • Rock Excavation Characteristics, if regdired. J l~lichaell3rr(l ASSOC~T~S, ANC. Mr. John L~ppa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 6 of 16 3. Perform a Topographic and Boundary Survey of the subject property. The surveywrll show contours an a two (2) foot irrterval with spot elevations to establish critical conditions, adjacerrt property owners, easements, wood lines, ratilities, fire hydrants, structures, roadways and parking loss. Horizontal orientation for the survey will be based on previous site surveys and boundary survey unless the munidpa!'rty requires otherwise. Vertical datum wil[ be based on benchmarks from previous topographic surveys unless the municipality requires otherwise. Topographic and planimetric information will be obtained for areas 100 feet outside the boundary lines. Additionally, survey information will be obtained forthe PennDOT right-of-way for Main Street (S.R. 0422). All necessary research at the Lebanon County Courthouse, Borough of Palmyra and PennDOT District 8-0 wilt be performed for the project site for determining right-af-way and adjoining land owners. 4. Prepare a base sheet which will indude the in#ormation obtained in item #3. The base sheet will be prepared in JMB CADD standards utilizing AutoCAD 2006 format. 5. Prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as required by Borough of Palmyra and PennDOT. The study area wil! be de#ermined bythe Borough of Palmyra engineer. Work wilt include automated and manual traffic counts, analysis of data, determining ebsting and proposed traffic generation, preparing a report and also preparing schematic layouts for intersection and roadway/driveway confrgurations_ Specific items included within each of these tasks are presented belaw_ TASK I. STUDY AREA INVESTIGATION 1. Prepare and submit a ~T1S scope determination letterto PennDOT and the Borough. 2. Obtain information from PennDOT and the Borough regarding any planned roadway improvements in the study area. 3. Request crash data from PennDOT for the intersections listed in Task ll.i . 4. Conduct a field inventory atthe intersections listed in Task 11.1. S. Obtain condition diagrams from PennDOT for the intersedions listed in Task 11.1 that are currently .signalized. TASK il. FIELD DATA COLLECTION 1. Conduct manual counts for the weekday evening _(4:00 to 6:00 P.M.) and Saturday midday peak periods {11:00 A,.M.. to 1:00 P.M.) peak periods at the following intersections: • East Main'Street (SR 0422) and Duke Street; • East Main Street and Lebanon Valley Shopping Center Driveway; • East Main Street and Plaza Drive (T-328); 2. Describe the extema[ road system in the study area as defined by the intersections listed in Task1L1. l~~aeil~rr~C ~ ~.~sacl~.~:~ Svc. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAi. SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page l of 16 3. Measure the existing sight distance at the proposed access drive locations in accordance with PennDOT sight distance measurement methodology (15 feet back from the tn3vel lane for local roads and 10 feet back for driveways at a drivers eye height of 3.5 feet above the proposed elevation at this point per the site plan). Confirm that the access drives meet PennDOTs intersection or stopping sight distance criteria, as applicable,-for the posted speed limit, the grade of the road per the site plan and the type of vehicle utilizing the access point. TASK iB. EXISTING 8: BASE YEAR VOLUME DEVELOPMENT 1. Determine the projected increase in traffic at the study area intersections due to background growth, based on the methodology outlined in the Assumptions section of this proposal: 2. Determine the projected increase in traffic in the study area due to developments which are not currently operating but which will be operating by the build-aut year for the above-referenced project For purposes of this proposal, it was assumed that one such background development would have to be incori;~orated into the traffic volume development. 3. Develop 2008 and 2018 Base Condition traffic volumes for the intersections Listed in Task IL1. TASK N. TRIP GENERATION/DISTRIBUTION AND PROJECTED VOLUME DEVELOPMENT 1. Determine the trip generation of the proposed development on a dairy and peak highway hours basis using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual.. 2. Using trip distribution rates developed from an analysis of existing traffic patterns in the study area, dishibute and assign the site~enerated traffic #o the driveways and the intersections on the local road network identified in Task Il.i . 3. Determine 2008 and 2018 Projected Condition traffic volumes for the study area. TASK V. ANALYSES 1. Conduct capacity analyses at the intersections identified in Task. I1.1 for Existing, Base, and Projected Conditions, and at the drnreway intersections for Projected Conditions. 2. Compare Base Condition and Projected Condition LOS to de#ermine the #raffic impact at the study area intersections attributable to the site. 3. For roadways and intersections within the study area, determine roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts (f any} attributable to the site. 4. Conduct analyses to determine the need for (and, if necessary, the length ot) separate tum lanes at the driveway intersections and the intersections identified in Task 11.1 for Projected Conditions. 5_ Conduct preliminarytrafftc signal warrant analyses (based on peak hourtraffic volumes) at any deficient unsignai¢ed intersections identified in Task V.1 for Projected Conditions. 6. Conduct queue analyses at study area intersections tha# are currently signalized or proposed to be signali¢ed, if applicable. ~i:fXYP.t t~l7tt ~ ~ssocta~~~ ~c. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 8 of 16 7. For each proposed driveway location, conduct analyses to compare the existing (measured) sight distances to the applicable sight distance standards. 8. Review the crash data obtained in Task I and identity intersections at which five or more correctable reportable crashes occurred during a continuous twelve-month period overthe past three years. TASK Vl. REPORT PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION 1 _ Prepare a report of findings discussing the results of Tasks l-V. 2. Submit a draft report to the client far review. 3. Schedule a conference ~Il to discuss the results of the T1S. 4. Submit the TIS to PennDOT and the Borough for review. 6. Prepare additional Conceptual Site Plans (f required) for your review and approval and forthe purpose of mee5ng with Borough of Palmyra officials and for the Client's use in marketing purposes. 7. Prepare and submit Final Sutxiivision /Land Development Plans required for municipal and county review and ultimate site construction. The plans will be based upon the Gtient approved and accepted Final Site Concept Plan. ' Please No#e: This Agreement is based on the premise that a combined Final Sul~ivision & Land Development Plans will be submitted with a request for a waiver forthe requirement to submit separate Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Land DevelopmentPtans to the Township. if the waiver is not granted and separate Prel'aninary Subdivsion and Preliminary Land Development Plans are required, a Supplements! Authorization will be necessary to cover the time and expense of preparing those plans. 8. Prepare alt applicable Final design calculations and reports necessary for Final Subdivision /Land Development Plan review ~.e~. - stormwater management report, storm sewer design calculations, erosion and sedimentation control narrative, etc.). 9. Prepare and submit all app8cations and make submittals necessary far Final Plan review and ultimate site construction (i.e. -Borough of Palmyra submissions, Lebanon Gounty submissions, Lebanon County Soil Conservation District submissions, etc.). 10. Prepare and submit Highway Occupancy Permit Plans (H.OP.) required for Pennsyhrania Departmen# of Transportation review ofthe access onto East Main Street (S.R. 0422) as well as utility connections within the right-~f-way of East Main Street. Please Note: PennDOT has not been contacted to-date with our proposed layout as submitted to you. 11. Ai#end all required meetings with client, client representatives, municipal officials, rnunicipai authority officials, utilrly officials, state officials, corrtractors, attorneys, sub-consultants, etc. I~chae~Qrrf~ ~ASSOC~gTF~ INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 9 of 16 12. Provide coordination with utility company officials (.e. -water, sewer, gas, electric, communications, etc.) and provide service layouts and locations of appurtenances per util""ity company requirements. The proper sizing of service lines forwater, gas, electric and communicafionswill be determined bythe Clients architect or their sub-consultant and provided to JMB for use and inclusion an the plans. 13. Revise plans and reports to ,address comments by the government officials and other reviewing agencies involved in the project 14. Prepare a Site Lighting Plan and Landscape Plan to be submitted with the Subdivision & Land Development Plans. JMB will provide you or your sub-consultants with base plan including both the site, grading and uiili#ies information for use in preparing the photometrics. This information is to be provided to JMB for inclusion on the Site Lighting Plan and or Larxiscape Plan. The landscape plan will be prepared to meet the minimum municipal requirements (if any). Because the work far this project is generally well defined, J. Michael Bnll ~ Associates, Inc. agrees to provide these services as follows: PHASE 150 -GENERAL CONSULTING Perform work described in sc~~pe-of-work Item #1 found on Page 1 of this I~greement_ ESTIMATED COST OF PHASE .............................................................................................$6,000.00* "This phase of work will be performed on an hourly basis. II. PHASE 4010 -PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Perform all work as stated in the scope-of-work ktem #2 found on Page 1 of this Agreement. COST OF PHASE ............................•---.........................................----................._......................$2,800.00 III. PHASE 4120 -WETLAND STUDY Perform all work as stated in the scope-of-work Item #2 found vn Page 4 of this ggreemenf. COST OF PHASE ...................................................................................,...---...........................$1,200.00 N. PHASE 4020 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Perform all work as stated in the scope-of-wank Item #2 found on Page 4 of this Agreement COST OF PHASE .....................................................................................................................$7,000.00 ~.I. ~l~tQrr~l assoc~a~~~ ~c. Mr, John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page '10 0# 16 V. PHASE 300 -SURVEYING Perform all work as stated in the scope-of-work Items #3 8~ #4 found on Page 6 of this Agreement COST OF PHASE ................................................ VI. PHASE 2D0 -SKETCH PLANNING ..............................,.. _.,..$4,800.00 Perfarm all work as stated in the scope-of--work Item #6 found on Page 8 of this Agreement. ESTIMATED COST OF PHASE ...........:.............................----.......,...........-----.......................,$1,000.00* "This phase of work will be performed on an hourly basis. Vll. PHASE 4000 -TRAFFIC STUDY Perform all work as stated in ifle scope-of-work item #5 found an Page 6 of this Agreement- ESTIMATED COST OF PHA:iE ..................:....................................................................... $32,000.00* `This phase of work will be performed on an hourly basis. Vlll. PHASE 500 -FINAL PLANNING Prepare the following plans, reports and documents and also perform other required work as follows: A. Final SubdivisionlLand Development Plans: Includes design and CADD drafting of the following 1. Cover Sheet 2. TopographicBoundary Survey Plan 3. Preliminary/f=inal Subdivision Plan 4. Demolition Plan 5. Preliminary/f=inal Land Development Plan (Site Plan) 6. Preliminary/F=mal Land Development Plan {Grading/l.ltil""lies Plan) 7. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan'' 8. Site Lighting Plan 9. Landscape flan 10. Pre~feveloprnent Drainage Area Plan 11. Post-tjevelopment Drainage Area Plan 12. Mscellaneous Profiles and Details 13, Construction Details and Miscellaneous Information ~chaell3riff ~ASSOCIAI'FS. INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JM13 Project#1212 Page 'S 1 of 16 NOTES: a. Same of the above plans may be combined. b. Plans 10 ~ 11 as indicated above may be.included in the Stormwater Management Report found below. c. She lighting locations and wiring will be determined by others contracted directly by the client and given to JMB for inclusion on Plan 8. B. PennDOT Submission for access onta East Main Street (S.R. 04221: 1. Cover Sheet 2. Topographic/Boundary Survey Plan (Existing Conditions) 3. Roadway / A+rcess Drive Plans (Site) 4. Roadway /Access Drive Plans (Grading/lltiiities) 5. Profiles /Cross-Sec~ons 6. Miscellaneous Profiles and Details 7. Construction Details and Miscellaneous Information 8. Complete PennDOT Applications C. Required Reports and Calculations: 1. Stormwater Management Report. 2. Storm Sewer System Design Calculations. 3. Soil Erosion ,and Sedimentation Control Report. NOTE: The above may be combined into one report D. Miscellaneous Enaineerina Work: 1. Submissions to Borough of Palmyra 2. Submissions to Lebanon County 3. Submissions #o Lebanon County Conservation District 4. Sewer Module Application (rf requir+~) E. Support Work: 1. Secretariat and administrative 2. Project supervision and management COST FOR PHASE ................................................................_........._....._..---..................._........$48,000.00. IY~chaell3r~ff~ ~ ~SSO(:~IATr;~. l~C. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 12 of 16 tX. PHASE 250 - MF~TINGS (including travel time}: Possibly including but not limited to the following. A Client/Client Representatives B. Borough of Palmyra officials and municipal boards C. Lebanon County officials D. Attorneys and other owner representatives E. Utility companies, corrtractors, etc. F. Vendors and other consulfiants, etc. ESTIMATED COST OF PHASE ............................................................................................. $9,000.QO~` "NOTE: This phase of work will be performed on an hourly basis. The estimated number of meetings has been established (although may vary) as follows: Client and Client Representatives 10 hours Township ~ Municipal Engineer 10 hours Township Codes Enforcement Officer 3 hours Township Planning Commission 4 hours PADOT Officials 7 hours Township Board 4 hours Courtly Officals 2 hours Site Visits 5 hours Utilrty Company Offciats 5 hours Vendors/ Others/Travel Time 25 hours Estimated Total 7~ hours X. PHASE 800 -REVISIONS Revise plans and reports to meet client, client represen#a#ives, and municipaE and other reviewing agencies comrnerrts_ Because each project is unique in its own right, it is very difficultta commit to a firm cost for this phase of work ESTIMATED COST OF PHASE ............................................................................................$9,000.00" `iVOTE: This phase of work will be performed on an hourly basis. J. ~chae(l~rilf ~ t~S,SOC~~~T~S, ~1C. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 13 0# 16 PLEASE NOTE: This Agreement does not include costs for the following: a. Permit/Application Fees b. Off-Site Studies c. Construction Planning and/or Construction Administration d_ All o#her items not speafically describe • Please note that as indicated in Item #14 on Page 9 of this Agreement, design costs for the landscape plan includes onlythe minimum municipal criteria. Anything beyond that, addrtfonal design costs will be determined based on the anticipated landscape budget for the project. In addition to the above Members 1~ Federal Credit Union (CLIENT) and J. lvfichael Bri{I ~ Associates, Inc. (ENGINEER) agree to the attached supplemental terms and condifions. J. Michael Brill 8~ Associates, Inc, appreciates your interest in our firm and the opportunity to submit this Agreement for Professional Services to meet you project schedule. If you have any comments or questions canceming this Agreement for Professional Services, please contact rrre. Thank you. ' Sincerely, J. M1C~FIAE~Bjt{fi~5j~CIATES, INC. Aar M. Navarka Pro' ct Manager /Director of CADS Services cc: J. Michael Brill, P.E., P.L.S. Agreement Fife See Page Four#een for Signature Placement ~' ~chcre(Qri((~ASSOCII~TI~S, INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2906 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 14 of 16 Accepted for J. MICHAEL BRILL ~ ASSOCIATES, WC.: r -' Brill, P.E., P.L.S. President Accepted for MEMBERS 1~ FEDERAL CREDIT UNION: C~ ~. Nam ~~~K ~~ ~•,doa Signature ~~~__~__ Date ~~ Title ~--r~"-U2~'~ Date Please return both copies (alt pages) of this Agreement with propersignatures_ J. Michael Bnll, P.E., P_L.S_ will ' then sign the Agreements and return one (1) copy for your records. Thank you. ti l~lichae/(3t~~1 ~ ~ssocL4r~ ~c. J. MICHAEi BRILL & ASSOCIATES, PIC_ SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS ~ CONDfIIONS FOR PROPOSAi.S AND/OR AGREEMENTS REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable expenses assrociated with the project wit be invoiced to the CUENT at the ENGINEER'S actual rxsf limes a factor of 125. Reimbursable casts shall include, but oaf be IEmled fo, the following: t Printing and reproduction crosts. Z. Milrage and other transportation wets. 3 All Regular and Express mail costs. 4. Alk Comrdunication costs. 5 Costs of obtaining plans, mapping, reports, deeds, arty other items. IdC3Tl_: All fling and submission fees will not be paid by J. RAichael Brill & Associates, Inc_ (tt is our pelicy that the client pays forthese fees directty) An estimated budge! cost for reimbursables would be $il),000.OD ~ forthis project. However, fatal reimbursable expenses wll be invoiced whether more w less than the indgled budgeted estimated anlourd. INVOICING Invoices will be submitted trronihty and framed on a percent cwnplete fw cerialn items, for actual work performed (hourly items} and iw reimbursable expenses. Payment is expected within 3a days upon receipt Payments not received within 30 days will be subject to an irderest charge of 134% per month on the otrfstanding bahance_ FAILURE TO PAY INVOICES ff all, some or a portion cif irrvoices are rwt paid to ENGINEER and ENGINE17Zwould flean action to collect amounts in default, CLIENT agreesto paya9 of ENGINEER'S ceud casts and reasonable attornel/s fee of twenty (211%) perrujrrt of the total amount due alorg wish arnourd of imoir~s outstanding. ENG W EER volt cardQrrre to impose interest and attorney's fees deity on ag sums awed to ENGINEER at the rate provided "ar the Engcreering Agreement for Professional Services urrhl payment is received in full even rTENGWEER has obtained judgmerd against CUNT. All disputes regarding this contract shat he Idigated in Cumbariand ('.ounty, Pennsylvania. SUSPf7aS10N FOR NON-PAYMENT Paymentto the ENGINEER is a material consideration of this agreement Therefore, the ENGINEER Iran a right to suspend services fw nonpayment. The ENGINEER strap not be liable, nor in arty way he r~ponslble fw damages, delays or uKxeasad costs Thal may oa-ur as a result of the ENGfi~ER'S suspension of services. The CLIENT sfiaU hold frarmless, indemnify and defend the ITIGINI~Rior davrrs that arise due to airy suspension. BENEFfi OF SERVICES The CLIENT agrees that A roll include in Rs agreement with any Contractor and/or Construction Manager the following clause: The CIJENT and the ENGINEER aclmowledge that ndhirg in the CLIENTS engagement implies arty undertaking b1r the ENGINEER fw the benefit of, w which may he enforced by the Contractor. w its Sub-Contractors, w the surety of any of them- it being understood that the ENGINEER'S oWlgatiorrs areio the CLENT and that, in performing such obfigations, the ENGINEER may increase the burdens and expense of the Contractor, w its' Sub-Conhadors, or the surety of arty of them. ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES tf it is the CIENTS request to proceed into further stages of devetopmenf, the ENGWEER agrees to enter into separate agreements for addiionaal engineering services. 'These agreemerds well be sper:ificaily Prepared to represerd the scope of work at each subsequent phase of devebpmenL REVIS10N5 BY CLIENT The plans, reports and other design iMormation prepared by ENGINEER will be based on the site c:orrcept plan accepted try the CLIENT. !F design or revisions are made to plans at the request al' CLIENT after vNOrk has started, during process, or after completion of ffie phan, the CLIETIT and ENGINEER agreeta consider said revisions as additlorralworktothe Total Cost of Phases found in this Agreemen. Thus, addflionaltimevvil be invoiced at fiornfyrates outlined under COMPENSATION FOR ADDiT10NAL WORK. REV15K1NS BY REVIElN9~IG AGENCIES The plans, reports and other design information prepared blr the ENGINEER vvig, to the best of the ENGINEEf25 Imovvledge, comply vvitlr all currerd municipal requirements. liovvever, the ENGWEERS subrrvaion of materials to various ravieMVing agencies may not represent the personal op¢rions and viewpokrts of al w arty otth~ revieNring ad6raals Q.e, engineers, planning cannrissiort members. supervisors, county and state afiicials, etc.). Tttus,tidesign or plan revisions ors required because of irderprefation a personal matters, the ENGpVEER proposes to cwrsider said revisions as additional vwrk and all additonal time vvi0 be invoiced at the hourly rates outlined under COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL WORK SUB(.'ONSULTANTS l the project necessitates the use of sulrcorrsuNants fwservices outside the proposed scope afwork, subconsullarrt costs will be invoiced at t 25limes ttre actual costs Inwrred. Priwte the execrdion ~ a contract with a subconsultant,the ENGINF~R v+ll provide you with an estimated cost of the subcar~ularp's work for your concurrence, and subsequent approvaf_ Page i5 of 16 Cfierrt Initials f ~.1. ~cf~ael Qrr'll ASSOCI.ATES, INC. COMPENSATION FOR ADDfT10NAL WORK Any plan revision required by the CLIENT or other CLIENT RE}'RESENTATNE shall be considered as additional work Addtionaly, any future services requested which are not within the proposed scope of work shat also be considered as erdra work and stroll constitute a claim of compensat ion foradddimrai work The ENGINEER proposes fo provrde arty additumai service on a direct hourly rateJpersonnel as foGows: Regular Overtime Principal Engineer $180.00 $180,40 Project Manager 125.00 125.00 Traffic Engineer 120.00 120.00 ~ GeotechnicalEngineer 120.00 120.00 ~ Emironmenlal Engineer 120.00 120.00 Project Engineer 110.00 110.00 Project Landscape Architect 105.00 105.00 Landscape Architect 45.00 95.00 ~ Eryineer 45.00 95.W CARD Manager 95.40 95.00 Engineering Technician 85.00 100.00 CADD Professional 75.00 90.00 Accounting 72.50 72.50 Administration 62.50 90.00 2 Person Survey Crew' 175.00 225.00 3 Person Survey Crew" 21090 250.00 1 Person 8: Robotic Equ~rrrent 175.00 225.00 2 Perm 8. Robotic Equipment 210.00 250.1)0 Invoicing will be haled on actual hours anti rates expended_ Please Note: The above rates are .IMB's current hourly billing rates. These rates are used for hourly biging phases as outlined in the cost brealodown found carter in th"r.; Proposal or Agreement (whichever is applicable). These rates may he increased once annually berroming effective in November of each ca~ridar year. Therefore, ~ tiut project is not complete t,y October of this or the next calendar year, .IMB may increase tire hourly billing for applicable phases on this project to that which 's in effect at prat Ynrre. 'Expert Services' wiN be billed of an additiord 325.00 per hour over the rates indicated above but only for licensed individuals working onlhe project Example would be a Pdncipal Engineer will be billed at $240.00 per hour and project Manager at $145.00 if the Project Manager is licensed. CONSTRUCTION 08SERVATION The CLIENT recognzes ttrat constructien observation is a vital element of the ENGINEER'S complete service, provided to min'nn¢e problems during construction by perrrritting detengon of and/or rapid response to unanticipated or changed cardtGHorrs, a ertnr5 a omissions committed by design protessionafs, contractors, materials provider or dhers. The CLIENT also recognizes that no party is as intimately familiar with the ENGINEER'S interrks as the ENGINEER and those the ENGINEF~ preparesfor and assigns to ravievring tasks. Accordingly, ttre CLIENT agreesto retain the ENGINEER toobserve eonstnrction, and Ure ENGINEER agrees 1o assign to the reviewing function persons quaGGed to observe and report on construction of the ENGINEER'S recommendations, plans ardspe~cations,andttregralityofworicperfomredbycontractors,clot. TheCUQSTrecognizesttrdtcorrsiruclienobservationis a technique empkryed to minimize the risk of prohlenrs arising during cortslnrclion; that construction observation bylhe ENGG+IEER is not insurance, and does not consl8ute a warranty or guarantee of arty type. In alt oases, contractors et al. (fhat is, the general contractor, subcordractors subsubcordractors, materials persons and others) shall retain resporrsibadyfathe quality ofthekwork and For adtrerirxl to plans and specifications. C«rsinrc5on observatierrvvill be done m an hourly basis and will be done under a separate agreement ar supplemental authorization under this agreement Shouts the CLIENT for arty reason nil retain the ENGIt~ER to observe corrsiruction, or shoudthe CLIENT unduly restridthe ENGINEER'S assignment of persanrrel to observation corrstrugion, or should ttre ENGINES2 at the direrifon of the client for any reason not perform mnsbuction observation during the trill period of construction, the 13~IG1NEER shall not havethe ability to perform a cunplcle service. in such a rasa, tire CLIENT waives any claim agahsi the ENGINEER and agrees to indemnity, defend and frold the ENGINEER harmless from arty Bairn or ftabilily for arjury m loss arising from problems durfrrg corrstnrciion that agegedy resuN frorrr findings, wndusions, recommendations, plans or specifications developed by the ENGINEER. The CUETfT also agrees to axnpensate the ENGINEER fotany time spend and expenses roamed bythe ENGINEER in defense of anysuch claim wrlh such compertsafionto be based upon the ENGINEER'S prevaTng fee schedule and expense reimhurserrrerd pofi~/. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Plans, reports, specifications, and other doasnerrts prepared and/orobtained by ENGINEER2 as inslrumeMs of service, are arxi shat remain the prapertyof the ENGINEER, vfiettrertha project for which they are intended is exerxded ru not. The CI.fENT shah be pemvlted to retain copies, including reproducible copies of plans and specificationsfarinformation and reference in carnection witirthe GLIENT'S use and accuparrry- The plans, reports, spec'dc~arsand other dowments prepared and/or obtained by the ENGINEER shat not be used by the CLIENT on ether projects, for additions to this protect, or for completion of this project by others, except byagteemF:nt in writing with the appropriate comperrsaGonto the ENGWEER, provided the ENGINEER s not in default under this Agreement. Page 16 of 16 CGertt Inif~fs ~chaell3rill ~~.SSOCI;~~'FS, ANC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION DATE:_ December 7. 2006 JMB PROJECT NAME Proposed Members 1 ~ Federal Credit Unian (rD Palmyra Borough JMB PROJECT # _ 1212 - SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION NUMBER #01 In accordance with the written Agreement on the above referenced project, dated July 11.2006 between the Parties designated below, J. Mchael Bri11 and Associates, lnc_, is hereby authorized to_ Proceed with Additional Engineering Services XX __, Proceed with Additional Surveying Services _____, Proceed with Revised Scope of Services XX __ Incur Reimbursab{e Expenses As Follows: 1. Proceed with Additional Surveying Services as follows: Perform__surve~ing a!o_nq the State Route 422 corridor to include the existing stormwater conveyance system and pan:els_ Create an additional base sheet and incorporate the information in#o our current one. Gompensa6on shall be adjusted as follows: 1. All work will be completed under Phase 300 - Surveying thus increasing the cost of this Phase from __~4 500.00 to $9.000.00 . 2. Reimbursable costs will be ih addition to that indicated above and will be invoiced in accordance with the previous and original Agreement referenced above. Upan return of a fully executed authorization, this service shall become part of the Aggreement kientified above. APPROVED BY: J. MICHAEL BRILL ~ ASSOCIATES, INC. APPROVED BY: MEMBERS 1~ FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 1 ignature Signature J. Michael Brill. P.E..P.L.S. -President NameR'i#le John D. Lippa. V.P. Facilities Support_ Services 1Vame~T"rtle IZ~~-U~ Date Date 12/6B/2666 68:47 717-691-7654 PROFESSIONAL SERVIGE$ SUPPt.EM~111TAL AU7HORfZAT10N n,ar>r Qecember 7 Zoos _ JM$ PROJECT NAME Proposed Mlnmbers 1'~ Fad®ra! Credit UNon ~Palmvra rouph_.~ _ JMB PROJECT ~ 12'12 _ SUPp1~MENrAL AUTHOt2tZATlON NUMBER #a'1 _ in accordance v~ith the written Agreemeirt on the sbave referenced protect, dated July 11 20tZ6 behNeen the Pates deslgr~ebed below, J. lV6chael Brill and }Lssociates, Inc., is hereby authnrized to: Proceed v+~h Addit3onsl Engineering Services XX Proceed m"th Additional SurveYmo Services _____, Proceed With F2evbed Scope of Services XX 1ncUr Relr-ibursable Expenses As Follows: Compensation shall be adjusted as fo#ows: t .Alt work wild be eornalaied under Phase 300 - SuNeyinp thus Increasino the cost of this Phase from $4 800.00 to $9.OU0.00 _ 2,J~eimtxtrsahle casts will be in adc~ion ip that indicated smote and Wll ~ invoiced in accordance with the _ orevlous and ,4areemeM referenced above. ~_ Upon rertvrn of a fully executed autharizatlon, this senrlce shall become part ofthe Agreement ide~r6fed above. APPR01/1=D BY: .1, MVIICIiAEL BRILL A ASSOCIATES, INC. PAS 6v e2 APPROVED t3Y: MEMBER91~ F1=DERAL GFiE17TT UNION t nature S re __._ J. Mrchae! Britt. P.E..Pl.S_ =Pretsidenf Na me(Title 12.-f~-~~ ~~ John D. Lippe, V.P. Faalifies S _ _ Services Nameli"~ie a -~ o Date ~J~/ P(//~~V/y~^y J. ~"rhaelQrr(f ~ASSOC~~c.~ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DATE:_ June 14, 2007 _ SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION JMB PROJECT NAME Proposed Members 1~ Federal Credit Union Cad Palmyra Borough _._ JMB PROJECT # _ 1212 ~ SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION NUMBER #02 In accordance with the written Agreement on the above referenced project, dated Juty 11, 2Q06 between the Parties designated below, J. Michael Brill and Associates, Inc., is hereby authorized to: XX _ Proceed with Additional Engineering Services Proceed with Addifonal Surveying Services Proceed with Revised Scope of Services XX _ Incur Reimbursable Expenses As Follows: Impact Study (TIS} to include the Duke Street/Chenv Street intersections ATR counts along Route 0422, full 12 hour signal warrant analyses for Members 1 Way. and revisions to other items. i Compensation shall be adjusted as follows: 1. All work will be completed under Phase 4000 -Traffic Study thus increasing the cost of this Phase from $32,000.00 {estimated) to $45.000.00 (estimated). Please note that the contract amount for this phase was~32.000.00 (estimated) currenttx,. this phase stands at $34.443.75. 2. Reimbursable costs will be in addition to that indicated above and will be invoiced in accordance with th_ e~revious and. original Agreement referenced above. Upon r~etum of a fully executed authorc>_ation, this service shall become part of the Agreement identified above. APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: J. MICHAEL BRILL ~ ASSOCIATES, INC. MEMBERS 1~ FEDERAL CREDIT UNION .~ n ~gnature Sign J. Michael Brill. P.E.,P.L.S. -President Nameff itle John D. Lippa. V.P. Facilities Support Services Name/Tifle __ ~ - l~-~'~` Date a ~ -----.------ Date ~: ~choel L3~r'll ~ assoc~~~ ~c. Supplemental Authorization #02 (Attarhment) JMB Project #~12i 2 June i4; 2007 ADDITIONAL WORK TASKS i . Conduct weekday morning (6:30 to 9:00 A.M.), weekday evening (4:00 to 6:00 P.M.) and Saturday midday (11:00 A.M. 'to 1:00 P.M.) traffic counts at the following locations: • Cherry Street and Duke Street 2. Place Automatic Traffic Recorder counts on Route 422, as requested by PennDOT in their 5!16/07 T!S Review Letter. 3. Modify design year capacity analyses to maintain e~dsting Peak dour Factors, as requested by PennDOT in their 5/16!07 TIS review letter. 4. Update base and projected condition LOS results fo incorporate the change noted in Task 3. 5. Modify the trip generation calculations for the Member 1 ~ to utilize the number of drive-thru lanes as the independent variable, not square footage, as requested by the Borough Engineer. 8. Update opening year and design year traffic volume development calculations to incorporate the results of Task 5. T. Update projected condition LOS for the opening year and design year to account for new volumes development in Task 6. 8. Provide left turn calculations forthe proposed signal at Route 422/Member 1~ Way, as requested by PennDOT. 9. Modify the TIS to incorporate the results of Tasks 1-8. 10, Prepare a response letter addressing PennDOT's 5/16/07 review letter. J' ~"chael Qri(f ~ - '~~.~ A UG Z 0 2007 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION DATE: August''15~~~6~i Eriil & Associates ~~~~~~uniny' engineers JMB PROJECT NAME Proposed Members 1~ Federal Credit Union Cd3 Palmyra borough JMB PROJECT # _ 1212 _ SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION NUMBER #03 In accordance with the written Agreemen# on the above referenced project, dated July 11. 200fi between the Parties designated below, J. Michael Brill and Assoaates, Inc., is hereby authored to: _XX _ Proceed with Additional Engineering Services Proceed with Additional Surveying Services - XX _ Proceed with Revised Scope of Services XX ___ Incur Reimbursable Expenses As Follows: 1. Due to the revised scope of work along Route 0422 !Main Street) to accommodate the proposed traffic signal, roadway widening and stormwater cornevance system forthe proposed development {See attached #or detailed scope). Gompensatian shall be adjusted as follows: 1. All work will be completed under Phase 550 - Highway Occupancy Permit (See attached for ESTIMATED cast) 2. Since the proposed scope of work has been expanded from the original scope which included one (1) full movement access off of Main Street (S.R. 0422) A reduction of $5 500 00 wt71 be applied to phase 500 thus reducing the cost of phase 500 to $42.500.00. 3. Reimbursable costs will be in addition to that indica#ed above and will be invoiced in accordance with the rp evious and orisrinal Agreement referenced above. Upon return of a fully executed authori:~ation, this service shall become part of the Agreement identified above APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: J. MICHAEL BRILL 8~ ASSOCIATES, ENC. MEMBERS 15T FEDERAL CREDIT llNiON ti ~j~ Signature ature J. Michael Brill. P.E.,Pl.S. -President John D. Lippa, V.P. Facilfies Support Senrices Name,(T-~le Name/T~le -2 3` a~ ~-ao-°? __ Date Date ~I ~°c,Ixref t~rr~1 ' ;~~sso<<~~~~ ~c. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND UNDERSTANDING This supplement has been prepared underthe following assumptions, which refler~the current understanding ofthe project. Th's supplement assumes that this project will be designed and approved through PennDOTs Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP) program, and will be constructed with private funds. This prajectwill not comply with all federal standards for pubtidy-funded projects. 2. The HOP project to be designed is defined bythe following: Proposed Members 1~ Way and Route 422 • Construction of one full-movement local road to Route 422; • Widening of eastbound Route 422 to provide a 200' righttum lane with a 100' bay taper; • Re-striping of the existing two-way cenfer left tum lane to provide a dedicated left tum lane on the westbound Route 422 appr~~ch. • Traffic signalization of the intersection. Proposed Right-ln, Right-0ut Driveway and Route 422 • Gonstruc~on of one right~n, rightvut driveway to Route 422; • Widening of eastbound Route 422 to provide a 200' right tum lane with a 100' bay taper, Drainage Improvements Along Route 422 • Construction of a parallel drainage system on Route 472 along the site frontage and to the eastofthes~e, on the south side of Route 422, for an approximate linear distance of 3,100 feet Duke Street and Route 422 • Re-time the signal. 3. It will be necessary for the FiOP Applicant to provide JMB with the following items for the initial submission to PennDOT: Signed HOP application; Signed Land Use Questionnaire and supporting zoning documents; Current deed(s) forthe subject property, including the deed book number and page number. This deed must be in the same name asthe Applicantforthe HOP. Ifthis is notthe case, we will need to discuss what additional forms may be necessary per current PennDOT procedures. This Supplement does not include Pavement Design or data collection relevant to ..such design. ti is assumed that JMB tinn71 match the existing pavement section, which isthe typical PennDOT requirement for an HOP project of this magnitude. Any and All Pavemerrt Design or Data Collection if required wilt be handled through a separate Supplement 5. JMB will not be responsible for negotiating or obtaining right-~f~vay, easements, or releases from nearby property owners, as applicable. It shall be the sole purpose of the Applicant to obtain said items. 6. This Supplement assumes a normal schedule of appro>amateiy 4 to 8 months for design and review, which does notinciude the lime ittakes to acquire right-of-way, easements, or releases. PennDOTwdI notissue an HOP until these property rights are acquired to the Departrnent's satisfaction. J. l~~r.~aelf~rrYl ~ASS(~IAi~~,INC. SCOPE OF WORK The following tasks will be completed in ,preparing the Design for the above-refernnced project. TASK I iNiTIAL EVALUATION 1. Coordinate project scope, design tasks, and schedule with the project team and internal design team- , 2. Request traffic data, pavement design history, construction plans, and rigfrt-of-way plans from PennDOT for S.R. 0422. 3. Request a letter of acknowledgement from the municipality. 4. Visit the site to obtain field measurements, obtain additional topographic data, and shoot digital photos necessary for the preparation of the HOP_ I I ESTIMATED COST OF TASK .................... .$6,000.00 j .............~---........................._.._.-........_.-..-..,... TASK II. HIGHWAY PLANS ~ 1. Prepare Title Sheet, General Notes Sheet, Frosting Conditions sheets}, and Proposed Conditions (site & Grading Plan) sheets}, 2. Prepare Typical Sections and Roadway Construction Details for roadway construction details notshown in I the PennDOT Roadway Construction (RC) series. 3. Prepare the Construction Plans per PennDOT requirements. This proposal assumes six Construction Plan sheets will be necessary. 4 Prepare the required Profile Plans. ft is assumed it will be necessary to provide profiles for the site ' driveways (two (2) total)- S. Prepare Drainage and Elevation Plans, including top and bottom of curb elevations, drainage facil~es, and proposed contours, as required by PennDOT. 6. Prepare Drainage Profile Plans- ft is estimated that four profile sheets will be necessary. ESTIMATED COST OFTASK....-.....-.. ............................................................................$55,000.00 TASK Ill, DRAINAGE DESIGN /REPORT The drainage design includes evaluating the existing drainage patterns and comparing to the post-construction drainage areas to determine the extent of the drainage improvements- PennDOT criteria will be applied when determining the distance between inlets, pipe siting, andthe acceptable amount of shoulderAane encroachment A Drainage Report vvtil be prepared for submission with the HOP. ESTIMATED COST OFTASK ..........................................................................................$7,OOOAO TASK N. PAVEMENT DESIGN /REPORT The pavementdesign incfudesdeveloping aproposed pavement section based ontheexis6ng pavemerrtcomposiiion in the area ofquestion (based on data provided from PennDOT's pavement historysystem}_ The proposed pavement design will be reflected in the typicaE sections (Cask 112). This task does not trtctude pavement core borings, soil samples/borings, or coordination to obtain borings. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ...........................................................................................$2,500.00 J ~r,~ael ~rrll ~ AS~SUCI~~'ES, INC. TASK V. SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLAN Prepare the Signing and Pavement Marking Plan, which will be coordinated with the additional signing located on the signal permit plan (rf applicable). This task also includes the development of a pavement marking legend and ail notes regarding signing. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$4,500.00 TASK VI. MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC PLAN Prepare the Maintenance and Protection ofTraffic (MPT) plans utiliang PennDOTP~Gon 213, including thetraf6c control general notes. It is assumed thatthe Traffic Control forthis projectwill be handled entirelywith standard notes from Publication 213. Due to the Gm'ited rope of work, this proposal does not indude design of detailed MPT plans. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK .........................................................................•-•--.....,....$1,000.00 TASK VII. CROSS SECTIONS This proposal assumes that it v+n1E be necessary to prepare cross-section plans forthe length of S,R_ 0422 within the limits of the driveways and assoaated fzrm lanes. fi assumes that PennDOT will not require cross-sections for the proposed drainage improvements to the east of the site driveways. This proposal assumes preparation of appro~amatety 1 Scross-sections on 5 plan sheets. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ............................•---..............................,_..........................$4,500.00 TASK VIII. TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS 1 REPORT JMB will prepare the design of a new signal permit plan atthe intersection of Proposed Members 1~ Way and Route 422. JMB will prepare the design of a revised signal permit plan at the intersection of Duke Street and Route 422. This supplement does not included preparation of signal construction plans. The required analyses and calculations indude: traffic signal warrant analyses, le#t tvm movement calculations, clearance time calculations, pedestrian timing calculations, volume-density calculations, and phasing and timing analyses. The approved Traffic Impact Study (T1S) will be utilized to incorporate the appropriate traffic control recommendations, including, but not limited to: the lane configurations and storage lengths, the projected traffic volumes, and the phasing, timing, and sequence ofthe signal operation. JNB will referto PennDOT Publication 149 to prepare the traffic sgnal permit plan. There is no provision in this Supplementfix signal interconnects plans with otherintersections, or for rev~ions~bo other e~asting signal plans. Far any ro signalized intersections, t~ wjll be necessary for the municipality to provide JMB with a signed Application for Permitto install and Operate Traffic Signals. JMB can providethis form to the murvdpalnyfortheiruse. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK............. .............................................................................$39,600.00 TASK IX. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Prepare a construction cost estimate based on the design prepared in Tasks I-VIII. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK .........................................................................................$3,000.00 ~' 1Ylr'ri~e~i+~rill ~c1,~'~ INC. TASK X. HOP /SIGNAL PLAN SUBMISSION #1 JMB will prepare the HOP plans and signal plans, and conduct an internal Qualify ControUQualityAssurance check. Upon approval of the plans by Client, and provision of the necessary documents (nduding signed HOP application, letter from rnuniapafiEy, s~ned signal application from the municpality, properly deed, signed Land Use Questionnaire), JMB will submit the HOP/Signal plan paclcageto PennDOT and copy the municipality. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK .........................................................................................$2,500.00 TASK XI. HOP /SIGNAL PLAN SUBMISSION #2 Upon receipt of written commerttsfrom PennDOT, JMB will provide copies ofsuch comments to Client, address the comments and revise the plans accordingly. If there are comments which materially change the scope of the proposed improvements, JMB will identifythese comments, and discuss with Clientto determine if JMB s to comply. If so, JMB will issue an out-~f--scope for the costto revise the desgn to accommodate the diange(s). JMB will prepare apoint-by-point response !etter to the PennDOT commerrts, and resubmit the HOP/Sggna! package to PennDOT, copying the municipality and Client. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$3,000.00 TASK XII. HOP /SIGNAL PLAN SUBMISSION #3 Uporrreceipt ofwritten commertisfrom PennDOT, JMB will provide copies of such commer>fsto Client, address the comments and revise the plans accordingly. If there are comments which materially change the scope of the proposed improvements, JMB wfil identifythese cammenis, and discuss with Clientto determine if JMB is to comply. If so, JMB will issue an out-of-scope for the cost to revise the design to accommodate the change(s). JMB wiN prepare a point by-point response letter to the PennDOT comments, and resubmit the HOP/Signs! package to PennDOT, copying the munidpatity and Client. JMB will prepare a summary of the responses from the plan submissions thatwere sentto the utility companies. JMB will sdtedule and attend a meeting wrlh Client, Traffic Engineer, and any other relevantsulxonsultarrtsto reviewthe NOP/Signal plans for coordination with the lend Development plans and the planned ufili[y relocations. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK----....... ..............................................................................$2,500.00 TASK .Xtll. UTILITY COORD1NAllON JMB will coordinate with the Pennsylvania One Call system, which identifies alt the utilities in the project area. JMB wfil then take this information and list the ufiTides, their contact name, phone number and address orrty the plan sheets. This will assist the contractor in the event of an unforeseen conflict JMB will also plot the utility information onto the plan set as i# is provided by the utilities and by the surveyor. If requested by Client, JMB will send copies of the relevant plans to the affected major utilities (electric, water, gas, sewer). ft is assumed thatthe pole owner (typically the eled7ic company) will coordinate with companies whose facilities are °riding° on its pales (e.g., cable, communications, fiber optic), JMB will not send plans directly with all of these utilities. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK............. .............................,,.........................,....................$2,000.00 ~chareJl3rffJ ~ ASSOCII~TES, INC. TASK XN. PROJECT MANAGEMENT JMB anticipates signficant correspondence with PennDOT, the municipality, Clent, and the Traffic Engineerthrough the course of this design. We have provided an initial budget of forty (40) hours for this task. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK.....--• ................................................................................$4,000.00 TASK XV. MEETINGS 1. JMB has included two (2) meetings with the project team at or near the site or the site engineer's office. 2. JMB has included two (2) meetings with PennDOT and/or the municipality to discuss the project. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................,..._.................................,..........$2,500.00 TASK XVI. RIGHT-OF--WAY PLANS Once the extent of the required right-of-way acid easements have been determined, JMB will prepare aRight= of-Way plan set for review by PennDOT District 8-0. Once the plans have been reviewed, approved, and recorded, Client will be responsible for obtaining the required right-of-way, easements and/or releases for the project. This proposal does not include any addifiional project team meetings, or coordination with adjacent property owners on behalf of Client. Once Client has obtained all relevant right-of-way and easements, and the documents have been reviewed and approved bythe District (and recorded}, Clientwill deed al! ofthe right-of- way and easements to PennDOT using the appropriate form and the right of-way plan set. Please note: Right-af--Way acquisition is a "long-lead" schedule item which should be addressed early in the HOP process. For all properties where right-of-way will be required, the Clierrt should commission a comprehensive title search and an appraisal by a PennDOT-qualified appraiiser. Prior to accepting right-of-way; PennDOT will require that the property be cleared of any existing easements, andthatthe property be cleared for environmental concerns. ESTIMATED COST 01= TASK ................................................_..........................................,$25,400.00 J. ~(3r~ ~ mss, ~~. PROFESSiGNAL SERVICES DATE: January 17.2008 SUPPI_Etffit?MAL AUTH~ATION JMI3 PROJECT NAME Proposed Members 1 ~ Federal Creiiit Unian ~ Palnrvra Borough JMB PROJECT ~ _ 4292 _ SUPPLEiItENTAL AUTHORIZA7tON NUMBER #04 In arxordance with the written Agreement on the above referenr~d project, dated Ju 11. ZOa6 between the Parties designated below, J. Michael Brut and Associates, tnc., is hereby authorized to- __- Proceed with Addi'ti'onal Engineering Services _______ Proceed with Adddional Surveying Services COX __ Proceed with Revised Scope of Services XX _ Incur Reimbursable E~enses As Follows: 1. Due to the reguirement from the 13oroucJh of Palmyr~ for additional Geotechnicat [rnestiaation the scgoe of work for Fhase 4020 fGeotechntcal Investigation) will need to he signiticaniN modified (See attached for detailed scope)_ Compensation shall be adjusted as foltorvs: i. All work wtil be cprste~eted under Phase 4020 - Geotechnical Irn+estigation Thus increasing said phase by 516.000.00. This wAl bring the betel for this phase th 523.000.00 _ 2. ReimtwrsaWe costs will be ~ addtiion to that indicated above and will be invoiced in accordance with the previous arxi original Aureement referenced above_ Upon rethm of a fusty execuDed authorization, this service shall become part of the Agreement idenfdied above. APPROVED BY: APPROVED SY: J. MICHAEL BRlLt. ~ ASSOCWTES, INC. MtlIIIBERS 1~ FEDERAL CREDR UNION ' nature J. NGchael Brill, P.EP.LS. -President Name/Trtie nature ---- - John D. L3ppa, V.P. Fac>tities Support Services _ NamelTitle 2 -~~.-a Date 30 -a~ Date ~~ ~Y ~~~ i i 2~ ~, ' M~chaet Brrp & Assocrafe~- r`~^5.1I}. 7 ~~`=~reern SCOPE OF 1NORK' The scope of works presented in this Supplemental Autlmrizatfon has been prepared t0 addre~ cxymrner~ presetted an the review lefl~er prepared by the Borough of Patrrsyra, dated November 5, 2047, wrlh regard b the project sate. Spur, in Section 8.Z ofthe review letter ~ is requested that addr"fiortal subsurface data be reed from 1~1, Lot~3 and the proposed Cherry Street Eaierrsion and Members 1~ Way. The proposed scope of woric for this project will include the e6on of a field ~, laboratory testing program and preparation of geotechrrical engineering repels. Specific fiems ~ vr~r each ofthese tasks are presorted below. Field Investigation A series ofstandani earth bor'srgs w~ be competed In a~ibfe areas across the project si6e. The test borings v+n14 be conducted using a irudt-mounted dr~i rig, eq~pped va9r trotJow-stem augers and ~ setr~ets, and wit be camplefJed in accordance wish the folksruing schedule: Lot #1- ffioposed l7fte Aid Ptr~arrnacy Five (5) test borings wil be completed wfitriir the #aafiprirrt of the proposed Rfie Aid to a depth of apprordmately twenty (20) feet below exis5rry site grades. Two ¢} test borings to a depth of appra~rtateyten (1t}}feet below existrtrg s~ grades in areas proposed for parking assoaated wilh the Rite Aid. Lot ~3 - Possrbie Restaeuant Three (3) test borings w~ be completed in randomly , approrarmdbzty equably spaced IoCaGorts within Lot #3. The test borings wai extend to a depth of approxxirnately iwretrty ~ feet below existing siFe grades. Cherry S`Ireet Exteettiort S A'lernbers '!°= W:ty A total of thirfaeerr (13) test borergs (1 per 100 L.F) vell be completed along fie a +cerfier~re of the proposed Cherry Street Extension and Members 1~ Way. Each of these. test borings w~ erd~end th a depth of #i~een ('f ~ feet below exist~rg ste 9• The #est borings wiN extend th the depths above or urrtA the underlying bedrock is etrcountered. S~nples flf the sow rtered w~ tx3 re~eted at suitable inbervais and the Stareiard Perretratiott Resistance Test (SPT} vakies wfi1 be n.corded. Ail sasnpl'u>sg procedures w81 be performed in accordance witty the apptlcable American SocieltrforTestkrg and (ASTtVI) standards. The test botmg wiN be based an the Prr.#niratylFnai i_and t>erelopmerrt Piarts. Ttris proposal includes firth tiros oversight and inspedron of the field invesfigation b7/ a qualified represe7rlafive of the Geobectrnicat Sub-Consufiarrt ~i~Cha-el L3rYli ~ ASSOC~'ES, ANC. Laboratory Analysis of Soils In order to define the physical ctraracterisiics ofthesods encountered, ti is proposed that laborabry analysis of sobs of a USCS ci~-rssitication be conducted, in accordance wtih ASTlVI 2487 sfardards and speafi~ions. This testing wti! include: Atfierberg fantisdebemiina5on, ~ ~-adaiion anafyt~s arxi ram rnaisiur+e fig. it is proposed that one (1) standard classlficason test be performed on a repre sod sample obtained from each of fibs above worts areas. Geotechrrita! ~rrglnee~g Malysis arfd Report Three (3) separate reportswti[ be prepared for each of the above workareas. Each of the repor~v~ include some or al! ofthe following information: Geologic S'~ile Evahraion tktduding ferrairn desctipion, brief geological tistotyand surtacedrainage conditions) • Description of Subsurface Corn ions (rndtxfing desaip5on of er~loratron and sampling methods, sort idenrtication and won) Results of GeotecMnical Arnayysis Test Borng lags Test Boring Profiles • Test Boring Location Plan • Resups of Alt Laboratory Testing . Reeornrnerdations Concerning: Foru>dasarr Types (irdudix,~j (a) Allowable Bearing Capacdy Values (b) Placement Depths (c) ~ Frost Depths (d) Preparation of Foundation Areas Sod Sberngih Cona~arrs (a) Ssr~aSon Characteristics and. Correlated Soi StrerngUns . {b) Potetdiat fior CorrstrucUon and/or D'ifererttial Seftlemerr(s (c) Lateral Ear9: Presstx~e Design Cr~eria Gerrwa! Ear(hww/c f~erfa ' {a) Use and Treatrnent of In-s~ AAafierials for Controlled Badd>il (b) Control of Surface Runoff Water and Grourx[water {c) Quaftiy Control RequiernerrLs During Foerndatbn Construction (d) Subgrade Preparatibn for Shabs and Pavemerds Potential for mole Development and MetJtads to Mninize the hnpac# of 5•irrkholes Depth of Rodr F~ocavation, ~ requaed, grid Characteristics of Rodcto be Removed Suihabr'By of on-sr~e sots for use as fill VERIFICATION I, John D. Lippa, Senior Vice President, Facilities& Support Services, Members l s` Federal Credit Union, hereby state that I am authorized. to make this verification on behalf of Members 1't Federal Credit Union. I hereby verify that the facts stated in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best: of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. X4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. .~-°~~ s` > '" ~`" ~ /' `fi , S ~;. ~ ! r` J n D. Lippa, enio ice President Date: November ,~, 2012 11A-2756 ~ I ~ l Members 1"Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff v. J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLF,AS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-2580 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [ certify that, on November 5, 2012, I served the attached Complaint upon the following via United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Anne R. Myers, Esquire Gregory F. Brown, Esquire Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorneys for Defendants C. Grainger Bo an r KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP By: Eileen M. Ficaro, Esquire aficaro@kdvglaw.com Attorney I.D. No. 200830 Attorney for Defendant, 1777 Sentry Park West J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 461-1100 Facsimile: (215) 461-1300 MEMBERS 1St FEDERAL CREDIT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS UNION, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, - • ~ N ~ ._, v. CIVIL ACTION -LAW -~ "' ° k.: ~~ r*t ~ , -Y-~ ~= J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. ~~-" i ~ ' SCHROEDER, P.E. and AARON M. NO.: 12-2580 -tr {Q "" ~ " "'"'A' ~ '' NAVARRO, P.E. ~ ~ ' ~ ~`'~ . -' Defendants. c ~'~'~ tv „~ -,~ "° ,~. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. with regard to the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP Eileen M. Ficaro, Fuire Attorney for Defen nts, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP By: Eileen M. Ficaro, Esquire aficaro@kdvglaw.com Attorney I.D. No. 200830 Attorney for Defendant, 1777 Sentry Park West J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 461.-1100 Facsimile: (215) 461-1300 MEMBERS 1St FEDERAL CREDIT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS UNION, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, v. J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. and AARON M. NAVARRO, P.E. CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO.: 12-2580 Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Eileen M. Ficaro, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of my Entry of Appearance on behalf of Defendants, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. was served upon all Counsel listed below via First Class, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid. C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 N. Second Street 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Plaintiff KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP By: Eileen M. Ficaro squire Dated: November 28, 2012 4810-3743-8481, v. 1 i H FR CTH0N0TAft ;, 2313 JAN 28 AM 10: (6 CUPS&ERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE TO PLEAD To: ALL COUNSEL You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objection within twenty (20) days of service or judgment may be entered against you. /s/ Anne R. Myers, Esquire Eileen Monaghan Ficar Esquire Attorneys for Defendant, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro MEMBERS 1St FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, V. J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E., and AARON M. NAVARRO CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO.: 12-2580 Defendants, : V. PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al., Additional Defendants. : J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E., and AARON M. NAVARRO'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, by and through their counsel, Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP, make these preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: A. Plaintiffs Complaint in Brief 1. This case arises out of allegations of failures and deficiencies of design and construction of an underground stormwater system located on the property of Plaintiff Members 151 Federal Credit Union at the "New Branch Facility for Members 1st Federal Credit Union, Earl Street, Palmyra, Pennsylvania" (the "Project"). See Exhibit A (Plaintiff's Complaint) Exhibit A, at?4 2. Members 1st entered into a Professional Services Agreement with J. Michael Brill & Associates ("Brill & Associates") to perform professional engineering services for the Project. See Exhibit A at 3 and Exhibit 2. 3. Pursuant to the Professional Services Agreement, Brill & Associates agreed to prepare a limited geotechnical investigation, which included, inter cilia, the performance of a field investigation, laboratory analysis of soils, and a geotechnical report. See Exhibit A at ¶ 5. 4. Brill is a licensed engineer and principal of Brill & Associates. Schroeder is a licensed engineer and employee of Brill & Associates, and Navarro is an employee of Brill & Associates. See Exhibit A at ¶ 2. 5. Members 1st alleges that Brill, Schroeder and Navarro prepared the design and specifications, but that "the design was later determined to be inadequate and incomplete, and was not prepared in accordance with the professional standard of care for such a design." See F,xhibit A at ¶ 8. 6. Thus, Members 1st asserts a Professional Negligence claim against Brill, Schroeder and Navarro. See Exhibit A at Count One. 7. Members IS1 further alleges that Brill breached an implied warranty by their alleged professional negligence. See Exhibit A at ?T 10-11. B. Parasraphs 18(i) and 20(i) of Plaintiffs Complaint Should Be Stricken for Failure to Comply with Pennsylvania Fact Pleading Requirements 8. In support of its Professional Negligence claim, Members l" alleges that Brill, Schroeder and Navarro were negligent: in that, inter alia, they "were otherwise negligent under the circumstances." See Exhibit A at ¶¶ 180) and 20(1). 9. However, Paragraphs 180) and 20(i) should be stricken because they violate Pennsylvania's fact pleading requirements. 10. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(3) permits a party to preliminarily object to a complaint on the basis of insufficient specificity in a pleading. See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(3). See also, Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 461 A.2d 600, 602, fn. 3 (Pa. 1983) (noting that if the defendant did not know how it "otherwise fail[ed] to use due care under and caution under the circumstances," it could have moved for a more specific pleading or to strike the allegation). 11. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) provides that "[t]he material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(a). 12. The purpose of this rule is to ensure that adverse parties to an action are sufficiently able to understand the issues raised by the pleading. See Pa. Dep't of Transp. v. Shipley Humble Oil Co., 370 A.2d 438,439 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1977). 13. The pleading of all material facts must also be "sufficiently specific so as to enable the party served to prepare a defense thereto." See Envtl. Pollution Strike Force v. City of Jeannette, 305 A.2d 774, 776 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1973). 14. "Boilerplate" allegations of negligence fail to meet Pennsylvania's specificity requirements and should be stricken. See Wagner v. Fritchley, 40 Pa. D. & C.3d 73, 77 (Cumberland C.C.P. 1986). 15. Allegations that Brill, Schroeder and Navarro "were otherwise negligent under the circumstances" are "boilerplate" allegations of negligence, offering no insight into how Members 1st claims that they were negligent. See Exhibit A at ¶¶ 180) and 20(i). 16. Accordingly, Paragraphs 180) and 20(i) should be stricken for their failure to comply with Pennsylvania's fact pleading requirements. C. Plaintiffs Allegations Regarding Breach of Implied Warranty Should Be Stricken: Plaintiff Cannot Maintain a Contract Claim Against Brill, Schroeder and Navarro Nor Does Plaintiff State a Separate Count for Breach of Implied Warranty 17. Members 1St alleges that Brill, Schroeder and Navarro impliedly warranted that the geotechnical engineering reports prepared for the Project, the design and specifications created pursuant to the stormwater management report, and the storm sewer design calculations would be sound and constructible. See Exhibit A at ¶ 10. 18. Members 1st further alleges that Brill, Schroeder and Navarro breached this implied warranty. See Exhibit A at ¶ 11. 19. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2) permits a party to preliminarily object to a complaint on the basis of legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer). See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2). 20. A preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, seeking dismissal of all or part of the pleading or a cause of action, tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading. See Smith v. Wa Tner, 588 A.2d 1308, 1310 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990). 21. In ruling on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, a court accepts as true all well-pleaded material and relevant facts, as well as every inference reasonably deducible from those facts. See Willet v. Pa. Med. Catastrophe Loss Fund, 702 A.2d 850, 853 (Pa. 1997) (internal citations omitted). See also, Chem v. Horn, 725 A.2d 226, 228 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999); Birl v. Phila. Elec. Co., 167 A.2d 472 (Pa. 1960). 22. "[C]onclusions or averments of law are not considered to be admitted as true by a demurrer." Willet, 702 A.2d at 853 (citing County of Allegheny v. Pennsylvania, 490 A.2d 402, 408 (Pa. 1985)) (emphasis added). 23. If a pleading fails to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted, a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer is properly sustained. See Rubin v. Hamot Med. Ctr., 478 A.2d 869 (Pa.. Super. Ct. 1984); Kelly v. Kelly, 887 A.2d 788, 790 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005); Giordano v. Ridge, 737 A.2d 350, 352 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999); Firetree Ltd. v. Dep't of Gen. Servs., 920 A.2d 906, 911 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) (internal citations omitted). 24. Members 1st cannot maintain a contract claim - here, breach of implied warranty -- against individuals who were not parties to the contract. See Electron Energy Corporation v. Short, 597 A.2d 175, 179 (Pa. Super. 1991) ("If one is not a party to the contract, one cannot breach it.") 25. Members 1st does not claim that it contracted with Brill, Schroeder and Navarro. Rather, it claims that it contracted with Brill & Associates. See Exhibit A at ¶ 3. 26. Nor could Members 1sr claim that it contracted with Brill, Schroeder and Navarro. Indeed, the signature lines of the Professional Services Agreement and the Professional Services Supplemental Authorizations identify only Brill & Associates as the contracting party, not Brill, Schroeder, or Navarro. See Exhibit A at Exhibit 1, p. 14 of 16 and Professional Services Supplemental Authorizations. 27. It is black letter law that "liability for negligent or wrongful acts of a non-party to the contract would have to lie in tort." Electron Energy Corporation v. Short, 597 A.2d 175, 179 (Pa. Super. 1991). 28. Because Brill, Schroeder, and Navarro were not parties to the Professional Services Agreement or Professional Services Supplemental Authorizations at issue. Members 1st cannot maintain a breach of implied warranty claim against them and Paragraphs 10 and 11 should be stricken. 29. In the alternative, Paragraphs 10 and 11 must be stricken because Members 1st fails to state a cause of action for breach of warranty in a separate count. 30. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2) permits a party to file preliminary objections for "failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of court or inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter." See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028. 31. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020 provides that "[t]he plaintiff may state in the complaint more than one cause of action cognizable in a civil action against the same defendant." See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1020. 32. When a plaintiff asserts more than one cause of action, "[e]ach cause of action and any special damage related thereto shall be stated in a separate count containing a demand for relief." See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1020. 33. Members ls"s Complaint contains one count for Professional Negligence. See Exhibit A. 34. Members 1st asserts breach of implied warranty in two allegations in the (_`omplaint. but not in a separate count. See Exhibit A at T¶ 9-10. 35. Members lst's Complaint fails to conform to law or rule of court because Members 1 S1 does not set forth its breach of implied warranty claim in a separate count. See Exhibit A. 36. Paragraphs 10 and 11 should, therefore, be stricken from Plaintiff s Complaint for failure to conform to law or rule of court. I). Plaintiff s Demand for Attorney's Fees Should Be Stricken As without Basis 37. Members 1st demands "attorney's fees" as relief associated with its Professional Negligence claim. See Exhibit A at Count One, Wherefore Clause. 38. Under Pennsylvania law, attorneys' fees are not recoverable unless permitted by statute. express agreement by the parties, or by some other recognized exception. See Merlino v. Delaware County, 728 A.2d 949, 951 (Pa. 1999) (internal citations omitted). 39. Here, there is no applicable statute permitting attorney's fees, no express agreement by the parties, and no other recognized exception permitting attorney's fees. Nor does Members lst allege the existence of any statute, express agreement, or exception. See Exhibit A. 40. Members I't's demand for attorney's fees should, therefore, be stricken pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4). E. Conclusion For all the reasons set forth above, Paragraphs 10, 11, 180) and 20(i), as well as Plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees, should be stricken from Plaintiffs Complaint under the authority of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028. Respectfully submitted this 25th day of January 2013, KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP By: r Anne R. Myers, E uire Eileen Monaghan caro, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, J. Michael Brill, P. E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron Navarro MEMBERS I"' FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, V. J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., LRIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E., and AARON M NAVARRO CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO.: 12-2580 Defendants, : V. PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al., Additional Defendants. : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Eileen Monaghan Ficaro, Esquire certifies that, on this date, she caused a true and correct copy of the Preliminary Objections of Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron Navarro to be served via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record and parties: C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 N. Second Street 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Plaintiff Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. c/o Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. c/o Frederick Brehm, Esquire Powell, Trachtman, Logan Carrle & Lombardo PC 475 Allendale Road Suite 200 King of Prussia, PA 19406-1496 CMX, Inc. c/o Edward L. Balsavage 910 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. 625 Hamilton Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Lane Enterprises, Inc. 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 514 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Eileen Monaghan 'caro, Esquire Dated: January 25, 2013 EXHIBIT A Members 1St Federal Credit Union, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 12-2580 CIVIL TERM J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik Schroeder, P.E., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and Aaron M. Navarro, Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND TO: J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E. ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AARON M. NAVARRO You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. C. Grainger Bowman K&L GATES LLP 17 North Second Street - 18th Floor Harrisburg PA 17101 717-231-4500 (O) 717-231-4501 (F) grainger.bowman@klgates.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated November 5, 2012 HA-275636 v1 Members 1 s' Federal Credit Union, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 12-2580 CIVIL TERM J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik Schroeder, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro Defendants COMPLAINT Plaintiff Members 1St Federal Credit Union ("Members 1St"), by and through its attorneys, K&L GATES LLP, files this Complaint against J. Michael Brill, P.E. ("Brill"), Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. ("Schroeder"), and Aaron.M. Navarro ("Navarro') (hereinafter collectively "Defendants"), and in support thereof states: The Parties 1. Plaintiff Members 1' is a business corporation with a principal place of business at 5000 Louise Drive, Mechanicsburg PA 17055. 2. Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, are all consulting licensed professionals and engineering personnel. Defendant Brill and Defendant Schroeder and Defendant Navarro are also principals and/or employees of J. Michael Brill & Associates ("JMB&A"), which HA-275631 Q is a corporation performing professional consulting engineering services with an office and place of business at 5053 Ritter Road, Mechanicsburg PA 17055. 3. On or about July 18, 2006, Members V t entered into a contract for professional engineering services with JMB&A ("JMB&A Professional Services Agreement") relating to a project known as the "New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Earl Street, Palmyra, Pennsylvania." The scope of services is more fully set forth in a document attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit 1 contains the underlying agreement, plus Supplemental Terms and Conditions for Proposal and/or Agreements plus Professional Services Supplemental Authorizations. 4. This case arises from the failure and deficiency of design of an underground stormwater system located on the property of Members 1St at the "New Branch Facility for Members 1st Federal Credit Union, Earl Street, Palmyra, Pennsylvania." The underground stormwater system was generally composed of a foundation, a pipe system, backfill materials and cover materials (hereinafter "underground stormwater system"). 5. In accordance with the JMB&A Professional Services Agreement, JMB&A agreed to prepare a limited Geotechnical Investigation, which included, inter alia, the performance of a field investigation, laboratory analysis of soils, and a geotechnical report. The geotechnical report called for a determination of the 2 subsurface stratigraphy beneath the Project site, a series of standard earth borings to specified depths or until the underlying bedrock was encountered, the sampling of soils and the measurement and recordation of rock quality designation of bedrock encountered, the determination of infiltration rate of subsurface soils in areas proposed for stormwater management under applicable township and state guidelines, the definition of the physical characteristics of the soils, and the provision of results and recommendations based on the scope of services described in the JMB&A Professional Services Agreement, and a design and specifications associated with underground stormwater management for the Project. 6. As provided in the JMB&A Professional Services Agreement, JMB&A agreed to design the underground stormwater system and to prepare all applicable final design calculations and specifications and reports necessary for Final Subdivision / Land Development Plan review (i.e. stormwater management report, storm sewer design calculations, erosion and sedimentation control narrative, etc.). These professional services were to be performed by the Defendants. 7. Due to the requirement from the Borough of Palmyra for additional geotechnical investigation, a Professional Services Supplemental Authorization was agreed upon by Members 1" and JMB&A on or about February 12, 2008, and the scope of the geotechnical services to be provided by JMB&A was expanded and significantly modified. Among other things, the Professional Services 3 Supplemental Authorization called for three (3) separate reports, including some or all of the following information (italics in original): 1. Geologic Site Evaluation (including terrain description, brief geological history and surface drainage conditions 2. Description of Subsurface Conditions (including description of exploration and sampling methods, soil identification and classifications) 3. Results of Geotechnical Analysis 4. Test Boring Logs 5. Test Boring Profiles 6. Test Boring Location Plan 7. Results of All Laboratory Testing 8. Recommendations Concerning: Foundation Types (including) (a) Allowable Bearing Capacity Values (b) Placement Depths (c) Design Frost Depths (d) Preparation of Foundation Areas Soil Strength Conditions (a) Stratification Characteristics and Correlated Soil Strengths (b) Potential for Construction and/or Differential Settlements (c) Lateral Earth Pressure Design Criteria General Earthwork Criteria (a) Use and Treatment of In-Situ Materials for Controlled Backfill (b) Control of Surface Runoff Water and Groundwater (c) Quality Control Requirements During Foundation Construction (d) Subgrade Preparation for Slabs and Pavements 9. Potential for Sinkhole Development and Methods to Minimize the Impact of Sinkholes 10. Depth of Rock Excavation, if required, and Characteristics of Rock to be Removed 11. Suitability of on-site soils for use as fill These professional services were to be performed by the Defendants. 4 8. The Defendants prepared the design and specifications, but the design was later determined to be inadequate and incomplete, and was not prepared in accordance with the professional standard of care required for such a design. The design was structurally deficient, in that, the piping was not properly supported to guard against expected loading from the top down, was composed of materials and structural systems which did not have sufficient structural integrity and became loose at critical places (such as, joints), was inadequately covered, and otherwise was not of sufficient structural strength to withstand the loading forces of the kind and nature to be expected at the location of the underground stormwater system on this Project. The structural integrity of the basin was not sufficient to carry the load of the underground stormwater system. 9. The design and the specifications of the underground stormwater system were not free from defect, and they were flawed. 10. The Defendants impliedly warranted that the reports referenced above and the design and specifications created pursuant to the stormwater management report and the storm sewer design calculations would be sound and constructible, that is, if constructed in accordance with the design and specifications, the design and specifications would be free of defect and structural flaw. 11. The Defendants breached this implied warranty by their professional negligence. 5 12. The Defendants had a duty to provide on-site geotechnical engineering services or to oversee on-site geotechnical engineering services relating to the construction of the underground stormwater system. The Defendants retained for this purpose the following subconsultant geotechnical engineers on this Project: CMX, Inc. and/or Advantage Engineers LLC. 13. The Defendants did not engage in adequate construction consultation with its geotechnical engineering subconsultants, in that, inter alia, the Defendants did not recommend the taking of additional or adequate numbers of test borings in the actual location of the underground stormwater system, and the Defendants did not take steps to address or properly guard against evidence of design or construction defects during the construction observation of the geotechnical engineering subconsultants. 14. On April 27, 2010, following the completion of the Project, failures occurred on the driveway surface and the parking and other ground surfaces proximate to the driveway and parking surfaces. A sink hole appeared and the failures were deep. All of the failures were above and proximate to the underground stormwater system. All of these failures were caused by a failure or collapse of the underground stormwater system at the Palmyra Branch Project. The failures were of an ongoing nature and created repeated and successive failures to the detriment of Members 1 sc 6 15. The failure and collapse described herein was caused by a defect in the design and specifications and/or construction observation of the Defendants, and/or the geotechnical engineering subconsultants, or other persons for whom the Defendants were responsible, in not less than the following particulars: a. failure to design the underground stormwater system specifying materials that would provide a functioning system as sought by Members 1St; b. failure to provide the proper protection of the underground stormwater system from construction operations that would perform heavy construction work and installation of asphalt pavement on top of the underground stormwater system; C. failure to advise Members 1St about the hazards associated with placing the underground stormwater system in the location where it failed; d. changing the design and moving the underground stormwater system from an original location where it was not endangered by the construction hazards to a location that eventually permitted its failure, and further, changing the location of the underground stormwater system without recommending or performing appropriate testing and taking appropriate test borings to assure that the change in location was reasonable and proper; 7 e. failure to design the underground stormwater system in a manner that would withstand the load to which it was exposed in the location where it failed; f. failure to design and specify an underground stormwater system in a manner to withstand forces that caused it to fail; g. failure to advise representatives of Members 1St about its options, including but not limited to the risks and advantages of the location of the underground stormwater system on the Project site and to provide reasonable time to permit Members 1St to consider those options; h. failure to provide stabilization of subsurface areas subject to the surface loading and the loading of the underground stormwater system itself by designing proper grouting design, piers, columns, or other support mechanisms designed to guard against deflection of the components of the underground stormwater system and to guard against its failure and/or collapse. 16. The defects enumerated above are the result of inadequate professional services and advice and/or the inadequate and improper design and specifications prepared by the Defendants, their employees and/or agents and representatives, and not the result of any actions or any contributing behavior of Members l st 8 17. To date, Members 1St has been required to expend significant sums of money in excess of $100,000.00 to remedy the defects caused by the Defendants' defective design, and Members 1 St expects to expend additional sums in the future to correct the deficiencies inherent in the flawed design and the flawed construction inspection regarding the installation of the underground stormwater system. The Defendants' Own Professional Negligence 18. The Defendants, acting through its employees and/or agents and representatives, were negligent in their preparation of the design and specifications of the underground stormwater system, in that: a. the Defendants failed to exercise the ordinary care and skill required of a consulting professional engineers for the Palmyra Branch Project; b. the Defendants failed to recommend the performance of or actually perform proper testing (particularly, but not limited to, test boring) for the actual location of the underground stormwater system; C. the Defendants failed to prepare design plans and specifications with proper structural components to protect against failure of the underground stormwater system; 9 d. the Defendants failed to seek necessary consultation from other experts of professionals in the design of the underground stormwater system; e. the Defendants failed to prepare design plans and specifications with properly designed foundational elements; f. the Defendants failed to prepare design plans and specifications with properly sized materials for the underground stormwater system; g. the Defendants failed to properly locate the underground stormwater system on the Project site; h. the Defendants failed to consult with Members 1St or its representatives to offer alternative options for design plans and construction for the underground stormwater system before making critical design and location decisions; i. the Defendants failed to monitor and to provide necessary professional oversight on the Project of the geotechnical engineer whom the Defendants had engaged to provide geotechnical services, which failure permitted a flawed design for the underground stormwater management system to become a part of the Project; j. the Defendants were otherwise negligent under the circumstances. 10 Defendants' Negligent Failure to Protect Members 1st From the Professional Negligence of Others 1.9. The Defendants failed to adequately monitor CMX, Inc. and/or Advantage Engineers LLC in the performance of their subconsultant geotechnical engineering duties. 20. As licensed professionals, the Defendants failed to guard the interests of Members l st against the negligence of the geotechnical engineering subconsultants engaged by them for this Project, and as a result, the Defendants failed to inform Members 1St at the time of design of the underground stormwater system and at the time of construction that the underground stormwater system demanded serious re- design and/or re-location in order to avoid a flawed and structurally deficient underground stormwater system. In particular, the geotechnical engineering subconsultants: a. failed to exercise the ordinary care and skill required of a consulting professional geotechnical engineer, and failed to provide employees and/or agents and representatives who possessed the ordinary care and skill required of a consulting geotechnical engineering professional, for the Palmyra Branch Project; b. failed to take steps by calling for the taking of proper test borings for the actual location of the underground stormwater system, or by calling for 11 the proper structural components to protect against failure of the underground stormwater system; C. failed to seek necessary consultation with JMB&A in the design of the underground stormwater system; d. failed to highlight the need for data necessary to address the proper foundational elements of design (or failed to highlight the absence of necessary data); e. failed to consult with Members 0 or its representatives before permitting the making of critical design and location decisions; h. failed to monitor and to provide necessary professional oversight on the Project, which failure permitted a structurally deficient design for the underground stormwater management system to become apart of the Project; were otherwise negligent under the circumstances. The Defendants should have protected Members 1St against these failures. 21. In all of the above respects, the Defendants did not perform (or did not perform within the proper standard of care) the professional services undertaken for Members 1 st in the design and the construction of a proper underground stormwater system, and consequently the Defendants' failure also undermined the failed areas described in paragraph 14 above and caused their failures. 12 22. The April 27, 2010 collapse and/or failure of the underground stormwater systems, and the consequential failure of the surfaces described in paragraph 14 above and proximate to the underground stormwater systems, were directly and proximately caused by the professional negligence and/or the performance without adherence to the proper standard of professional care of the Defendants. The collapse and/or failure of the underground stormwater systems and the failure of the driveway and parking surface and ground surfaces rendered the driveway and parking surface and ground surfaces dangerous and unusable and rendered the underground stormwater systems dangerous and unusable. COUNT ONE Members 1St vs. Defendants I Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro Professional Negligence 23. All preceding and succeeding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof. 24. At all relevant times, Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro owed a duty imposed by the common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to skillfully, prudently, and properly perform their professional duties to Members 1 st in such a manner as is required of a consulting professional engineering firm. 13 25. Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro failed to perform as licensed professionals by providing a design plan and specifications which were defective and otherwise failed (as set forth above) to meet the professional standard of care required of a consulting professional engineers, who held themselves out as professionally. skilled in commercial projects of similar size and scope as described in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Defendants breached their duty of care. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the professional negligence of Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro and the aforesaid breach of duty Members 1 st suffered damages and losses and will continue to suffer damages as a direct and proximate cause of the breach. 14 WHEREFORE, Members I" demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, P.E. in an amount in excess of $100,000 plus interest, costs, attorney's fees and such other relief as the Court deems reasonable and proper. K&L GATES LLP By: C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 15706 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 T: 717-231-4500 F: 717-231-4501 Attorneys for Members I" Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff Date: November, 2012 15 EXHIBIT 1 J. nchadAritt ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS HAND DELIVERED July 11, 2006 Mr. John Liippa- VP Facilities & Specialties Services Members 1a Federal Credit Union 5000 Louise Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Fax: (717) 795-6047 RE: Proposed Members 1"t F.C.U. Branch Office Situated on Main Street (S.R. 0422) Borough of Palmyra, Lebanon County, PA AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 M.0r4 mfs Pro; ta'f?`GrU - pG bear John: JUL ! 8 2006- J Michael Brill & Associates Consulting Engineers In accordance with our recent telephone conversation on July 7, 2006,1 am pleased to submitthis Agreement for Professional Services with respect to work involved in the Subdivision / Land Development Planning of the above referenced project. The project will consist of constructing a new Members 1't branch banking facility along East Main Street (S.R 0422) in Palmyra, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. The structure is expected to measure approximately 3,500 SF in building footprint area with associated parking areas, drive lanes, and subsurface utilities. Said Development wilt also consist of three (3) proposed undeveloped tracts ranging fram 1.25 to 1.75 acres. J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. (JMB) believes and knowsthatwe can be a great assetin the development of your project I also believe and know that JMB will provide you with a product which is second to none! Vlfith the above in mind, JMB would propose a detailed scope of work as follows: 1. Provide General Consulting Services for the project. This work may include, but not be limited to, reviewing existing plans, reports, correspondence and other information; contacting and obtaining information from the client, client representatives, municipality, county and other govemment officials regarding the project; coordinating with and obtaining information from outside engineers, outside consultants and others regarding the project; and perform other background and general consulting work for the project as needed or requested by the client. Coordinating with other professionals including architects, attorneys, other consultants, etc. Prepare correspondence, letters, transmittals, minutes from meetings and teleconferencing and the like. 2. Perform a Site Feasibility Study. This would include having both a Phase I Environmental Assessment, a wetland delineation and a limited Geotechnical Investigation prepared; performing an overall review of Township Ordinances and utility requirements; and also attending meetings with Borough officials, Borough Authority officials, PennDOT and utility company officials. An initial Conceptual Plan was completed as per your verbal authorization and will be utilized for the purpose of meetings with Palmyra Borough, Utility and PennDOT officials. Any additional work on the Conceptual plan will be done at this time and will be included in Phase 200 (Item #6) ofthis Agreement. The proposed scope of work for the Phase I Environmental Assessment / Geotechnical Investigation will include having a field investigation, laboratory analysis of soils, and a geotechnical engineering report completed. In addition, JMB will also have completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). Specific items included within each of these tasks are presented as follows: www.JMichaelBiili.com 5053 Ritter Road o Suite 200 o Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6925 Phone: (717) 691-0200 o Fax: (717) 691-7654 o e-mail: jmb@JMichaelBriE.com J.fftd%Il3d & nSSocPJEc INC. Mr_ John Uppa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 2 of 16 PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT The objective of the proposed environmental engineering scope of work for this project will be to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the referenced property. This objective will be accomplished through performance of a detailed site reconnaissance and an environmental engineering analysis of the data collected. The performance of the Phase I ESAwill be conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials-(ASTM) E 1527 document titled "Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process". Specific tasks to be performed as part of the scope of work for this project are outlined below. Review of Available Database Information The applicable federal and state environmental databases will be accessed regarding environmental violations or incidents which have occurred during past proprietorship ofthe site. The review of these databases will also apply to adjacent sites situated within the "approximate minimum search distance", as specified in the ASTM E 1527 document, of the subject site. Record sourcesto be reviewed include the following: • Federal NPI_ site list - Federal TRI list • Federal RCRA generators list • State leaking UST fists • State registered UST lists • Federal CERCLIS list • Federal RCRA TSD facilities list • Federal ERNS list • State fists of hazardous waste sites • State landfill and solid waste disposal site lists In order to further review the site and provide additional information regarding past usage of the property, a search of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for the site will be completed. This search will be conducted in an effort to determine if items, such as underground storage tanks, are or have been located on the property. Chain of Title The chain of title for the property will be obtained extending a minimum of fifty (50) years in the past. The title records will be used to determine whether corporate entities associated with environmental concerns have held title to the property. Detailed Site Reconnaissance A detailed site reconnaissance of the property will be conducted. This reconnaissance will include a visual evaluation of the project site and an analysis of surface features and structures that may carry potential environmental liability. During the site reconnaissance, several specific conditions are routinely inspected. A partial fist of the items of interest is presented below: J. ffic tad (rill & ASSOCIATES. NC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 3 of 16 • The nature of current and past activities at the property and adjoining properties. • Materials used or stored at the property. • Evidence of past spills such as stained or discolored soils, chemical. releases or similar incidents. • Nature and condition of other unique circumstances at the site including discolored orturbid water, and areas exhibiting stressed or no vegetation- • Presence and condition of electrical transformers, underground storage tanks, and other building components. • Dasting monitoring wells, areas of waste and raw material storage, indications of previous dumping of materials, or other unusual site conditions. Indications of past or present use of hazardous materials, oils, solvents, degreasers, petroleum products, or other hazardous materials. An evaluation of the environmental impact that surrounding properties may have on the project site will also be conducted during the site reconnaissance. Commercial propertles adjacent to the site that conduct activities associated with environmental hazards such as gasoline service stations or industrial facilities will be noted. The locations of areas of distressed vegetation, storm sewers, stockpiled materials, extensive fill, and other significant features present on adjacent properties will also be documented and presented in the final report. Environmental Site Assessment Report Based on the data gathered during performance of the tasks outlined above, an environmental assessment report will be provided for the project site. The report will include conclusions and recommendations prepared for the project in addition to the following: • Narrative description of the property and the surrounding area. • Presentation of past land uses and their potential environmental impact on the property. • Results of the site reconnaissance including description of the property, significant features encountered and potential impact from adjacent sites. • Professional opinion regarding environmental liabilities associated with the property based on available information. + Determination of whether additional work is required to quantitatively delineate environmental areas of concerti and preparation of a scope of work to further define these areas if requested. J. Schad Atilt ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 4 of 16 WETLAND DELINEATION Detailed Site Reconnaissance A detailed site reconnaissance of the property will be conducted. JMB will perform a survey to determine if anywetland areas are present on the above mentioned property; If so, JMB will conducta delineation of the wetland areas located onAhe property. This reconnaissance will include a visual evaluation of the project site and an analysis of surface features. Welland delineationstypically include flagging and surveying of wetland boundaries. For this project, JMB will `flag' or otherwise clearly mark in the field the boundaries of the wetlands on the property. The project area will be reviewed for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and signs of hydrology. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires that all three parameters be present for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. Wetland Assessment Report Based on the data gathered during performance of the tasks outlined above, a wetland assessment report will be provided for the project site. The report will include conclusions and recommendations prepared for the project in addition to the following: Narrative description of the property and the surrounding area. i Presentation of wetland indicators on the property Results of the site reconnaissance including description of the property, pertinent features encountered and wetland assessment. GEOTECHNICAL / SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION (Field Investigation In an effortto determine the subsurface stratigraphy beneath the project site, a series of standard earth borings will be completed in accordance with the following schedule: Three (3) test borings to a depth of 20 feet within the footprint of the proposed structure. Four (4) test borings to a depth of 10 feetwithin the proposed parking area, drive-thru canopy, and stormwater management area. The test borings will extend to the depths specified above or until the underlying bedrock is encountered. The test borings will be conducted using a truck-mounted drill rig, equipped with hollow- stem augers and split spoon samplers. Samples of the soils encountered will be recovered atsuitable intervals and the Standard Penetration Resistance Test (SPT) values will be recorded. All sampling procedures will be performed in accordance with the applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. Should the underlying bedrock be encountered priorto reaching a depth of appro*natelyten (10) feet, one (1) bedrock core sample will be recovered from a representativetest boring location with the use of Nx- J. XcMd Arlt( & AySSOCM? NC- Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 5 of 16 size coring equipment The percent recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) of the bedrock sample will be measured and recorded. In order to determine the infiltration rate of the subsurface soils at the project site, field percolation testing will be completed in areas proposed for stormwater management. The infiltration testing will be completed in accordance with applicable township and state guidelines. Laboratory Analysis of Soils In order to define the physical characteristics of the soils encountered, it is proposed that laboratory analysis of soils, consisting of a USCS classification, be conducted in accordance with ASTM 2487 standards and specifications. This testing will include Atterberg limits determination, mechanical gradation analysis, and natural moisture content testing. it is proposed that one (1) standard classfication test be performed on a representative soil sample obtained from the project site. Geotechnical Engineering Analysis and Report A geotechnical engineering analysis and report presenting our results and recommendations, based on the scope work outlined above, will be prepared for the Members Firstwhich will include the following: • Geologic Site Evaluation (including terrain description, brief geological history, and surface drainage conditions) • Description of Subsurface Conditions (including description of exploration and sampling methods, soil identification and classification) • Results of Geotechnical Analysis • Test Boring Logs • Test Boring Profiles • Test Boring Location Plan • . Results of All Laboratory Vesting • Recommendations Concerning: Foundation Types (including) (a) Allowable Bearing Capacity Values (b) Placement Depths (c) Design Frost Depths (d) Preparation of Foundation Areas Soil Strength Conditions (a) Stratification Characteristics and Correlated Soil Strengths (b) Potential for Construction and/or Differential Settlements General Earthwork Criteria (a) Use and Treatment of In-situ Materials for Controlled Backfitl (b) Control of Surface Runoff Water and Groundwater (c) Quality Control Requirements During Foundation Construction (d) Subgrade Preparation for Slabs and Pavements • Lateral Earth Pressures for Design of Walls Below Grade • Rock Excavation Characteristics, if required. ichadAti&ASSOCM INC. 3 'fit Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 6 of 16 3. Perform a Topographic and Boundary Survey of the subject property. The surveywill showcontours on a two (2) foot interval with spot elevations to establish critical conditions, adjacent property owners, easements, wood lines, utilities, fire hydrants, structures, roadways and parking lots. Horizontal orientation for the survey will be based on previous site surveys and boundary survey unless the municipality requires otherwise. Vertical datum will be based on benchmarks from previous topographic 'surveys unless the municipality requires otherwise. Topographic and planimetric information will be obtained for areas 100- feet outside the boundary lines. Additionally, survey information will be obtained for the PennDOT right-of-way for Main Street (S.R. 0422). All necessary research at the Lebanon County Courthouse, Borough of Palmyra and PennDOT District M will be performed for the project site for determining right-of-way and adjoining land owners. 4. Prepare a base sheet which will include the information obtained in Rom #3. The base sheet will be prepared in JMB CARD standards utiliang AutoCAD 2006 format. 5. Prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as required by Borough of Palmyra and PennDOT. The study area will be determined bythe Borough of Palmyra engineer. Work will include automated and manual traffic counts, analysis of data, determining existing and proposed traffic generation, preparing a report and also preparing schematic layouts for intersection and roadway/driveway configurations. Specific items included within each of these tasks are presented below. TASK 1. STUDY AREA INVESTIGATION 1. Prepare and submit a TIS scope determination letter to PennDOT and the Borough. 2. Obtain information from PennDOT and the Borough regarding any planned roadway improvements in the study area. 3. Request crash data from PennDOT for the intersections listed in Task 11.1. 4. Conduct a field inventory at the intersections fisted in Task 11.1. 5. Obtain condition diagrams from PennDOT for the intersections listed in Task 11.1 that are currently.signatized. TASK U. FIELD DATA COLLECTION 1. Conduct manual" counts for the weekday evening _(4:00 to 6:00 P.M.) and Saturday midday peak periods (11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.) peak periods at the following intersections: East Main'Street (SR 0422) and Duke Street; East Main Street and Lebanon Valley Shopping Center Driveway; • East Main Street and Plaza Drive (T-328); 2. Describe the external road system in the study area as defined by the intersections listed in Task 11.1. J. ffidod l f01 & ASSOCIAM INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 7 of 16 3. Measure the existing sight distance at the proposed access drive locations in accordance with PennDOT sight distance measurement methodology (15 feet back from the travel lane for local roads and 10 feet back for driveways at a driver's eye height- of 3.5 feet above the proposed elevation at this point per the site plan). Confirm that the access drives meet PennDOTs intersection or stopping sight distance criteria, as applicable, for the posted speed limit, the grade of the road per the site plan and the type of-vehicle utilizing the access point_ TASK Ill. EXISTING & BASE YEAR VOLUME DEVELOPMENT 1 _ Determine the projected increase in traffic at the study area intersections due to background growth, based on the methodology outlined in the Assumptions section of this proposal: 2. Determine the projected increase in traffic in the study area due to developments which are not currently operating but which will be operating by the build-out year for the above-referenced project For purposes of this proposal, it was assumed that one such background development would have to be incorporated into the traffic volume development. 3_ Develop 2008 and 2018 Base Condition traffic volumes for the intersections listed in Task 11.1 _ TASK IV. TRIP GENERATIONIDiSTRIBUTION AND PROJECTED VOLUME DEVELOPMENT 1. Determine the trip generation of the proposed development on a daily and peak highway hours basis using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. 2. Using trip distribution rates developed from an analysis of existing traffic patterns in the study area, distribute and assign the site-generated traffic to the driveways and the intersections on the local road network identified in Task 11.1. 3. Determine 2008 and 2018 Projected Condition traffic volumes for the study area. TASK V_ ANALYSES 1. Conduct capacity analyses at the intersections identified in Task 11.1 for Existing, Base, and Projected Conditions, and at the driveway intersections for Projected Conditions. 2. Compare Base Condition and Projected Condition LOS to determine the traffic impact at the study area intersections attributable to the site. 3. For roadways and intersections within the study area, determine roadway improvements necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts (if any) attributable to the site. 4. Conduct analyses to determine the need for (and, if necessary, the length of) separate turn lanes at the driveway intersections and the intersections identified in Task 11.1 for Projected Conditions. 5. Conduct preliminary traffic signal warrant analyses (based on peak: hourtraffic volumes) at-any deficient unsignalized intersections identified in Task V.1 for Projected Conditions. 6. Conduct queue analyses at study area intersections that are currently signalized or proposed to be signalized, if applicable. J. fife od grill & ASSOCIATES; INC. Mr_ John Vppa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 8 of 16 7. For each proposed driveway location, conduct analyses to compare the existing (measured) sight distances to the appliicable'sight distance standards. 8. Review the crash data obtained in Task I and identify intersections at which five or more correctable reportable crashes occurred during a continuous twelve-month period overthe past three years. TASK VI. REPORT PREPARATION-AND SUBMISSION 1. Prepare a report of findings discussing 'the results of Tasks W. 2. Submit a draft report to the client for review. 3. Schedule a conference call to discuss the results of the TiS. 4_ Submit the TIS to PennDOT and the Borough for review. 6. Prepare additional Conceptual Site Plans (if required) for your review and approval and for the purpose of meeting with Borough of Palmyra officials and for the Client's use in marketing purposes. 7. Prepare and submit Final Subdivision J Land Development Plans required for municipal and county review and ultimate site construction. The plans will be based upon the Client approved and accepted Final Site Concept Plan. Please Note. This Agreement is based on the premise that a combined Final Subdivision & Land Development Plans will be submitted with a request for a waiver for the requirement to submit separate Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Land Development Plans to the Township. If the waiver.is not granted and separate Preliminary Subdivision and Preliminary Land Development Plans are required, a Supplemental Aulhor¢afion will be necessary to cover the time and expense of preparing those plans. 8_ Prepare all applicable Final design calculations and reports necessary for Final Subdivision / Land Development Plan review (.e. - stormwater management report, storm sewer design calculations, erosion and sedimentation control narrative, etc). 9. Prepare and submit all applications and make submittals necessary for Final Plan review and ultimate site construction (.e. - Borough of Palmyra submissions, Lebanon County submissions, Lebanon County Soil Conservation District submissions, etc.). 10. Prepare and submit Highway Occupancy Permit Plans (H.OP.) required for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation review of-the access onto East Main Street (S.R. 0422) as well as utility connections within the right-of-way of East Main Street. Please Note: PennDOT has not been contacted t"ate with our proposed layout as submitted to you. 11. Attend all required meetings with client; client representatives, municipal officials, municipal authority officials, utility officials, state officials, contractors, attorneys, sub-consultants, etc. d Xd3ad Atilt &as.soCM? INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 9 of 16 12. Provide coordination with utility company officials (.e. - water, sewer, gas, electric, communications, etc) and provide service layouts and locations of appurtenances per utility company requirements. The proper sizing of service lines forwater, gas, elechic and communications will be determined bythe Client's architect or their sub-consultant and provided to JMB for use and inclusion on the plans. 13. Revise plans and reports to address comments by the government officials and other reviewing agencies involved in the project 14. Prepare a Site Lighting Plan and Landscape Plan to be submitted with the Subdivision & Land Development Plans. JMB will provide you or your sub-consultants with base plan including both the site, grading and utilities information for use in preparing the photometrics. This information is to be provided to JMB for inclusion on the Site Lighting Plan and or Landscape Plan. The landscape plan will be prepared to meet the minimum municipal requirements (rf any). Because the work for this project is generally well defined, J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. agrees to provide these services as follows: PHASE 150 - GENERAL CONSULTING Perform work described in scope-of-work Item #1 found on Page 1 of this Agreement_ ESTIMATED COST OF PHASE .........................................................................................$6,000.0w "This phase of work vAl be performed on an hourly basis. ll. PHASE 4010 - PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Perform all work as stated in the scope-o#-work Item #2 found on Page 1 of this Agreement. COST OF PHASE ....................................................................................................................$2,800.00 in. PHASE 4120 - WETLAND STUDY Perform all work as stated in the scope-of-work Item #2 found on Page. 4 of this Agreement COST OF PHASE ............................ _.................................................................................... $1,200.00 IV. PHASE 4020 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Perform all work as stated in the scope-of-work Item #2 found on Page 4 of this Agreement COST OF PHASE .................................................................... ............................................ $7,000.00 d l lchw[Atill & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. John Lippe July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 10 of 16 V. PHASE 300 - SURVEYING Perform all work as stated in the scope-of-work Items #3 & #4 found on Page 6 of this Agreement COST OF PHASE ....................................................................................................................$4,800.00 VI. PHASE 200 - SKETCH PLANNING Perform all work as stated in the scope-of-work Item #6 found on Page 8 of this Agreement. ESTIMATED COST OF PHASE ...... _ ...:................................................................................$1,000.00* *This phase of work will be performed on an hourly basis. VII. PHASE 4000 -TRAFFIC STUDY Perform all work as stated in the scope-of-work Item #5 found on Page 6 of this Agreement. ESTIMATED COST OF PHASE .............................. .........................................................$32,000.00* *This phase of work will be performed on an hourly basis. VIII. PHASE 500 - FINAL PLANNING Prepare the following plans, reports and documents and also perform other required work as follows: A. Final Subdivision/Land Development Plans: Includes design and CADD drafting of the following 1. Cover Sheet 2. TopographicBoundary Survey Plan 3. Preliminary/Final Subdivision Plan 4. Demolition Plan 5. Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan (Site Plan) 6. Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan (GradingAJUlities Plan) 7. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan` 8. Site Lighting Plan 9. Landscape Plan 10. Pre-development Drainage Area Plan 11. Post-development Drainage Area Plan 12. Miscellaneous Profiles and Details 13. Construction Details and Miscellaneous Information J. fi cMd Grill &ASSOCIATE INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 11 of 16 NOTES: a. Some of the above plans may be combined. b. Plans 10 & 11 as indicated above may be.included in the Stonnwater Management Report found below. C. Site fighting locations and wiring will be determined by others contracted' directly by the client and given to JMB for inclusion on Plan 8. B. PennDOT Submission for access onto East Main Street (S-R. 0422): 1. Cover Sheet 2. Topographic/Boundary Survey Plan (E)ds€ing Conditions) 3. Roadway/ Access Drive Plans (Site) 4. Roadway/Access Drive Plans (GradingA.1tilt?ies) 5. Profiles / Cross-Sections 6. Miscellaneous Profiles and Details 7. Construction Details and Miscellaneous Information 8. Complete PennDOT Applications C. Required Reports and Calculations: 1. Stormwater Management Report. 2. Storm Sewer System Design Calculations. 3. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Report. NOTE The above may be combined into one report D. Miscellaneous Engineering Work: 1. Submissions to Borough of Palmyra 2. Submissions to Lebanon County 3. Submissions to Lebanon County Conservation District 4. Sewer Module Application (if required) E. Suoport work: 1. Secretarial and administrative 2. Project supervision and management COST FOR PHASE ............................................................. ................. ......................... ........ 448,000.00 J. [&Md A H11 & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. John Lippa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 12 of 16 IX. PHASE 250 - MEETfNGS (including travel time): Possibly including but not limited to the following: A. Client/ClIent Representatives B. Borough of Palmyra officials and municipal boards C. Lebanon County officials D. Attorneys and other owner representatives E. Utility companies, contractors, etc. F. Vendors and other consultants, etc. ESTIMATED COST OF PHASE........ . ...............................................................................$9,000.00# "NOTE: This phase of work will be performed on an hourly basis. The estimated number of meetings has been established (although may vary) as follows: Client and Client Representatives 10 hours Township & Municipal Engineer 10 hours Township Codes Enforcement Officer 3 hours Township Planning Commission 4 hours PADOT Officials 7 hours Township Board 4 hours County Officials 2 hours Site Visits 5 hours Utility Company Officials 5 hours Vendors/ Others/Travel Time 25 hours Estimated Total 75 hours X. PHASE 800 - REVISIONS Revise plans and reports to meet clierrt, client representatives, and municipal and other reviewing agencies comments. Because each project is unique in its own right, it is very difficult to commit to a firm cost for this phase of work ESTIMATED COST OF PHASE ...........................................................................................$9,000.00" *NOTE: This phase of work will be performed on an hourly basis. J. fifichadArrll &ASSOCLUE? INC. Mr. John Uppa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 13 of 16 PLEASE NOTE: This Agreement does not include costs for the following: a. Permit/Application Fees 'b. Off-Site Studies C. Construction Planning and/or Construction Administration d_ All other items not specifically describe • Please note that as indicated in Item #14 on Page 9 of this /agreement, design costs for the landscape plan includes only the minimum municipal criteria. Anything beyond that, addidonal design costs will be determined based on the anticipated landscape budget for the project In addition to the above Members 1st Federal Credit Union (CLIENT) and J. Hchael Brill & Associates, Inc. (ENGINEER) agree to the attached supplemental terms and conditions. J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. appreciates your interest in our firm and the opportunity to submit this Agreement for Professional Services to meet you project schedule. If you have any comments or questions concerning this Agreement for Professional Services, please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, J. , INC. Aar`' M. Navaft Prot et Manager/ Director of CADD Services cc: J. Michael Brill, P.E., P.L.S. Agreement File See Page Fourteen for Signature Placement J. h'Iahml (3rr'0 6 nSS?oc]ATE& INc. Mr. John 13ppa July 11, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES JMB Project #1212 Page 14 of 16 Accepted for J: MICHAEL BRILL & ASSOCIATES, INC.: -- 1 7-0 6 Brill, P.E., P.LS. President Accepted for MEMBERS 1' FEDERAL CREDIT UNION: 1z 0"F Nam Signature Date Title Date Please return both copies (all pages) of this Agreement with proper signatures. J. Michael Brill, P.E., P.L.S. will then sign the Agreements and return one (1) copy for your records. Thank you. J..Mchae hall & ASSOCIATES, INC. J. MICHAEL BRILL & ASSOCIATES, INC. SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS b CONDITIONS FOR PROPOSALS ANDIOR AGREEMENTS REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable expenses associated with the project will be invoiced to the CLIENT at the ENGINEER'S actual cost times a factor of 125. Reimbursable casts shall include, but no! be limited to, the following 1. Printing and reproduction costs- 2. Mileage and o0w transportation cods. 3_ All Regular and Express mail cods. 4_ All Conmiunreaticn costs. 5. Costs of obtaining plans. mapping. reports, deeds, any otter Items. NOTE: All filing and submission fees wig not be paid by J. Wheel Brill 6 Associates, Inc. (it is our policy that the client pays forUrese fees directly). An estimateii budget cost for reimbursables would be $10.000.00 forthis project. However, total rei nbursable expenses will be invoiced whether more or less Oran the indicated budgeted estimated amount. INVOICING invoices will be submitted monthly and based on a percent complete for certain items, for actual work performed (hourly items) and for reimbursable expenses. Payment Is expected within 30 days upon receipt Payments not received within 30 days will be subject to an interest charge of 134% per month on the outstanding balance. FAILURE TO PAY INVOICES I all, some or a portion of invoices are not paid to ENGINEER and ENGINEER would fife an action to coiled amamis in default, CLIENT agrees to pay an of ENGINEER'S mud costs and reasonable attorneys fee of twenty (20%) percent of the total amount due along with amount of invoices outstanding. ENGINEER vnll continue to impose interest and attorneys fees daily an all sums owed to ENGINEER at the rate provided in the Engineering Agreement for Professional Services until payment is received in full even WENGINEER has obtained judgmert against CLENT. All disputes regarding this contract shall he litigated in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SUSPENSION FOR NON-PAYMENT Payment to the ENGINEER is a material consideration of this agreernent. Therefore, the ENGINEER has a right to suspend services for non-payment. The ENGINEER shall not be liable, nor in any way be responsible for damages, delays or incensed casts that may occur as a result of the ENGINES suspension of services. The CLIENT shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the ENGINEER for claim that anise due to any suspension. BENEFIT OF SERVICES The CLIENT agrees that It well include in ifs' agreement with any Conbactor andfor Construction Manager the following clause: The CLIENT and the ENGINEER acknowledge that nothing in the CLIENTS engagement implies any undertaking by the ENGINEER for the benefit of, a which may be enforced by the Contractor, or its SubrConfi adws, or the surety of arty of them; it being understood that the ENGINEER'S obligations are to the CLIENT and drat, in performing such obligations, the ENGINEER may increase the burdens and expense of the Contractor, or is Sub-Contractors, or the surety of any of them. ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES if it is the CLIENT'S request to proceed into further stages of development, the ENGINEER agrees to enter into separate agreements for additional engineering services. These agreements will be specifically prepared to represent the scope of work at each subsequent phase of development REVISIONS BY CLIENT The plans, reports and other design Information prepared by ENGINEER will be based on the site concept plan accepted by the CLIENT. I design or revisionsare made to plans at the request of CLIENT afierwork has started, during process, or alter completion of the plan, the CLIENT and ENGINEER agree to consider said revisions as additional viorktotheTotal Cost of Phases found Inthis Agreement. Thus, additional time will be Invoked athorxiyrales outlined under COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL WORK REVISIONS BY REVIEWING AGENCIES The plans, reports and other design information prepared by the ENGINEER will, to the best of the ENGINEER'S knowledge, comply with all current municipal requirements However, the ENGINEER'S submission of materials to various reviewing agencies may not represent the personal opinions and viewpoints of a0 oranyefthe reviewing officials Q.e., a nguteers, planning commission members, supervisors, c ourtyand slate otiidafs, etc). Thus.Idnsgn or plan revisions acs required because of irderpretaBon or personal matters, the ENGINEER proposes to consider said revisions as additional workand all additional time will be invoiced at the hourly rates outlined under COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL WORK SUBCONSULTANTS Ithe project necessitates the use of subcorsullarts forservices outside the proposed scope afwodr, subconsffarrt casts will be invoiced at 125 times the actual costs Incurred. Priorto the execution of a contradwith a subeonsultant, the ENGINEER will provide you with an estimated cost of the subconsultufs work for your concurrence, and subsequent approval- Page 15 of 16 Crtent Initials 1 J. Tel Atilt ASSOCIATES INC. COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL WORK Any plan revision required by the CLIENT or other CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE shall be considered as additional work Additionally, any future services requested which are not within the proposed scope ofwork shall also be considered as extra work and shall constitute a claim of compensation foraddfflonal work The ENGINEER proposes to provide any additional service on a direct I hourty ratelpensonnel as follows: Regular Overtime, Principal Engineer $180.00 $180.00 f Project Manager 125.00 125.00 Traffic Engineer 120.0 120.00 Gedechnical Engineer 120.01 120.00 Environmental Engineer 120.00 120.00 Project Engineer 110.00 110.00 Project Landscape Architect 105.00 105.00 Landscape Architect 95.00 95.00 Engineer 95.1p 95.00 CARD Manager 95.00 95.00 Engineering Technician 85.00 100.00 CARD Professional 75'Do 90-00 Accounting 7250 72.50 Adminisgafion 62.50 90.00 2 Person Survey Crew" 175.00 225.00 3 person Survey Crewe 210.00 250.01) 1 Person & Robotic Pqugrrrent 175.00 225.00 2 Person d. Robotic Equipment 210.00 250.00 Invoicing will be based on actual hours and rates expended. Please Note: 1. The above rates are J W s current hourly billing rates. These rates are used for hourly billing phases as outlined in the cost breakdown found earlier in this Proposal or Agreement (Whichever is applicable). These rates may be increased once annually year. Therefore, T M this project is not complete by October of this or the next becoming etfeciive In November of each calendar L calendar year, JW may increase the hourly billing for applicable phases on this project to that which is in effect at that fine. 2.. -=pet Services' will be billed at an additional $15.00 per hour aver the rates indicated above but only for licensed individuals working on the project Example would be a Principal Engineer will be billed at $200.00 per hour and project Manager at $145.0 if the Project Manager is licensed. CONSTRUCT10N OBSERVATION The CLIENT recognizes that c onsbuclion observation is a vital element of the ENGINEERS complete service, provided to minimize problems during construction by permitting detention of andfar rapid response to unartdicipated or charged conditions, or errors or omissions Commfited by design professionals, contractors, materials provider or others. The CLIENT also reeagnbresthat no party is as intimately familiar with the ENGINEER'S in lanes as the ENGINEER and those the ENGINEER prepares for and assigns toreviewing tasics. Accordingly, the CLIENT agreesto retain the ENGINEE R to observe construction, and the ENGINEER agrees to assign to the reviewing function persons qualified to observe and report on construction of the ENGINEEWS recommendations, plansand.spec?ncalfons,andthequalityofworkperformedbycontractons,etat- The CLIENT mmgntmsthat constmctionobservationis a technique employed to minimize the risk of problems arising during corsibtndion: that construction observation Who ENGINEER is not insurance, and does not constitute a warranty or guarantee of anytype. In all oases, conhacters at ail. (that is, the general contractor, subconhacYors subsubcontractors, materials persons and others) shall retain respunsibtlitylor" quality ofthekwork and for adhering to purrs and specifications. CurshuctionobservaSonwill be done on an howdy basis and will be done under a separate agreement or supplemental au0mrintion under this agreement. Should the CLIENT for any reason not retain the ENGINEER to observe construction, or should the CLIENT unduly restrict the ENGINEERS assignment of personnel to observation construction, or should the ENGWEM at the direction of the client for any reason not perform construction observation during the fun period ofconstruction, theENGiNEERshellnothavetheabiblytopedbrmacanpletaservica_ Insuch acase. theCLIENT waivesarydaimagainst the ENGINEER and agrees to indemnify, defend and both the ENGINEER harmless from arty claim or labilky for injury or loss arising from problems during construction that allegedly result from findings, conclusions, recommendations, plans or specifications developed by the ENGINEER. The CLIENT also agrees to comper sate the ENGINEER forany fimespent and expenses incurred bylhe ENGINEER in defense otary such claim with such compensationto be based upon Me ENGINEERS prevailing fee schedule and expense reimhtasement policy. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Plans, reports, specdications, and other documents prepared andforobtained by ENGINEER as instruments of service, are and Shall remaunthe property of the ENGINEER, whether the project forwhich they are intended is executed or not, The CLIENT shelf be pemuitted to retain copies, including reprodudhle copies ofplars and specificatiorsiorinfomhalion and reference in connection wilhthe CLIENT'S use and occupancy- The plans, reports, specnficadansard other documents prepared and/or obtained by the ENGINEER shall not be used by the CLIENT on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others, except by agreement in writing with the appropriate compensation to the ENGINEER, provided the ENGINEER is not in default under this Agreement. Page 16 of 16 CiierA Inif ills J. NkMel(3I & assocrUF.c K. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION DATE: December 7.2006 JMB PROJECT NAME Proposed Members 1st Federal Credit Union @) Palmyra Borough JMB PROJECT # 1212 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION NUMBER #01 In accordance with the written Agreement on the above referenced project, dated July 11, 2006 between the Parties designated below, J. Michael-Brill and Associates, Inc., is hereby authorized to_ Proceed with Additional Engineering Services XX Proceed with Additional Surveying Services Proceed with Revised Scope of Services XX Incur Reimbursable Expenses As Follows: 1 Proceed with Additional Surveying Services as follows: Perform surve) ing alonq the State Route 422 corridor to include the existing stormwater conveyance system and parcels. Create an additional (rase sheet and incorporate the information into our current one. Compensation shall be adjusted as follows: 1 Ali worts will be completed under Phase 300 - Surveyinq thus increasinq the cost of this Phase from $4,800.00 to $9.000.00 . 2. Reimbursable costs will be in addition to that indicated above and will be invoiced in accordance with the previous and original Agreement referenced above. Upon return of a fully executed authorization, this service shall become part of the Agreement identified above. APPROVED BY: J. MICHAEL BRILL & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPROVED BY: MEMBERS 1sr FEDERAL CREDIT UNION i ignature Signature J. Michael Brill. P.E.,P.L.S. - President John D. Lippa. V.P. Facilities Support Services Name/Title Namefrdle Date Date 12/08/2006 08:47 717-691-7654 PROFESSIONAL SERVKX-9 &UPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION DATE Qecernber 7.2006 JM13 PROJECT NAME Pro members 1't Federal Credit Urnlon A Ralf n e Borough JM13 PROJECT # 1212 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION NUMBER #01 in accordance with the wriftn AAreenlent on the above referenced project, daW July l l _ bo vween the Parties designawd below, J. WcheA BrIll and Assoda#es, Inc., is hereby authorized to: Proceed v0 Additional Engineering Services XX Proceed with Additional Surveying Services Proceed Y ft Revised Scope of 5eMl;ms XX incur Reimbursable Expenses As Follovws: Compensation shalt be adjusted as follows: 1 Alt work yQ be wrnyleted under Phase 300 - Surveyirx7 thus ingeas'ma the cost of this c=hase _f ram S4 800 00 to $9,000-20., 2 Reimbursable- oasis vn'll be in addra'w ihat indicated above and Al be invoiced in accordance wrrO the urevlous and odWnal Aureemerd referenced above Upon mmm of a fusty executed authorization, this setv>cashall become part ofthe Agreemeht iden6tied above. APPROVBD 6Y: .i, WHAEL BRILL & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 02/02 ?/. ?i`c/xref ?rrf(C ASSQCL M INC. APPROVED BY: MEMBERS 1*T FI_DERAL CREDIT UNION 1 gnature S' re J. Mr-haw Bell, P.E?P.1lS. - President Name/Title John D. Lippe, V.P. Fealties Suoood Services Namefritle - - -- a -? a Date J.IYIdaell3if&ass06INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION DATE: June 14. 2007 JMB PROJECT NAME Proposed Members 1"t Federal Credit Union (a> Palmyra Borough JMB PROJECT # 1212 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION NUMBER #02 In accordance with the written Agreement on the above referenced project, dated JuIV 11„2006 between the Parties designated below, J. Michael Brill and Associates, Inc., is hereby authorized to: XX Proceed with Additional Engineering Services Proceed with Additional Surveying Services Proceed with Revised Scope of Services XX Incur Reimbursable Expenses As Follows: 1. Due to the request by PennDOT and the Borough of Palmvra to enlarge the scone of work for the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to include the Duke StreetfCherrv Street intersections. ATR counts along Route 0422. full 12 hour signal warrant analyses for Members 1 Way, and revisions to other items. i Compensation shall be adjusted as follows: 1. All work will be completed under Phase 4000 - Traffic Study thus increasing the cost of this Phase from $32,000.00 (estimated) to $45.000.00 (estimated). Please note that the contract amount for this phase was $32.000.00 (estimated) currently, this phase stands at $34.443.75. 2. Reimbursable costs will be in addition to that indicated above and will be invoiced in accordance with the previous and original Agreement referenced above. Upon return of a fully executed authorization, this service shall become part of the Agreement identified above. APPROVED BY: J. MICHAEL BRILL & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPROVED BY: MEMBERS 1sT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ggnature Sign J. Michael Brill. P.E..P.LS. - President Nameff-itle John D. Lippa. V.P. Facilities Support Services Nameri-Itle Date C110 ; Date J.ffldwJMn& nssoclUFs, INC. Supplemental Authorization #02 (Attachment) JMB Project #f1212 June 14; 2007 ADDITIONAL WORK TASKS 1. Conduct weekday morning (6:30 to 9:00 A.M.), weekday evening (4:00 to 6:00 P.M.) and Saturday midday (11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.) traffic counts at the following locations: Cherry Street and Duke Street 2. Place Automatic Traffic Recorder counts on Route 422, as requested by PennDOT in their 5/16/07 TIS Review Letter. 3. Modify design year capacity analyses to maintain e)dsting Peak Hour Factors, as requested by PennDOT in their 5/16107 TIS review letter. 4. Update base and projected condition LOS results to incorporate the change noted in Task 3. 5. Modify the trip generation calculations for the Member 1st to utilize the number of drive-thru lanes as the independent variable, not square footage, as requested by the Borough Engineer. 6. Update opening year and design year traffic volume development calculations to incorporate the results of Task 5. 7. Update projected condition LOS for the opening year and design year to account for new volumes development in Task 6. 8. Provide left turn calculations for the proposed signal at Route 422/Member 1$ Way, as requested by PennDOT. 9. Modify the TIS to Incorporate the results of Tasks 1-8. 10. Prepare a response letter addressing PennDOT's 5/16/07 review letter. AUG 2 0 2007 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION DATE: Augusf•+157..2b13"T1 B1-61 & Associates ?-I.Mul`lin'y Engineers JMB PROJECT NAME Proposed Members 1? Federal Credit Union (d-> Palmyra Borough JMB PROJECT # 1212 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION NUMBER #03 In accordance with the written Agreement on the above referenced project, dated July 11, 2006 between the Parties designated below, J. Michael Brill and Associates, Inc., is hereby authorized to: XX Proceed with Additional Engineering Services Proceed with Additional Surveying Services XX Proceed with Revised Scope of Services XX Incur Reimbursable Expenses As Follows: 1. Due to the revised scope of work along Route 0422 (Main Street) to accommodate the proposed traffic signal, roadway widening and stormwater conveyance system forthe proposed development (See attached for detailed scope). Compensation shall be adjusted as follows: 1. All work will be completed under Phase 550 - Highway Occupancy Permit (See attached for ESTIMATED cost) us 3. Reimbursable costs.will be in addition to that indicated above and will be invoiced in accordance with the previous and original Agreement referenced above. Upon return of a fully executed authorization, this service shall become part of the Agreement identified above. APPROVED BY: J. MICHAEL BRILL & ASSOCIATES, INC t /f/?-? Signature J. Michael Brill. P.E.,P.L.S. - President Namelydie APPROVED BY: MEMBERS 157 FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ature John D. Lipp, V.P. Facilities Support Services Name/nli e 6?, 2 a -A7 Date Date J. 01dw AMI &AWCLATEE INC. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS AND UNDERSTANDING This supplement has been prepared underthe following assumptions, which reflectthe current undemanding ofthe project 1. This supplement assumes that this project will be designed and approved through PennDOTs Highway Occupancy Permit (HOP) program, and will be constructed with private funds. This projectwill not comply with all federal standards for publicly-funded projects. 2. The HOP project to be designed is defined by the following: Proposed Members 1t Way and Route 422 • Construction of one full-movement local road to Route 422; • Vlfidening of-eastbound Route 422 to provide a 200' right turn lane with a t 00' bay taper, • Re-striping of the existing two-way center left turn lane to provide a dedicated left turn lane on the westbound Route 422 approach. • Traffic signalization of the intersection. Proposed Right-in. Right-Out Driveway and Route 422 • Gonstruclion of one right4n, right-out driveway to Route 422; • Widening of eastbound Route 422 to provide a 200' right turn lane with a 100' bay taper. Drainage Improvements Along Route 422 • Construction of a parallel drainage system on Route 422 along the site frontage and to the east ofthesite, on the south side of Route 422, for an approArnate linear distance of 3,100 feet Duke Street and Route 422 • Re-time the signal- 3. It will be necessary for the HOP Applicant to provide JMB with the following items for the initial submission to PennDOT: • Signed HOP application; • Signed Land Use Questionnaire and supporting zoning documents; • Current deed(s) for the subject property, including the deed book number and page number. This deed must be in the same name as the Applicant for the HOP. If this is not the case, we will need to discuss what additional forms may be necessary per current PennDOT procedures. 4. This Supplement does not include Pavement Design or data collection relevant to such design. It is assumed that JMB will match the e)dsft pavement section, which is the typical PennDOT requirementfor an HOP project of this magnitude. Any and All Pavement Design or Data Collection if required will be handled through a separate Supplement 5. JMB will not be responsible for negotiating or obtaining right-of-way, easements, or releases from nearby property owners, as applicable. It shall be the sole purpose of the Applicant to obtain said items. 6. This Supplement assumes a nonnal schedule of appro)dmately4 to 6 months fordesign and review, which does notinciude the time Makes to-acquire right-of-way, easements, or releases. PennDOTwill notissoe an HOP until these property rights are acquired to the Department's satisfaction. J. lffid)ad Ard ASSOCIATES, INC. SCOPE OF WORK The following tasks will be completed in preparing the Design for the above-referenced project. TASK I INITIAL EVALUATION 1. Coordinate project scope, design tasks, and schedule with the project team and internal design team. 2. Request traffic data, pavement design history, construction plans, and right-of-way plans from PennDOT for S.R_ 0422. 3. Request a letter of acknowledgement from the municipality. 4. Visit the site to obtain field measurements, obtain additional topographic data, and shoot digital photos necessary for the preparation of the HOP. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$6,000.00 TASK 11. HIGHWAY PLAINS 1. Prepare Title Sheet, General Notes Sheet: Existing Conditions sheet(s), and Proposed Conditions (Site & Grading Plan) sheet(s). 2. Prepare Typical Sections and Roadway Construction Details.for roadway construction details not shown in the PennDOT Roadway Construction (RC) series. 3. Prepare the Construction Plans per PennDOT requirements. This proposal assumes six Construction Plan sheets will be necessary. 4. Prepare the required Profile Plans. It is assumed it will be necessary to provide profiles for the site driveways (two (2) total). 5. Prepare Drainage and Elevation Plans, including top and bottom of curb elevations, drainage facililies, and proposed contours, as required by PennDOT. 6. Prepare Drainage Profile Plans. It is estimated that four profile sheets will be necessary. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK., ...................................................................................... $55,000.00 TASK III. DRAINAGE DESIGN / REPORT The drainage design includes evaluating the eusling drainage pattems and comparing to the post-construction drainage areas to determine the extent of the drainage improvements. PennDOT criteria will be applied when determining the distance between inlets, pipe sizing, andthe acceptable amount ofshouldedlane encroachment A Drainage Report will be prepared for submission with the HOP. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ..........................................................................................$7,000.00 TASK IV. PAVEMENT DESIGN I REPORT The pavementdesign includes developing a proposed pavementsection based onthe eAs ing pavement composition in the area of question (based on data provided from PennDOTs pavement historysystem). The proposed pavement design will be reflected in the typical sections (Task 112). This task does not include pavement core borings, soil samples/borings, or coordination to obtain borings. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK .........................................•...............................................$2,500.00 J. 91chael Miff & ASSOCIATES, INC. TASK V. SIGNING AND PAVEMENT MARKING PLAN Prepare the Signing and Pavement Marking Plan, which will be coordinated with the additional signing located on the signal permit plan (if applicable). This task also includes the development of a pavement marling legend and all notes regarding signing. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$4,500.00 TASK VI. MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF TRAFFIC PLAN Prepare the Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) plans utilizing PennDOT Pub tcaGbn 213, including thetraffic control general notes. If is assumed thatthe Traffic Control forthis projectAll be handled enfiretywith standard notes from Publication 213. Due to the limited scope of work, this proposal does notinclude design of detailed MPT plans. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$1,000.00 TASK VII. CROSS SECTIONS This proposal assumes that fi will be necessaryto prepare cross-section plans forthe length of S.RR 0422 within the limits of the driveways and associated turn lanes. ti assumes that PennDOT will not require cross-sections for the proposed drainage improvements to the east of the site driveways. This proposal assumes preparation of approximatety 15 cross-sections on 5 plan sheets. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK .......................................................................................$4,500.00 TASK Vlll. . TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS / REPORT JMB will prepare the design of a new signal permit plan atthe intersection of Proposed Members 1't Way and Route 422 JMB will prepare the design of a revised signal permit plan at the intersection of Duke Street and Route 422. This supplement does not included preparation of signal construction plans. The required analyses and calculations include: traffic signal warrant analyses, left-turn movement calculations, ciearance time calculations, pedestrian tuning calculations, volume-density calculations, and phasing and timing analyses. The approved Traffic Impact Study (IS) will be utilized to incorporate the appropriate traffic control recommendations, including, but not limited to: the lane configurations and storage lengths, the projected traffic volumes, and the phasing,,timing, and sequence ofthe signal operation. JMB will referto PennDOT Publication 149 to prepare the traffic signal permit plan. There is no provision in this Supplement for signal interconnects plans with other intersections, orforrevisionst3oother existing signal plans. For any proposed signalized intersections, it will be necessary for the municipality to provide JMB with a signed Application for Permkto install and Operate Traffic Signals. JMB can providethis form to the municipalityforthek use. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$39,600.00 TASK IX. - CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Prepare a construction cost estimate based on the design prepared in Tasks 1-VIII. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$3,000.00 J. ffichae Afill & ASSOCWTT INC. TASK X. HOP / SIGNAL PLAN SUBMISSION #1 JMB will prepare the HOP plans and signal plans, and conductan internal Quality Control/Quality Assurance check. Upon approval of the plans by Client, and provision of the necessary documents (including signed HOP application, letter from municipality, signed signal application from the municipality, property deed, signed Land Use Questionnaire), JMB will submit the HOP/Signal plan package to PennDOT and copy the municipality. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$2,500.00 TASK XI. HOP / SIGNAL PLAN SUBMISSION #2 Upon receipt ofwriften commentsfrom PennDOT, JMB will provide copies of such commentsto Client, address the comments and revise the plans accordingly. If there are comments which materially change the scope of the proposed improvements, JMB will idenlirythese comments, and discuss with Cfientto determine if JMB is to comply. If so, JMB will issue an out-of-scope for the cost to revise the design to accommodate the change(s). JMB will prepare a point-by-point response letter to the PennDOT comments, and resubmit the HOP/Signal package to PennDOT, copying the municipality and Client. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$3,000.00 TASK X11. HOP / SIGNAL PLAN SUBMISSION #3 Upon-receipt ofwritten commentsfrorn PennDOT, JMBwill provide copies of such commentsto Client, addressthe comments and revise the plans accordingly. If there are comments which materially change the scope of the proposed improvements, JMB will identifythese comments, and discuss wt h Cfientto determine if JMB is to comply. If so, JMB will issue an out-of-scope for the cost to revise the design to accommodate the change(s). JMB will prepare a point by-point response letter to the PennDOT comments, and resubmit the HOP/Signal package to PennDOT, copying the. municipality and Client. JMB will prepare a summary of the responses from the plan submissions thatwere sentto the uh7ty companies. JMB will schedule and attend a meeting with Client, Traffic Engineer, and any other relevantsubconsuttants to reviewthe HOP/Signal plans for coordination with the Land Development plans and the planned utility relocations- ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$2,500.00 TASK XIII. UTILITY COORDINATION JMB will coordinatewith the Pennsylvania One Call system, which identifies all the utilities in the project area. JMB will then take this information and list the utilities, their contact name, phone number and address onto the plan sheets. This will assist the contractor in the event of an unforeseen conflict JMB will also plot the utility information onto the plan set as it is provided by the utilities and by the surveyor. If requested by Client, JMB will send copies of the relevant plans to the affected major utilities (electric, water, gas, sewer). It is assumed that the pole owner (typically the electric company) will coordinate with companies whose facilities are `riding' on its poles (e.g., cable, communications, fiber optic), JMB will not send plans directly with all of these utilities. . ESTIMATED COST OF TASK .........................................................:..............................$2,000.00 J. ftficfwJL3rrill & ,asSOcrCEs, INC. TASK XIV. PROJECT MANAGEMENT JMB anticipates significant correspondence with PennDOT, the municipality, Client, and the Traffic Engineerthrough the course of this design. We have provided an initial budget of forty (40) hours for this task. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK .........................................................................................$4,000.00 TASK XV. MEETINGS 1. JMB has included two (2) meetings with the project team at or near the site or the site engineer's office. 2. JMB has included two (2) meetings with PennDOT and/or the municipality to discuss the project ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ........................................................................................$2,500.00 TASK XVI. RIGHT-dF-WAY PLANS . Once the extent of the required right-0f-way and easements have been determined, JMB will prepare a might= of-Way plan set for review by PennDOT District 8-0. Once the plans have been reviewed, approved, and recorded, Clientwill be responsible for obtaining the required right-of-way, easements and/or releases for the project This proposal does not include any additional project team meetings, or coordination with adjacent property owners on behalf of Client. Once Client has obtained all relevant right-of-way and easements, and the documents have been reviewed and approved by the District (and recorded), Clientwill deed all of the right-of- way and easements to PennDOT using the appropriate form and the right-of-way plan set Please note: Right-af Way acquisition is a "long-lead" schedule item which should be addressed early in the HOP process. For all properties where right-of-way will be required, the Client should commission a comprehensive title search and an appraisal by a PennDOT-qualified appraiser. Prior to accepting right-of-way, PennDOT will require thatthe property be cleared otany existing easements, andthatthe property be cleared for environmental.concerns. ESTIMATED COST OF TASK ...........................................................................................$25 100.00 PROFESSIONAL. SERVICES DATE: January 17.2008 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION JMB PROJECT NAME Proposed Members 1fit Federal Credit Union.0 PalmWa Borough JMB PROJECT 1212 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION PLUMBER #f04 In accordance with the written Agreement on the agave referenced project, dated July l l - 2006 between the Parties designated below, J. Michael Brtel and Associates, Inc., is hereby suNwrtzed to: Proceed vdth Additional Engineering Services Proceed with Additional Surveying Services XX Proceed with Revised Scope of Services XX _ Incur Reimbursable Expenses As Follows: 1 Due to the requirement from the Borough of Palum for additional Geotecitnical Im?estigation the scope of work for Phase 4020 (Geotechnical lnvestiaation) wilI need to be siantficantN modlfed fSee attached for detailed scope)_ Compensation shall be adjusted as follows: 1 All work will be completed under Phase 4020 - Geotechnical IrnffR@gon Thus increaskm said phase by $16,0WM. This wtil bring the total for this phase to >'23,000.00 2. Reimbursable costs will be in addition to that indicated above and will be.inymced in accordance with the previous and original Agreement referenced above_ Upon return of a fully executed authorization, this service shall become part of the Agreement idenfdred above. APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY. J. MICHAEL BRILL. & ASSOCIATES, INC. MEMBERS 1"" FEDERAL CREDIT UNION nature -- J. Michael Brill. P.EP.LS. - President Namef -ibe nature John D. Umm, V.P. Facilities Support Services Name/TAe 2 '/ "o Date u / 3o -? Dare 20 MIChael gall & Assoniafe? J.llW6nWCIQS INc. SCOPE OF WORK: The scope ofvvmk presented in this Supplemental Authormalfon has been prepared to address commenls presented in the review letter prepared by the Borough of Palmyra, dated November 5,2W7, with regard to the project sfie. Spec rally, in Section 02 ofthe review letter f is requested thataddt6aral subsurface data be recovered from Lofa6rt , Lot#3 and the proposed Cherry Street Edansbn and Members 1$ Way. The proposed scope of work for this praject will include the corrl6ion of a field invest, laboratory testing program and preparation ofgeotechrucalengeteeringreport;. SpetxTicitentsinchWedvdtflneach ofthesetasimare presented below. Field Investigation A series ofstandard earth borings will be completed In accessible areas acrossthe projectsfie. Thetestbodngsvnll be conducted cuing a truck-mounted drill tog, equipped with hollow-stem augers and splitspoon samplers, and wet be completed in accordance with the following schedule. Lot#1- Purposed RWe Aid Pharmacy Five (5) test borings will be completed within the lbotprud of the proposed Rfie Aid to a depth of apprw&nalely twenty M feet below exiting site grades. Two (2) test borings to a depth of app u&na telyten (10) feet below e**S site grades in areas proposed for parking associated with the Rite Aid. Lot #3 - Possible Restaurant Three (3) test borings will be completed It randomly selected, approximately equally spaced locations within Lot illi. The test borings will extend to a depth of app m&nately N" M feet below existing sfe gtades_ Cherry Street Extaision d Mwgwrs 1°r Way A total of thirteen (13) test borings (1 per 100. LF) wfi be completed along the appraoftats cerr6erline of the proposed Cherry Stet ErderWon and Members 16r Way. Each of these test borings wig extend to a depth of frlteen (15) feet below wdsfing site grades. Thetestborkrgswlq ode ndtothe depths specified above orurA the underlying bedrockis encountered. Samptesof the soft encountered YOU be recovered at suitable Intervals and the Standard Penetration Resistance Test (SPT) values will be recorded. All samp&V procedures will be performed in accordance with the applicable American Socdeiyfor Testing and Materials (ASTIR standards. The test boring bcafionswfl be based on the Pt yl Final Land Development Plans. This proposal irutudes full fQne oversigit and inspection of the field investigation by a qualified represertiaim of the Geoiechni at Sub-Consullartt- J.h?l?ll3r? ?ASSocrQEs,Ivc. Laboratory Analysis of Soils In order to define the physical Characteristics of the smils encountered, tits proposed that laboratory analysis of sods of a USCG dessitication be conducted, in accordance with ASTM 2487 SWndanlsand spedfic alorrs. jbh 1?estiirg will include: Af xberg kndsdetermin4on, mechanical gradation analysisand na urW moishMc"ftnttwft It is proposed that one (1) standard classification test be performed on a representative soil sample obtained from each of the above work areas. Geotechnka!Enghwering Analysis and Report Thres 0 separade rePxhv dt be Prepared for each of the above workareas_ Each ofthe reporlswl ndude same or all of the following information: • G ? Evaluation (Including terrain desmption, brief geological h't4myandsurfacedrahW a Description of Saw face Conditions (mcluding description of exploration and sampling methods, sail identification and motion) a Results of Geofechnicat Analysis a Test Boring Logs • Test Boring Profiles a Test Boring Location Plan • Results of All Laboratory Testing . Recommendations Concerning: Fmnxb on Types rgwk aiV (a) Allowable Bearing Capacity Values (b) Placement Depths (c) Design Frost Depths (d) Preparation of Foundation Areas Sor7 Strengu9r CondffOns (a) SbWxafim Charadenstics and Correlated Soil Strengths -(b) POkmial for Construction and/or Di femalial Settlements Pressure Demon Cu ria (c) ffnnxk Lahmal Earth; Cr?a GerwaT am (a) Use and Treatment of Ir"itu Materials for Controlled BadM (b) Control of Surface Runoff Wader and Groundwater (c) Quality Control RegrarenwAs During fmuWatlon Construction (d) Subgrade Preparation for Slabs and Pavements Potential for SUdiole Development and Mu tinods to M i nirrize the 6n4act of Sinnicholes Depth of Rock Excavation, if required, and Characfin cs of Rodcth be Removed Suttabilk of on-srle saTs for use as trIl VERIFICATION I, John D. Lippa, Senior Vice President, Facilities& Support Services, Members 1St Federal Credit Union, hereby state that I am authorized to make this verification on behalf of Members 1 st Federal Credit Union. I hereby verify that the facts stated in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. 4DJ .Lippa, enio ice President Date: November 2, 2012 FIA-275631 vl Members I" Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff V. J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-2580 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on November 5, 2012, I served the attached Complaint upon the following via United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Anne R. Myers, Esquire Gregory F. Brown, Esquire Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorneys for Defendants C. Grainger Bo an NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: PLAINTIFF AND OTHER DEFENDANTS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIMS WITHIN TWENTY(20)DAYS FROM THE SERVICE HERETO OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. /&�NM.CAMPBELL,ESQUIRE WILLIAM J. FERREN&ASSOCIATES BY: Glenn M. Campbell, Esquire Attorney ID#: 51059 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Attorney for Additional Defendant Blue Bell, PA 19422 John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. (215) 274-1745 MEMBERS 1sT FEDERAL CREDIT COURT OF COMMON PLEAS UNION CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. NO. 12-2580 C) C") � c J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E., and AARON M. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ¢ , NAVARRO : N r- -- C: ' -� co - VS. t� X'- C', =C =;- X-C5 ED PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION w +' —a �a SERVICES, INC.; ADVANTAGE - ENGINEERS, LLC; CMX, INC.; DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE,JR.; STEVE R. READ, P.G.; EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E.; JOHN W. GLEIM, JR., INC.; and LANE ENTERPRISES, INC. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT,JOHN W. GLEIM,JR., INC., TO THE JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS,J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E.,AND AARON M.NAVARRO,WITH NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIMS Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., by and through its counsel, William J. Ferren &Associates, hereby files this Answer and New Matter to the Joinder Complaint of Defendant, J. Michael Brill&Associates, Inc., as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph,and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 2. After reasonable investigation,Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 3. After reasonable investigation,Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 4. This paragraph is directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. 5. This paragraph is directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. 6. This paragraph is directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. 7. This paragraph is directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. 8. This paragraph is directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. 9. This paragraph is directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. 10. Admitted. 11. This paragraph is directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. 12. Admitted in part,denied in part. On information and belief,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,admits that Plaintiff,Members 1St Federal Credit Union,filed a lawsuit against J. Michael Brill, Erik T. Schroeder,and Aaron M.Navarro,in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., generally denies the allegations of the Complaint filed in this matter by Plaintiff. 13. Admitted in part,denied in part. On information and belief,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., admits that Plaintiff,Members 1St Federal Credit Union,filed a separate lawsuit against JMB&A and others in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., generally denies the allegations of the Complaint filed in this matter by Plaintiff. 14. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 15. After reasonable investigation,Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 16. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 17. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 18. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph,and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 19. After reasonable investigation,Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 20. After reasonable investigation,Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 21. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 22. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 23. On information and belief, admitted. 24. Denied as stated. The project documents referenced in this paragraph of the Joinder Complaint are documents in writing that speak for themselves, and therefore any characterization as to their contents is denied. 25. Denied as stated. The project documents referenced in this paragraph of the Joinder Complaint are documents in writing that speak for themselves, and therefore any characterization as to their contents is denied. 26. Denied as stated. The project documents referenced in this paragraph of the Joinder Complaint are documents in writing that speak for themselves, and therefore any characterization as to their contents is denied. 27. Denied as stated. The project documents referenced in this paragraph of the Joinder Complaint are documents in writing that speak for themselves,and therefore any characterization as to their contents is denied. 28. Admitted that Pyramid entered into a subcontract with Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and that the scope of services to be provided pursuant to the subcontract included the installation of pipes in the underground stormwater management system. 29. Admitted that Plaintiff has so alleged. However, Defendant denies that there was a foundation for the system installed. Instead,the system was installed on virgin soil. 30. Admitted. 31. On information and belief, admitted. 32. After reasonable investigation,Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. Additional Defendant can admit that JMB&A approved shop drawings but cannot state the basis for the approvals. 33. Admitted that Plaintiff has so alleged. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,would further admit that sinkholes did develop on site following the completion of the project, but denies that the sinkholes were in any way caused by the work performed by Additional Defendant on the project. 34. Admitted that Plaintiff has so alleged. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint,and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 35. Admitted only that Plaintiff has so alleged. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., would deny that the sinkholes and other alleged failures were caused by a failure or collapse of the underground stormwater system. 36. Admitted only that Plaintiff has so alleged. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., denies that it had anything whatsoever to do with the design of the stormwater system, and therefore denies that it had any responsibility for any alleged deficiencies in the design as alleged by Plaintiff. All work performed by Additional Defendant was performed in accordance with the design documents. COUNT I—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS V. PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,INC. 37. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 38. to 40. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc.,respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT II—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS V. PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,INC. 41. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 42. through 45. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT III—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS V.ADVANTAGE ENGINEER,LLC 46. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 47. to 49. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr.,Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr.,Inc.,respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT IV—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS V. ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS,LLC 50. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 51. through 54. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr.,Inc.,and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT V—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS V. CMX,INC. 55. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 56.to 58. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT VI—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS V. CMX,INC. 59. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 60.through 63. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT VII—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS V. DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE,JR. 64. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 65. to 67. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT VIII—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS V. DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE,JR. 68. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 69. through 72. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT IX—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS V. STEVE R. READ, P.G. 73. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 74. to 76. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. ._....._..._. COUNT X—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS V. STEVE R. READ,P.G. 77. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 78. through 81. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XI—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS V. EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE,P.E. 82. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 83. to 85. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XII—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS V.EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE,P.E. 86. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 87. through 90. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc.,respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XIII—CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS V.JOHN W. GLEIM,JR.,INC. 91. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to the Joinder Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 92. After reasonable investigation,Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph,and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. 93. Denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no further response is required. To the extent that it contains factual allegations, same are denied. John W. Gleim,Jr.,Inc. denies that it is solely liable on Plaintiff's cause of action. 94. Denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no further response is required. To the extent that it contains factual allegations,same are denied. John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc. denies that it is liable to or with JMB&A on Plaintiff's cause of action. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr.,Inc.,respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XIV—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS V.JOHN W. GLEIM,JR.,INC. 95. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to the Joinder Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 96. Denied as stated. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no further response is required. 97. Denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no further response is required. To the extent that it contains factual allegations, same are denied. John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc. denies that it breached any duties that it had in connection with the project. 98. Denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no further response is required. To the extent that it is deemed to contain factual allegations, same are denied. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,denies that it was in any way negligent. Additional Defendant denies each and every subparagraph of this paragraph of the Joinder Complaint as follows: a. Additional Defendant denies that it failed to perform proper excavation for the underground stormwater system; b. Additional Defendant denies that it performed excessive grading or improper compaction efforts on top of the underground stormwater system; C. Additional Defendant denies that it inadequately prepared or protected construction materials and/or structural elements on top of the underground stormwater system; d. Additional Defendant denies that it failed to adequately protect the underground stormwater system from the load of heavy vehicles; e. Additional Defendant denies that it failed to follow all guidelines set forth in the geotechnical reports and as required by the on-site geotechnical engineer;and f. Additional Defendant denies that it failed to properly install the underground stormwater system. 99. Denied. This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no further response is required. To the extent that it is deemed to contain factual allegations, same are denied. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr.,Inc.,denies that it was in any way negligent. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint regarding damages, and same are therefore denied and proof demanded. Additional Defendant denies that it caused or contributed to any damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XV—CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS V. LANE ENTERPRISES 100. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 101. to 103. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XVI—STRICT LIABILITY DEFENDANTS V. LANE ENTERPRISES 104. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 105. to 111. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XVII—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS V. LANE ENTERPRISES 112. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 113. through 115. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XVIII—BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTIBILITY DEFENDANTS V. LANE ENTERPRISES 116. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 117. to 120. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XIX—BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE DEFENDANTS V. LANE ENTERPRISES 121. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 122. to 127. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XX—BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY DEFENDANTS V. LANE ENTERPRISES 128. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 129. to 131. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XXI—FRAUD DEFENDANTS V. LANE ENTERPRISES 132. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 133. to 137. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE,Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XXII—NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION DEFENDANTS V. LANE ENTERPRISES 138. Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 139. to 143. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. COUNT XXIII—VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA'S UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW DEFENDANTS V. LANE ENTERPRISES 144. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of its Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint as if same were set forth herein in full. 145. to 150. These paragraphs are directed to a defendant other than Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., and therefore no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. NEW MATTER 151. Plaintiff may have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 152. Defendants Brill, Schroeder,and Navarro may have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 153. Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 154. The claims of Defendants Brill, Schroeder, and Navarro may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 155. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., was not negligent in the performance of its work on the subject project. 156. All work performed by Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., was performed in accordance with the design and contract documents, including the drawings and specifications. 157. All work performed by Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., was inspected and approved by the site engineer and/or its consultants or inspectors. 158. Any acts or omissions of Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., alleged to constitute negligence or carelessness were not substantial causes or factors or factual causes of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged. 159. The incident and/or damages described in Plaintiff's Complaint may have been caused or contributed to by the Plaintiff. 160. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities not under the direction or control of Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,may have constituted intervening superseding causes of damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff. 161. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff were not proximately caused by Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. 162. The sinkholes that developed on the property following the completion of construction were not caused by any acts or omissions on the part of Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc.,nor were they caused by any work performed by Additional Defendant. 163. Defendant John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., denies any liability for damages under Rule 238, as amended, for the reason that the rule as amended is arbitrary and unconstitutional. 164. Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference all other available affirmative defenses contained in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 as if set forth herein in full WHEREFORE, Defendant John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiffs and all other Defendants. NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIMS AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO PA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1031.1 165. For purposes of this New Matter Crossclaim only, Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., incorporates by reference the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint and the Joinder Complaint filed by Defendants Brill, Schroeder, and Navarro, as if set forth herein in full, although the Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., does not admit the truth of those allegations as more fully stated in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer and New Matter. 166. If the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint and/or the Joinder Complaint of Defendants Brill, Schroeder,and Navarro are proven true, in whole or in part,then the Defendants, J. Michael Brill, Erik T. Schroeder, and Aaron Navarro, and the Additional Defendants, Pyramid Construction Services, Inc., Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., Edward L. Balsavage, P.E., CMX, Inc., and Lane Enterprises, may be directly liable to Plaintiff,jointly and severally liable with Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc., or liable over to Plaintiff and/or Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc.,under theories of contribution and/or indemnification. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiffs and against Defendants, J. Michael Brill, Erik T. Schroeder, and Aaron Navarro, and the Additional Defendants, Pyramid Construction Services, Inc., Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., Edward L. Balsavage, P.E., CMX, Inc., and Lane Enterprises. WILLIAM J. FERREN&ASSOCIATES BY: Z(Ien�n M. Campbell, Esquire rney for Additional Defendant,John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. VERIFICATION 1,Roger R.Blain,state that I am the President of Additional Defendant,John W.Gleim,Jr., Inc.,and that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to the Joinder Complaint of Defendants, J. Michael Brill,Erik T. Schroeder, and Aaron Navarro,are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. By: Dated:March 1,2013 WILLIAM J. FERREN &ASSOCIATES By: Glenn M. Campbell, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Identification No.: 51059 John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 (p) 215-274-1745 (f) 215-274-1735 Email: ggampbe2@travelers.com MEMBERS 15T FEDERAL CREDIT UNION : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs : CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. : NO.: 12-2580 PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. J. MICHAEL BRILL &ASSOCIATES, INC., ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS, LLC, DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE, JR., STEVE R. READ, P.G. EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E. and CMX, INC.: Defendants V. JOHN W. GLEIM, JR., INC. and LANE ENTERPRISES, INC. : Additional Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Glenn M. Campbell, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Answer and New Matter of Additional Defendant, JOHN W. GLEIM, JR., INC. to the Joinder Complaint of Defendants, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro with New Matter Crossclaims in the above-captioned matter was served via First Class U.S. Mail this 13th day of March, 2013, addressed as follows: C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire K&L Gates LLP 17 North Second Street— 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire Jake Sulzer, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Eileen M. Ficaro, Esquire KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO, LLP 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Frederick Brehm, Esquire POWELL TRACHTMAN LOGAN CARRLE & LOMBARDO, PC 475 Allendale Road Suite 200 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Stephen L. Grose, Esquire SAIDIS SULLIVAN & ROGERS 635 North 12 Street, Suite 400 Lemoyne, PA 17043 WILLIAM J. FERREN & ASSOCIATES By: A�V" (,f-\ cwf-i Glenn M. Campbell, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc Stephen L. Grose, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 31006 61 13 HA R 2 7 PH 1: G2 Saidis Sullivan &Rogers - M R LAN-0 C0UNT'i 635 North 12`h Street, Suite 400 PENNSYLVANIA Lemoyne, PA 17043 Phone: (717) 612-5802 Fax: (717) 612-5805 Email: sgrose(a,ssr-attorneys.com Attorneys for Lane Enterprises, Inc. MEMBERS 1ST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO.: 12-2580 J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E., AARON M.NAVARRO, Defendants PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.,ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS,LLC, DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE,JR., STEVE R. READ, P.G., EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E., CMX, INC., JOHN W. GLEIM,JR., INC. and LANE ENTERPRISES, INC., Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT,LANE ENTERPRISES,INC., TO THE CROSSCLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT,JOHN W. GLEIM,INC. AND NOW, comes additional defendant, Lane Enterprises, Inc., by and through its counsel, Saidis Sullivan&Rogers, and files this Answer to the crossclaims asserted against it by additional defendant, John W. Gleim, Inc., averring as follows: 165. No response required. 166. Paragraph 166 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the the extent a response is required, it is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Lane Enterprises, Inc. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss the crossclaim asserted by John W. Gleim, Inc., and grant such other relief as the Court deems fair and just. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS SULLIVAN&ROGERS Dated: March 44 , 2013 By: �. S�tEPH L. GROSE Attorney I.D. #31006 2 VERIFICATION I, Stephen L. Grose, Esquire, counsel for additional defendant, Lane Enterprises, Inc., hereby verify and state that: 1. The responses set forth in the foregoing Answer to Crossclaim of Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Inc., are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief; and 2. I am aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. h '� tephen L. Grose, Esquire MEMBERS 1sT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA VS. , • J.MICHAEL BRILL,P.E., ERIK T. N0.: 12-2580 SCHROEDER, P.E., AARON M.NAVARRO, Defendants PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS, LLC, DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE, JR., STEVE R. READ,P.G., EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E., CMX, INC.,JOHN W. GLEIM,JR., INC. and LANE ENTERPRISES, INC., Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen L. Grose, Esquire, one of the attorneys for additional defendant, Lane Enterprises, Inc.,hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper upon counsel of record this date by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff Frederick Brehm, Esquire Powell Tractman Logan Carrle& Lombardo, PC 475 Allendale Road, Suite 200 King of Prussia, PA 19406-1496 Attorneys for Advantage Engineers, LLC; Daniel R. Schauble, Jr.; Steve R. Read, P.G.; and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman& Goggin 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorneys for Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Jake Sulzer, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman& Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorneys for Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Anne R. Myers, Esquire Gregory F. Brown, Esquire Kaufinan Dolowich Voluck& Gronzo, LLP 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorneys for J. Michael Brill, P.E.; Erik T. Schroeder, P.K; and Aaron M. Navarro Glenn M. Campbell, Esquire William J. Ferren&Associates 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorneys for John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. CMX, Inc. c/o Edward L. Balsavage 910 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 SAIDIS SULLIVAN& ROGERS By: S'tephA L. Gr e Dated: March KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK& GONZO LLP By: Anne R. Myers, Esquire Eileen M. Ficaro, Esquire amyers@kdvglaw.com eficaro@kdvglaw.com Attorney I.D.Nos. 201900/200830 Attorneys for Brill Defendants, 1777 Sentry Park West J Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T SchrooerZ P Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 and Aaron M Navarro C= Blue Bell, PA 19422 r M M CD :t%*"o Telephone: (215) 461-1100 Facsimile: (215)461-1300 > CO CD r—:;r MEMBERS I sFEDERAL CREDIT UNION, COURT OF COMMIaEg CUMBERLAND COtNfY Plaintiff, V. NO. 12-2580 J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., et al. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Brill Defendants, V. PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al. Additional Defendants. ANSWER OF ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS J.MICHAEL BRILL,P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E.,AND AARON M. NAVARRO TO THE NEW MATTER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT JOHN W. GLEIM.JR., INC. Original Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro (hereinafter, the "Brill Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP, answer the New Matter of Additional Defendant John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc, ("Gleim") as follows: 151. Admitted. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs claims are proven to be true, which the Brill Defendants specifically deny, Gleim is solely liable or liable to or with the Brill Defendants on Plaintiff's causes of action for the reasons set forth in the Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 152. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed to be required and to the extent that Plaintiffs claims are proven to be true, which the Brill Defendants specifically deny, the Brill Defendants have set forth causes of action against Gleim in their Joinder Complaint upon which relief can be granted. 153. After reasonable investigation, the Brill Defendants currently lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in this paragraph. However, to the extent that Plaintiffs claims are determined not to be barred by the statute of limitations and to the extent that Plaintiff's claims are proven to be true, which the Brill Defendants specifically deny, the Brill Defendants have set forth causes of action against Gleim in their Joinder Complaint upon which relief can be granted. 154. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed to be required and to the extent that it is determined that Plaintiff's claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, the Brill Defendants' claims against Gleim are not barred by the statute of limitations. 155. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed to be required and to the extent that Plaintiff's claims are proven to be true, which the Brill Defendants specifically deny, Gleim was negligent in the manner set forth in the Joinder Complaint, as is evidenced by the fact that after Gleim's work was performed, gaps were found in the installed pipes which allowed water to escape from the piping. 156. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed to be required, it is denied that "[a]ll work performed by Additional Defendant, John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., was performed in accordance with the design and contract documents, including the drawings and specifications," as is evidenced by the fact that after Gleim's work was performed, gaps were found in the installed pipes which allowed water to escape from the piping. 157. Denied. It is denied that the Brill Defendants "inspected and approved" Gleim's work. To the extent that Gleirn claims that another entity and/or individual(s) inspected its work, the Brill Defendants currently lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the truth of the allegations set forth in this paragraph, which are therefore deemed denied. 158. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed to be required and to the extent that Plaintiffs claims are proven to be true, which the Brill Defendants specifically deny, the conduct of Gleirn set forth in the Joinder Complaint was a substantial cause or factor or factual cause of the subject incident and/or any losses Plaintiff may have sustained, as is evidenced by the fact that after Gleim's work was performed, gaps were found in the installed pipes which allowed water to escape from the piping. 159. Admitted. 160. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation, the Brill Defendants currently lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in this paragraph, which are therefore deemed denied with strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 161. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed to be required and to the extent that Plaintiff's claims are proven to be true, which the Brill Defendants specifically deny, the conduct of Gleim set forth in the Joinder Complaint proximately caused the incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, as is evidenced by the fact that after Gleim's work was performed, gaps were found in the installed pipes which allowed water to escape from the piping. 162. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed to be required and to the extent that Plaintiff's claims are proven to be true, which the Brill Defendants specifically deny, the sinkholes that developed on the property following the completion of construction were caused by the conduct of Gleim set forth in the Joinder Complaint, as is evidenced by the fact that after Gleim's work was performed, gaps were found in the installed pipes which allowed water to escape from the piping. 163. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 164. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Original Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron Navarro demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff and all Co- Defendants and Additional Defendants together with attorneys' fees and costs of suit, interest, and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted this 5`h day of April, 2013, KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP By: Anne R. Myers, E uire Eileen Monaghan Iricaro, Esquire 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 VERIFICATION I, J. Michael Brill,P.E., P.L.S., state that I am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro. I hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Answer of Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro to the New Matter of Additional Defendant John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. J. Michael Dated: April 1, 2013 4826-2149-0451,v. I MEMBERS 1 S`FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, V. NO. 12-2580 J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., et al. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Brill Defendants, V. PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al. Additional Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Eileen Monaghan Ficaro, Esquire, certifies that, on this date, she caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer of Original Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro to the New Matter of John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. to be served via First Class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel and parties of record: C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 N. Second Street 18t' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Plaintiff Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Frederick Brehm, Esquire Powell, Trachtman, Logan Carrie & Lombardo PC 475 Allendale Road Suite 200 King of Prussia, PA 19406-1496 Counsel for Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. CMX, Inc. c/o Edward L. Balsavage 910 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Glenn M. Campbell, Esquire William J. Ferren& Associates 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell PA 19422 Counsel for John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. Stephen L. Grose, Esquire Saidis, Sullivan& Rogers 635 N. 12th Street, Suite 400 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Counsel for Lane Enterprises, Inc. A A L All Eileen Monaghan F aro, Esquire Dated: April 5, 2013 By: Anne R. Myers, Esquire 2013 AM 23 AN 10: 08 Eileen M. Ficaro, Esquire eficaro@kdvglaw.com PENNSYLVANIA Attorney I.D. Nos. 201900/200830 Attorney's for Brill Defendants, 1777 Sentry Park West J Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T Schroeder, P.E, Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 and Aaron M Navarro Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 461-1100 Facsimile: (215) 461-1300 MEMBERS I"FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. NO. 12-2580 Brill Defendants, V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al. Additional Defendants. ANSWER OF ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E., AND AARON M. NAVARRO TO THE NEW MATTER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS,LLC, DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE, JR., STEVE R. READ, P.G., AND EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE Original Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro (hereinafter, the "Brill Defendants"), by and through their attorneys, Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP, file this Answer to the New Matter of Additional Defendants Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage (hereinafter, the "Advantage Defendants") as follows: 151. Admitted. ' 152. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 152 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, denied for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 153. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 153 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, after reasonable investigation, the Brill Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the averments forth in Paragraph 153 of the Advantage Defendants' New Matter, which are therefore deemed denied under the authority of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1029. 154. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 154 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, denied for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants Joinder Complaint. 155. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 155 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or reduced by plaintiffs failure to mitigate its alleged damages. It is denied that Brill Defendants' claims against Advantage Defendants are barred by their failure to mitigate their damages for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' answer to Plaintiffs complaint and Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 156. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 156 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs claims are barred or substantially reduced by the Doctrine of contributory negligence. It is denied that Brill Defendants' claims against Advantage Defendants are barred or substantially reduced by the Doctrine of contributory negligence for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' answer to Plaintiff's complaint and Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 157. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 157 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff's claims are barred or substantially reduced by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. It is denied that Brill Defendants' claims against Advantage Defendants are barred or substantially reduced by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' answer to Plaintiff's complaint and Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 158. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 158 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff's claims are barred or substantially reduced by the doctrine of contributory negligence. It is denied that Brill Defendants' claims against Advantage Defendants are barred or substantially reduced by the doctrine of contributory negligence for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' answer to Plaintiff's complaint and Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 159. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 159 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff's claims are barred or substantially reduced by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. It is denied that Brill Defendants' claims against Advantage Defendants are barred or substantially reduced by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' answer to Plaintiff's complaint and Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 160. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 160 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff's claims are barred or substantially reduced by the doctrines of estoppel and/or waiver. It is denied that Brill Defendants' claims against Advantage Defendants are barred or substantially reduced by the doctrines of estoppel and/or waiver for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' answer to Plaintiff's complaint and Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 161. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 161 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff's claims are barred or limited by any releases that have been executed or will be executed in favor of any other person or entity. It is denied that Brill Defendants' claims against Advantage Defendants are barred or limited by any releases that have been executed or will be executed in favor of any other person or entity for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' answer to Plaintiff's complaint and Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 162. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 162 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. It is denied that Brill Defendants' claims against Advantage Defendants are barred by the statute of limitations for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' answer to Plaintiff's complaint and Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 163. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 163 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, denied for the reasons set forth in the Brill Defendants' answer to Plaintiff's complaint and Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 164. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Additional Defendants Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. did not contract with J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and/or Aaron M. Navarro. The Brill Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining averments forth in Paragraph 164 of the Advantage Defendants' New Matter, which are therefore deemed denied under the authority of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1029. 165. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 166. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff contracted with J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. It is denied that the complete contract between Plaintiff and J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. was attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 166 of the New Matter are denied for the reasons set forth in the complete contract between Plaintiff and J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. 167. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. aspires to provide services that are "second to none." The remainder of the averments in Paragraph 167 of the New Matter is denied for the reasons set forth in the complete contract between Plaintiff and J. Michael Brill &Associates, Inc. 168. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. contracted with Plaintiff. It is further admitted that J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. prepared a Stormwater Management Report, a Pre-development Drainage Area Plan, and a Post- development Drainage Area Plan for the Project pursuant to the Professional Services Agreement between Members 1St and Brill & Associates. The remainder of Paragraph 168 of the New Matter is denied for the reasons set forth in the complete contract between Plaintiff and J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. 169. Admitted. 170. Admitted. 171. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Advantage was retained by J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. to perform specific professional services. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 171 of the New Matter are denied for the reasons set forth in Brill Defendants' Joinder Complaint. 172. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Exhibit A is a "Report of Geotechnical Engineering Investigation" dated July 28, 2006 ("Geotechnical Report"). All averments in Paragraph 172 are denied to the extent that they contradict a complete copy of the document attached as Exhibit A. 173. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Geotechnical Report was issued prior to the construction of the underground stormwater system reference by Plaintiff in the Complaint. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 173 of the New Matter are denied. It is denied that the Geotechnical Report was the only report provided by the Advantage Defendants. Moreover, the Geotechnical Report discusses the parameters of how the foundation of the Bank building itself is to be constructed. (See Geotechnical Report, on pp. 10-14.) The Geotechnical Report does not specifically talk about the Sub-Surface Stormwater Facility or any foundation associated with such facility. In fact, the only Stormwater reference in the report is the infiltration testing/recommendation found on page 14(i). 174. Admitted in part and denied in party. It is admitted that the geological conditions of the subject property are discussed in the Geotechnical report. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 174 of the New Matter are denied. It is denied that the Geotechnical Report was the only report provided by the Advantage Defendants. Moreover, the Geotechnical Report discusses the parameters of how the foundation of the Bank building itself is to be constructed. (See Geotechnical Report, on pp. 10-14.) The Geotechnical Report does not specifically talk about the Sub-Surface Stormwater Facility or any foundation associated with such facility. In fact, the only Stormwater reference in the report is the infiltration testing/recommendation found on page 14(i). 175. Denied. It is denied that the purpose of the Geotechnical Report was to identify whether or not limestone would be found below the existing ground surface. It is public knowledge that limestone would be found below the existing ground surface resulting in the prevalence of sinkholes in the area where the New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Earl Street is located, as evidenced by the name given to the nearby "Sinkhole Saloon." The remaining allegations in Paragraph 175 of the New Matter are denied. The Geotechnical Report discusses the parameters of how the foundation of the Bank building itself is to be constructed. (See Geotechnical Report, on pp. 10-14.) The Geotechnical Report does not specifically talk about the Sub-Surface Stormwater Facility or any foundation associated with such facility. In fact, the only Stormwater reference in the report is the infiltration testing/recommendation found on page 14(i). 176. Denied. It is denied that the purpose of the Geotechnical Report was to identify whether or not limestone would be found below the existing ground surface. . It is public knowledge that limestone sits below the existing ground surface resulting in the prevalence of sinkholes in the area where the New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Earl Street is located, as evidenced by the name given to the nearby "Sinkhole Saloon." The remaining allegations in Paragraph 176 of the New Matter are denied for the reasons set forth in the plain language of the Geotechnical Report and other reports drafted by Advantage Engineering, LLC. By way of further answer, The Geotechnical Report discusses the parameters of how the foundation of the Bank building itself is to be constructed. (See Geotechnical Report, on pp. 10-14.) The Geotechnical Report does not specifically talk about the Sub-Surface Stormwater Facility or any foundation associated with such facility. In fact, the only Stormwater reference in the report is the infiltration testing/recommendation found on page 14(i). 177. Admitted in part and denied in part. The text of the Geotechnical Report is admitted to the extent that it is verbatim. The remainder of the allegations are denied for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 176, above. 178. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. had in its possession a copy of the Geotechnical Report prior to the construction of the underground stormwater system referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint. It is denied that Geotechnical Report, provided information sufficient to the preparation of the underground stormwater system or represents all the information provided by Advantage Engineering, LLC with regard to the claims raised in Plaintiff's Complaint and Brill Defendants' New Matter. By way of further answer, The Geotechnical Report discusses the parameters of how the foundation of the Bank building itself is to be constructed. (See Geotechnical Report, on pp. 10-14.) The Geotechnical Report does not specifically talk about the Sub-Surface Stormwater Facility or any foundation associated with such facility. In fact, the only Stormwater reference in the report is the infiltration testing/recommendation found on page 14(i). 179. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that "prior to preparing a Stormwater Management Report, a Pre-development Drainage Area Plan or a Post-development Drainage Area Plan for the Project," persons acting on behalf of J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. read the Geotechnical Report. It is denied that Geotechnical Report provided information sufficient to the preparation of a Pre-development Drainage Area Plan or a Post-development Drainage Area Plan for the Project or represents all the information provided by Advantage Engineering, LLC with regard to the claims raised in Plaintiff's Complaint and Brill Defendants' New Matter. The Geotechnical Report discusses the parameters of how the foundation of the Bank building itself is to be constructed. (See Geotechnical Report, on pp. 10-14.) The Geotechnical Report does not specifically talk about the Sub-Surface Stormwater Facility or any foundation associated with such facility. In fact, the only Stormwater reference in the report is the infiltration testing/recommendation found on page 14(i). 180. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 180 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, denied, for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 179, above. 181. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted the subsurface conditions identified in the Geotechnical report were a matter of public knowledge as were the prevalence of sinkholes in the area where the New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Earl Street is located, as evidenced by the name given to the nearby "Sinkhole Saloon." It is denied that Michael Brill & Associates, Inc. or any of the individual Brill Associate defendants constructed the underground stormwater system referenced in Plaintiffs Complaint. It is denied that the fact of the subsurface conditions identified in the Geotechnical Report, attached as Exhibit A to New Matter, rendered the Stormwater Management Report, the Pre-development Drainage Area Plan or the Post-development Drainage Area Plan for the Project ineffective. The remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 181 of the New Matter are denied for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 179, above. 182. Denied. Paragraph 182 of the New Matter is denied for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 181, above. 183. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that it is public knowledge that sinkholes are prevalent in the area where the New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Earl Street is located, as evidenced by the name given to the nearby "Sinkhole Saloon. It is admitted that this information was known to the Brill Defendants prior to of the underground stormwater system referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint and preparation of a Stormwater Management Report, a Pre-development Drainage Area Plan or a Post-development Drainage Area Plan for the Project. It is denied that the Brill Defendants constructed the underground stormwater system referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 183 of the New Matter, are denied for the reasons set forth in the plain language of the Geotechnical Report. 184. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that it is public knowledge that sinkholes are prevalent in the area where the New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Earl Street is located, as evidenced by the name given to the nearby "Sinkhole Saloon. It is admitted that this information was known to the Brill Defendants at the time of the design of the underground stormwater system referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 184 of the New Matter are denied for the reasons set forth in the plain language of the Geotechnical Report. 185. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that it is public knowledge that sinkholes are prevalent in the area where the New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Earl Street is located, as evidenced by the name given to the nearby "Sinkhole Saloon. It is admitted that this information was known to the Brill Defendants at the time of the location of the underground stormwater system referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint. It is denied that the location of the underground stormwater management system contributed to the formation of the sinkholes referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint. The remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 185 of the New Matter are denied for the reasons set forth in the plain language of the Geotechnical Report. 186. Admitted in part and denied in part for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 185, above. 187. Admitted in part and denied in part for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 185, above. 188. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 188 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, it is admitted that sinkholes are prevalent in the area where the New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union, Earl Street is located, as evidenced by the name given to the nearby "Sinkhole Saloon." The remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 188 of the New Matter are denied for the reasons set forth in the plain language of the Geotechnical Report and in the Joinder Complaint. 189. Denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that this Court deems the averments in Paragraph 189 of the New Matter are allegations of fact, it is admitted that prior to 2011 the Brill Defendants were aware of the development of sinkholes on the subject property. The Brill Defendants became aware of Plaintiff's claims against them when Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this matter. 190. Denied for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 189, above. 191. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that prior to 2011 the Brill Defendants were aware of the development of sinkholes on the property of the New Branch Facility for Members 1St Federal Credit Union prior to 2011. All other allegations are denied for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 14 of Brill's Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint. 192. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the subject property has not been untouched by man, since the dawn of creation. More recently, the subject property was used for agricultural purposes and then the subject property was subdivided and developed by Members 1St and two buildings, with parking, have been built on the subject property. After reasonable investigation, the Brill Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 192 of the New Matter, which are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff and all Co-Defendants and Additional Defendants together with attorneys' fees and costs of suit, interest, and such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of April, 2013, KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK LLP By Anne R. Myers, Esqui Eileen Monaghan Fic ro, Esquire Attorneys for Brill Defendants, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro VERIFICATION I, J. Michael Brill, P.E.,P.L.S., state that I am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro. I hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Answer of Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro to the New Matter of Additional Defendants Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. r � Michael Brill, P.E., P.L.S. Dated: April 1, 2013 KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK LLP By: Anne R. Myers, Esquire Eileen M. Ficaro, Esquire amyers @kdvglaw.com eficaro @kdvglaw.com Attorney I.D. Nos. 201900/200830 Attorneys for Brill Defendants, 1777 Sentry Park West J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 and Aaron M. Navarro Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 461-1100 Facsimile: (215) 461-1300 MEMBERS 1St FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, V. NO. 12-2580 J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., et al. Brill Defendants, V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al. Additional Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Anne R. Myers, Esquire, certifies that, on this date, she caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer of Original Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro to the New Matter of Additional Defendants Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward Balsavage, P.E. to be served via First Class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel and parties of record: C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 N. Second Street 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Plaintiff Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Frederick Brehm, Esquire Powell, Trachtman, Logan Carrle & Lombardo PC 475 Allendale Road Suite 200 King of Prussia, PA 19406-1496 Counsel for Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. Glenn M. Campbell, Esquire William J. Ferren& Associates 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell PA 19422 Counsel for John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. Stephen L. Grose, Esquire Saidis, Sullivan& Rogers 635 N. 12"' Street, Suite 400 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Counsel for Lane Enterprises, Inc. CMX, Inc. c/o Edward L. Balsavage 910 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK LLP By: Anne R. Myers, squire Dated: April 22, 2013 4813-9880-1427,v. 1 L I AUG -5 PM 1: 4 3 MARSHALL OE WARNER COLE-MAN&GOGGIN CUMBERLAND COU'HII By, Stuart H. S.0stmann, Esquire PENNSYLVANIA ID#84065- 60,0 Grant Street,Suite 1,9100 Pittsburah,PA 1.52;19 412=803-1140 Jake Sulzer,Esquire b4 e-11-3089 4200 Crums,MilI Road,StiittB 14*Wburg,PA- 171,12 7174651-3509 : b 1�954 04file:-No. .191 V-w Attorneysfor Defendant Pyrari4t6tistruptiotiServices; .......... np: ST, MEMBERS,1 FEDERA L N COURT COMMON PLEAS'OF P la ffiti . CUMBERLAND COUN TY3 PENNSYLVANIA J.,MIQ ELBRILL�PI.E.i-TRIKIT W �SCHROEDER,P. A: I., And,A M. ACTION L N I).efendarits, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. ONS PYRAMID TI 'W 1N et,.a! Additional'Defendants. REPLY TO NEW MATTtR-cRGSS-CLAJM OF ADDITIONAL.DFFENDA-NT:TORN W.;GLE AND.N.OW, comes' Additiodal De&hdantTymrhU Constructions Services,Inc.. ugh its,attomeysMARSHALL,DENNEHEY WARNER,COLEMAN p 'r. id',�)J�yandthro &GOGGW.T 'AR -L.SOST ESQUIRE, o, .C.and STU T H MA!,K 4nd.,files the follow—ing l New Matter Cross Claim of Add'itiotial Defend0t.John W;Gleim;Jr,anc.is support.thereof, avers:was.:follo�vss; I. As to tlte.averrnents.ii John'ViW Glein;Jr;'Iric:s(,' leim")New 1ltiatter Cross* Ciaim,,.Addrtional.Defendant Pyramrd_Coristruetion,Services,iinc..hereby ncorporate&bY i efereiice its entire Answer,, e v Matter and.Cross-C:laz 14'to the joinder Co kint of J..,Mic`ael Brill,P.E.,"Eric Schroeder,P E.°and Aarori'M�Nauarro;as though fully set fort at engt T. herein. 2 As to the averirients in paragraph t66"ofGle n's Cross Claim,'ey.constitute ; , e exconcus aris of law,to Wihnc respt e asdeemedo ary. T a responseis pe deemeii.;necessary,the;same,are iienied, acid strict:proof,is.de.manded at;the time aftrial:. VI TEiZEFORE, Addit�t. al Defendant Pyramid Construction Services;Inc.denies liatzlrty to;:all parkres andriequests,costs of°suit;:; Respectfully submitted, IviATZSHALL 3ENl1EHE Y WARN COLEMAN,.&GOGGIN By . Stuart H..Soi onani,Esquire. II3:84t} S ;Attorneys,for Defehd.A t_ Pyramid+Construction Services,Inc. iZ1I$'f38G2y EERTIFIEATE OF SERVICE`. The undersigned hereliy certilie&that'the foregoing Reply to Crg8!OdAiin has;.been' J,st' served upon Counsel on'this. / day Class f. 30UdSa ~i Mail;posfage prepaid; addressed as follows: C: Grainger Bowman;Esquire 17 N„-Second St 18th Floor. Harrisburg PA 1.7101 .Anne;R.Myers,Esquire; Gregory F Brown,Esquire Kaufman Dolowich Voluck=&Goizo,LLP' 1777SentryPark West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 30:1. Blue 6%.PA 199422 Eileen Ficaro,Esquire. Kaufinan:Dolowioh.Yolu&&GQnzo 17.77`,Sentiy.,Pkwy West Gwy Suite nedd Hall, 30.1 $lue Bell;PA,19422 Irrecleric Brehm;Esquire Powell,'Trachtman;Logan:Carrie.&c Lombardo;:P C : 413 Allendale Roadi Suite,200 King of Prussia, .A I.' 9.40,0 Glenn Caimpbell,Esquire 'William;) Ferrety& Associates 10 Sentry Parkway.Suite 3011 Biue Bell.:;PA 19422; Stephen L.Grose;Esi}u"re SMd s,,Sullivan&12ogerS 635 N:, 12th,Sheet,Suite 4Q& Lemoyne,PA 170,43. CIv1X,tic. c/o'Edward'I..,Balsavage 9';1`0 Century Drive,, Mechanicsburg,PA..1705 MAPS HALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN&GOGGIN B;yc Stuart H. Sostmann,Esquire ID 84065 Attorneys'for Defendant Pyramid Construction Services,inc.. 12Ib$7,3862yi. , VERIFICATION.' li Mic}ael migppeter;do hereby verify than have read the.foregoing Reply to` Crgss.-Maim and thatthe-state.ments.contained`herein-are true.arid.correct:to:the'best of:rriy kno�v[edge This verification is ade:subiectfolhe;penalties of IS Pa.C S;. §4904 relating to: unswo„rn falsification to authorities;: Dated:, Michael Klinepeter MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 7013 AUG —5 PM 1: 43 By: Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire ID #84065 fUMBERLAND C(d 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 P E N N S Y LVA N I X Pittsburgh, PA 15219 412-803-1140 Jake Sulzer, Esquire ID# 313089 NOTICE TO PLEAD 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B To All Parties: Harrisburg, PA 17112 717-651-3509 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the Our File No. 19183-01954 enclosed ANSWER,NEW MATTER and CROSS- Attorneys for Defendant CLAIMS within twenty(20)days from service hereof or Pyramid Construction Services; Inc. a judgment may be entered against you. MEMBERS 1sT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 12-2580 J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E., and AARON M. CIVIL ACTION- LAW NAVARRO, Defendants, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. PYRAMID CONSTRUCTIONS SERVICES, INC., et. al. Additional Defendants. ANSWER,NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM TO THE COMPLAINT TO JOIN ASSERTED BY J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E. ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E. AND AARON M. NAVARRO Additional Defendant Pyramid Constructions Services, Inc. ("Pyramid")by and through its attorneys, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN& GOGGIN, P.C. and STUART H. SOSTMANN, ESQUIRE, and files the following Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim to the Complaint to Join, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. After reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. After reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Admitted. 5. After reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. After reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 7. After reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. After reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. After reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Admitted. 11. After reasonable investigation, this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 13. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 14. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 15. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 16. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 17. Said document speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 18. Said document speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 19. Said document speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 20. Said document speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 21. Said document speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 22. Said document speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 23. Admitted. 24. The project documents speak for themselves and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 25. The project documents speak for themselves and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 26. The project documents speak for themselves and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 27. The project documents speak for themselves and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 28. Admitted. 29. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 30. After reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 31. The Lane marketing materials speak for themselves and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 32. To the best of the knowledge of Pyramid, Brill and Associates approved numerous shop drawings for the underground storm water system. As to the basis for those approvals, after reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 33. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 34. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 35. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. 36. Said Complaint speaks for itself and Brill's brief characterization of the same is hereby denied. COUNT I—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS I MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. 37. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 36 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 38. These averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is deemed necessary. To the extent a response is deemed necessary,the same are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 39. These averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is deemed necessary. To the extent a response is deemed necessary,the same are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. As a further response, Defendant Pyramid denies that it is solely liable to Members 1"for any cause of action. 40. These averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is deemed necessary. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the same are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. As a further response, Defendant Pyramid specifically denies that it is liable to Members 1St or liable with the Brill Defendants on Members 1St causes of action. WHEREFORE, Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Count I of the Complaint to Join with prejudice. COUNT II—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,INC. 41. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 40 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 42. These averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is deemed necessary. To the extent a response is deemed necessary,the same are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, Pyramid acted in a proper and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with the specifications contained with the contract between Pyramid and Members 1 st 43. These averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is deemed necessary. To the extent a response is deemed necessary,the same are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, Pyramid acted in a proper and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with the specifications contained with the contract between Pyramid and Members 1St 44. These averments, including subparagraphs(a)through(h), constitute conclusions of law to which no response is deemed necessary. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the same are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. As a further response, Pyramid specifically denies that it: a. Failed to perform proper excavation for the underground storm water system; b. Performed excessive grading and/or improper compaction efforts on top of the underground storm water system; c. Inadequately prepared or protected construction materials and/or constructional elements on top of the underground storm water system; d. Failed to adequately protect the underground storm water system from the load of heavy vehicles; e. Permitted improperly sized or oversized equipment to operate on top of the storm water system; f. Failed to follow all guidelines set forth in the geotechnical reports and as required by the on-site geotechnical engineer; g. Failed to properly install the underground storm water system; and h. Failed to properly supervise and such or oversee subcontractors in the installation of the underground storm water system. 45. As to the averments of the alleged negligence of Pyramid,proximate causation and the actions/or inactions on the part of the Brill Defendants,they constitute conclusions of law to which no response is deemed necessary. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, the same are denied, and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, Pyramid acted in a proper and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with the specifications contained with the contract between Pyramid and Members 1St. As to the remaining averments regarding Plaintiffs damages, after reasonable investigation,this Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and the same are therefore denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Count II of the Complaint to Join with prejudice. COUNT III—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS,LLC 46. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 45 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 47. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 48. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 49. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and requests cost of suit. COUNT IV—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E.AND AARON_NAVARRO V. ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS,LLC 50. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 49 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 51. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 52. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 53. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 54. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT V—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. CMX, INC. 55. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 54 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 56. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 57. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 58. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT VI—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. CMX, INC. 59. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 58 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 60. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 61. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 62. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 63. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT VII—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E.AND AARON NAVARRO V. DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE,JR. 64. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 63 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 65. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 66. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 67. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT VII—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. DANIEL R. SCHRAUBLE JR. 68. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 67 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 69. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 70. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 71. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is.required. 72. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT IX—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. STEVE R. READ P.G. 73. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through.72 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 74. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 75. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 76. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT X—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. STEVE R. READ,P.G. 77. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 76 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 78. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 79. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 80. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 81. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XI—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E. 82. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 81 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 83. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 84. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 85. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XII—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. EDWARD L. BALSALVAGE,P.E. 86. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 85 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 87. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 88. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 89. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 90. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XIII—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V.JOHN W. GLEIM,JR. 91. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 90 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 92. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 93. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 94. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XIV—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. JOHN W. GLEIM,JR. 95. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 94 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 96. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 97. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 98. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 99. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XV—COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. LANE ENTERPRISES,INC. 100. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 99 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 101. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 102. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 103. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XVI—STRICT LIABILITY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. LANE ENTERPRISES,INC. 104. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 103 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 105. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 106. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 107. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 108. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. . 109. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 110. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 111. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XVII—NEGLIGENCE DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. LANE ENTERPRISES,INC. 112. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 112 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 113. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 114. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 115. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XVIII—BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MARKETABILITY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E.AND AARON NAVARRO V. LANE ENTERPRISES,INC. 116. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 115 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 117. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 118. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 119. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 120. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XVIII—BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. LANE ENTERPRISES,INC. 121. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 120 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 122. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 123. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 124. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 125. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 126. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 127. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XX—BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. LANE ENTERPRISES,INC. 128. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 127 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 129. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 130. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 131. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. , WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XXI—FRAUD DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E.AND AARON NAVARRO V. LANE ENTERPRISES,INC. 132. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 131 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 133. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 134. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 135. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 136. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 137. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XXII—NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. LANE ENTERPRISES,INC. 138. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 137 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 139. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 140. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 141. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 142. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 143. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE,Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. COUNT XXIII—VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA'S UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL,P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON NAVARRO V. LANE ENTERPRISES, INC. 144. Defendant Pyramid hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 143 of its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim, as though more fully set forth at length herein. 145. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 146. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 147. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 148. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. 149. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore,no response is required. 150. These averments are directed toward another Defendant, and therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denies liability to all parties and respectfully requests cost of suit. NEW MATTER For further and more specific response, this Defendant asserts the following New Matter. 151. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted pursuant to applicable law. 152. To the extent revealed in discovery, Plaintiffs claims are barred or limited by the doctrines of laches, estoppel and/or waiver. 153. To the extent revealed in discovery, Plaintiffs claims are barred or limited by the statute of limitations. 154. To the extent revealed in discovery, Plaintiffs have unclean hands. 155. To the extent revealed in discovery, Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of consent. 156. In the event it is established that the Plaintiff has sustained damages as alleged in this Complaint, is denied for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Answer, then in that event, said damages are due to the actions and omissions of persons and/or individuals other than this Defendant, which acts were independent, intervening and superseding, and for which this Defendant is not liable or responsible. 157. There is no causal relationship between any damages claimed by the Plaintiff and any wrongful act or omission on the part of this Defendant, which act or omission is expressly denied. 158. To the extent that the Plaintiff has failed to preserve evidence upon which its claims are based,the spoliation of such evidence acts as a bar to any recovery against this Defendant. 159. Plaintiffs claims are limited as Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages. 160. Any damages sustained by the Plaintiff were the direct and proximate result of superseding and/or intervening causes over which this Defendant had no control. 161. At all times relevant hereto, Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. exercised the skill, knowledge and judgment required of similar general contractors and therefore, did not breach its duties pursuant to its contract with Plaintiff. 162. To the extent revealed in discovery, Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, on the ground of failure of consideration. 163. To the extent revealed in discovery, Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part, if it is revealed that Plaintiff failed to provide accurate information or properly disclose material facts as required by the contract. 164. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, as Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. did not breach and any duty to the Plaintiff which resulted in harm to the Plaintiff. 165. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part, as Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. did not design or engineer the project. 166. Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, as Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. did not provide geotechnical services for Phase I of the project. 167. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part, as Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. did not have the responsibility to assert control over any of the architects or engineers, involved in the project. 168. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part, as Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. is not responsible for any acts or omissions or means or methods of any architects or engineers, involved in the project. 169. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the terms of the agreement between owner and contractor, between Members 1 st Federal Credit Union and Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. 170. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited in whole or in part by the Parol Evidence Rule. 171. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the Doctrine of Statute of Frauds. 172. Plaintiffs claims are barred or limited by §9.10.4 of the General Conditions of Contract A 201-2007, which is incorporated into the standard agreement between Pyramid and Members 1 st Federal Credit Union. 173. To the extent that any of the Plaintiffs damages was covered by property insurance purchased by Members 1 st,the damages are barred pursuant to § 11.3.5 and § 11.3.7- Waivers of Subrogation of the general conditions to the contract,A 201-2007, which was incorporated into the agreement between Members 1 st Federal Credit Union and Pyramid. 174. Plaintiffs claims are limited or barred by § 15.1.6 of the general conditions of contract A 201-2007,which was incorporated into the agreement between Members 1 st Federal Credit Union and Pyramid. 175. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part pursuant to the economic loss doctrine. 176. Pyramid reserves the right to amend its Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim to add additional New Matter as further investigation and developments warrant. WHEREFORE, Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. denied liability to all parties and requests costs of suit. CROSS-CLAIM PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1031.1 DEFENDANT PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,INC. V. DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL & ASSOCIATES,INC.,ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS,LLC, DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE,JR., STEVE R. READ, P.G. EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E., CMX, INC.,JOHN W. GLEIM,JR.,INC.,LANE ENTERPRISES, INC.,J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E.,ERIK T. SCHROEDER,P.E.AND AARON M. NAVARRO AND NOW, comes Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. ,by and through its attorneys, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, and Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire, and sets forth the following Cross-Claim against Defendants J. Michael Brill &Associates, Inc., Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G. Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. CMX, Inc., John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. and Lane Enterprises, Inc., J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder,P.E. and Aaron M.Navarro, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 177. Solely for incorporation purposes and without admission of the same, Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. hereby incorporates Plaintiff Complaint against Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro and J. Michael Brill's Complaint to Join Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G. Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. and CMX, Inc. John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. and Lane Enterprises, Inc., as though fully set forth at length herein. 178. Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. has denied and continues to deny any and all liability for the damages alleged by the Plaintiffs. 179. Nevertheless, should the allegations in Plaintiff Complaint be proven,then Defendants J. Michael Brill &Associates, Inc., Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G. Edward L. Balsavage, P.E., CMX, Inc. John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc., Lane Enterprises, Inc.,J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro are solely liable to the Plaintiff for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff Complaint. 180. If it is determined that the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery and Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. is found legally responsible, a liability which is expressly denied, then Defendants J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc.,Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G. Edward L. Balsavage, P.E., CMX, Inc., John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc. and Lane Enterprises, Inc., J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro are liable over to this Defendant, or are jointly, and severally liable with this Defendant for any and all sums for which the Plaintiff may recover. WHEREFORE, Defendants J. Michael Brill &Associates, Inc., Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G. Edward L. Balsavage, P.E., CMX, Inc., John W. Gleim,Jr., Inc. and Lane Enterprises, Inc., J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro are solely liable to Plaintiff, are liable over to Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc., or are jointly and severally liable for any and all sums which the Plaintiff may recover. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: 4to H. Sostmann, Esquire ID 84065 Jake Sulzer, Esquire ID 313089 Attorneys for Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Dated: -Y/1/13 12/1809193.0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Reply to Cross-Claim has been served upon Counsel on this day of � , 2013, and United States First-Class Mail,postage prepaid, addressed as follows: C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 N. Second St. 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Anne R. Myers, Esquire Gregory F. Brown, Esquire Kaufman Dolowich Voluck& Gonzo, LLP 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Eileen Ficaro, Esquire Kaufman Dolowich Voluck& Gonzo 1777 Sentry Pkwy West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 1.9422 Frederic Brehm, Esquire Powell, Trachtman, Logan Carrle & Lombardo, P.C. 475 Allendale Road, Suite 200 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Glenn Campbell, Esquire William J. Ferren& Associates 10 Sentry Parkway Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Stephen L. Grose, Esquire Saidis, Sullivan&Rogers 635 N. 12th Street, Suite 400 Lemoyne, PA 17043 CMX, Inc. c/o Edward L. Balsavage 910 Century Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire ID 84065 Attorneys for Defendant Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. 12/1873862.vl VERIFI&TTON I,Michael Klinepeter,do hereby verify that I have read the foregoing Answer,New Matter and Cross-Claim to Complaint to Join and that the statements contained herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Michael Kline ter Stephen L. Grose, Esquire t 3 c —3 Hi 2: C j Attorney I.D. No. 31006 Saidis Sullivan &Rogers :UMBER' i k i,D 635 North 12`hStreet, Suite 400 E' '';SI� Vr`r�'�� Lemoyne, PA 17043 Phone: (717) 612-5802 Fax: (717) 612-5805 Email: sgrose@a,ssr-attorneys.corn Attorneys for Lane Enterprises, Inc. MEMBERS 1ST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO.: 12-2580 J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E., AARON M. NAVARRO, : • Defendants PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, • INC., ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS, LLC, • DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE, JR., STEVE R. • READ, P.G., EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E., CMX, INC., JOHN W. GLEIM, JR., INC. : and LANE ENTERPRISES, INC., Additional Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RESPONSE OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, LANE ENTERPRISES, INC., TO CROSSCLAIMS OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. AND NOW, comes additional defendant, Lane Enterprises, Inc. ("Lane"),by and through its counsel, Saidis Sullivan &Rogers, and files this Response to the Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim of Additional Defendant, Pyramid Construction Services, Inc., averring as follows: 177. Paragraph 177 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, it is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. • • 178. Paragraph 178 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, it is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 179. Paragraph 179 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, it is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 180. Paragraph 180 states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, it is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Lane Enterprises, Inc. respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss the crossclaim asserted by Pyramid Construction Services, Inc., and grant such other relief as the Court deems fair and just. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS SULLIVAN &ROGERS Dated: August 7 , 2013 By: EP EN L. GROSE Attorney I.D. #31006 2 3t VERIFICATION I, Stephen L. Grose, Esquire, counsel for additional defendant, Lane Enterprises, Inc., hereby verify and state that: 1. The responses set forth in the foregoing Response to Crossclaim of Additional Defendant, Pyramid Construction Services, Inc., are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief; and 2. I am aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 'tep n L. Grose, Esquire b MEMBERS 1ST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO.: 12-2580 J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E., AARON M.NAVARRO, : • Defendants • PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, : INC., ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS, LLC, • DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE, JR., STEVE R. • READ, P.G., EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E., CMX, INC., JOHN W. GLEIM, JR., INC. : and LANE ENTERPRISES, INC., • Additional Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen L. Grose, Esquire, one of the attorneys for additional defendant, Lane Enterprises, Inc., hereby certify that I have served the foregoing paper upon counsel of record this date by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff Frederick Brehm, Esquire Powell Tractman Logan Carrle& Lombardo, PC 475 Allendale Road, Suite 200 King of Prussia, PA 19406-1496 Attorneys for Advantage Engineers, LLC; Daniel R. Schauble, Jr.; Steve R. Read, P.G.; and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. • Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Attorneys for Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Jake Sulzer, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman& Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorneys for Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Anne R. Myers, Esquire Gregory F. Brown, Esquire Kaufman Dolowich Voluck& Gronzo, LLP 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorneys for J. Michael Brill, P.E.; Erik T. Schroeder, P.E.; and Aaron M Navarro Glenn M. Campbell, Esquire William J. Ferren&Associates 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Attorneys for John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. CMX, Inc. c/o Edward L. Balsavage 910 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 SAIDIS SULLIVAN &ROGERS By: Stephe L. Grose Dated: August , 2013 i NOTICE TO PLEAD To:Pyramid Construction Services,Inc.: e_ ` You are hereby notified to file a written response to fl r t .l ,' the enclosed New Matter within twenty(20)days of I I i r 13 E M_r- N D U Ili IN service or judgment may be entered against you. PENNIS` LVAN1A A yers,Es r ileen M.F/Br .,'Esquire squire Gregory F. ttorneys foant,J.Michael Brill,P.E.,Erik T. Schroeder,P.E.and Aaron M.Navarro KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP By: Anne R. Myers, Esquire amyers@kdvlaw.com Eileen M. Ficaro, Esquire Attorneys,for Brill Defendants, eficaro @kdvlaw.com J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, Gregory F. Brown, Esquire P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro gbrown @kdvlaw.com Attorney I.D. Nos. 201900/200830/90239 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 461-1100 Facsimile: (215) 461-1300 MEMBERS 1St FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, V. NO. 12-2580 J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., et al. Brill Defendants, V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al. Additional Defendants. DEFENDANTS J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. SCHROEDER, P.E. AND AARON M. NAVARRO'S REPLY TO CROSS-CLAIMS OF PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. WITH NEW MATTER TO CROSS-CLAIM Defendants, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro, by and through their Counsel, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP, hereby Reply to the Answer, New Matter and Cross-Claims of Additional Defendant, Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. averring as follows: 177-80. Denied. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Pyramid Construction's Cross-Claim are denied and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent the allegations in the corresponding paragraph of Pyramid's Cross-Claim constitute conclusions of law, they are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro deny liability to all parties and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, as well as the Cross-Claim(s) asserted against them by Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. and/or any other party, and to grant such other relief as the Court deems fair and just. NEW MATTER TO CROSS-CLAIM OF PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. 1. The cross-claims of Pyramid Construction Services, Inc., ("Pyramid") are barred because Plaintiff and/or Pyramid fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Pyramid's claims are barred because Plaintiff and/or Pyramid's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 3. Pyramid's claims are barred because.Plaintiff and/or Pyramid waived their claims against Brill & Associates. 4. Pyramid's claims are barred by the terms of the Agreement for Professional Services between Plaintiff and Brill & Associates. 5. Pyramid's claims are barred by the following language set forth in the Supplemental Terms & Conditions for Proposals and/or Agreements to the Agreement for Professional Services between Plaintiff and Brill & Associates: CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION The CLIENT recognizes that construction observation is a vital element of the ENGINEER'S complete service, provided to minimize problems during construction by permitting detention of and/or rapid response to unanticipated or changed conditions, or errors or omissions committed by design professionals, contractors, materials provider or others. The CLIENT also recognizes that no party is as intimately familiar with the ENGINEER's intents as the ENGINEER and those the ENGINEER prepares for and assigns to reviewing tasks. Accordingly, the CLIENT agrees to retain the ENGINEER to observe construction, and the ENGINEER agrees to assign to the reviewing function persons qualified to observe and report on construction of the ENGINEER'S recommendations, plans and specifications, and the quality of work performed by contractors, et al. The CLIENT recognizes that construction observation is a technique employed to minimize the risk of problems arising during construction; that construction observation by the ENGINEER is not insurance, and does not constitute a warranty or guarantee of any type. In all cases, contractors et al. (that is, the general contractor, subcontractors[,] subsubcontractors, materials persons and others) shall retain responsibility for the quality of their work and for adhering to plans and specifications. Construction observation will be done on an hourly basis and will be done under a separate agreement or supplemental authorization under this agreement. Should the CLIENT for any reason not retain the ENGINEER to observe construction, or should the CLIENT unduly restrict the ENGINEER'S assignment of personnel to observation construction, or should the ENGINEER at the direction of the client for any reason not perform construction observation during the full period of construction, the ENGINEER shall not have the ability to perform a complete service. In such a case, the CLIENT waives any claim against the ENGINEER and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the ENGINEER harmless from any claim or liability for injury or loss arising from problems during construction that allegedly result from findings, conclusions, recommendations, plans or specifications developed by the ENGINEER. The CLIENT also agrees to compensate the ENGINEER for any time spent and expenses incurred by the ENGINEER in defense of any such claim with such compensation to be based upon the ENGINEER'S prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy. See Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff s Complaint at p. 16. 6. Pyramid's claims are barred because Pyramid and/or Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the statute of repose. 7. Pyramid's claims are barred because J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro did not engage in negligent conduct. 8. Pyramid's claims are barred because J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro did not breach a duty owed to Plaintiff and/or Pyramid. 9. Pyramid's claims are barred because neither action nor inaction on the part of J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro was the proximate or actual cause of the damages claimed by Plaintiff and/or Pyramid. 10. Pyramid's claims are barred because J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro complied with the applicable standard of care at all relevant times. 11. Pyramid's claims are barred because J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro did not breach the Professional Services Agreement. 12. Pyramid's claims are barred because it did not suffer any damages or loss as a result of J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro's acts or omissions. 13. Pyramid's claims are barred because any damages or loss suffered, the existence of which J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro denies, were caused in whole or in part by Plaintiff and/or Pyramid's own negligence or want of due care and, therefore, the damages are barred and/or limited by Plaintiff and/or Pyramid's own negligence. 14. Pyramid's claims are barred because any damages or loss suffered, the existence of which J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro deny, were not proximately caused by any acts or omissions of Brill & Associates, but rather were caused by the acts, omissions or conduct of third parties who acted ultra vires and/or over those whom J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro had no supervision or control and/or for whose acts or omissions J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro have no liability. 15. Pyramid's right of recovery is barred in whole or in part by Plaintiff and/or Pyramid's failure to mitigate its damages, if any. 16. Pyramid's claims may be barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of estoppel and/or res judicata, waiver, payment, or by the doctrine of unclean hands. 17. The damages alleged in the Complaint, the existence of which J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro deny, were the result of intervening and superseding acts on the parts of persons over whom J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro had no control or right of control and for whose actions J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro are not liable. 18. Pyramid's claims are barred, in part, because any damages owed to Plaintiff and/or Pyramid by Brill & Associates, the existence of which is denied, are limited by sums received from other sources for payment of any alleged losses or damages. 19. Pyramid's claims are barred to the extent that this court lacks personal and/or subject matter jurisdiction. 20. Pyramid's claims are barred to the extent that this is an inconvenient forum for this matter. 21. Pyramid's claims may be barred and/or limited by the Economic Loss Doctrine. 22. Pyramid's claims against J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro for breach of implied warranty are barred and/or limited because the law does not recognize a breach of implied warranty for professional services. 23. Pyramid's claims of breach of express warranty against J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro are barred and/or limited because J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro did not extend an express warranty to Plaintiff and/or Pyramid and did not breach any express warranty. 24. Pyramid's claims against J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro are barred and/or limited to the extent that another defendant, or persons not named as defendants, were negligent and this negligence proximately contributed to the events that gave rise to Plaintiff's Complaint and/or Pyramid's Cross-Claim and thus bars or proportionally reduces any recovery. 25. Pyramid's claims for damages as to J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro are barred and/or limited because, at all relevant times, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro complied with all applicable laws, regulations, and standards. 26. Pyramid's claims as to J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro may be barred and/or limited by the doctrine of laches. 27. Pyramid's claims as to J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro may be barred and/or limited by the Comparative Negligence Statute. 28. Pyramid's claims against J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro are barred and/or limited because Plaintiff and/or Pyramid's claims are barred in whole or in part by the Parol Evidence Rule. 29. Pyramid's claims against J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro are barred in whole or in part by the Statue of Frauds. 30. Pyramid may lack standing to state a claim against Brill & Associates. 31. Pyramid's claims against J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro are barred in whole or in part because the design of the underground stormwater system was not defective or deficient. 32. J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro reserve the right to amend their Answer to add additional New Matter as further investigations and developments warrant. WHEREFORE, Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro deny liability to all parties and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint, as well as the Cross-Claim(s) asserted against them by Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. and/or any other party, and to grant such other relief as the Court deems fair and just. Respectfully submitted, KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP By: nne R. Myers, squire Eileen Mona an Ficaro, Esquire Gregory F. rown, Esquire Attorneys for Brill Defendants, J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. Dated: August 20, 2013 and Aaron M. Navarro KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP By: Anne R. Myers, Esquire amyers @kdvlaw.com Eileen M. Ficaro, Esquire Attorneys for Brill Defendants, eficaro@kdvlaw.com J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, Gregory F. Brown, Esquire P.E., and Aaron M. Navarro gbrown@kdvlaw.com Attorney I.D. Nos. 201900/200830/90239 1777 Sentry Park West Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 46 1-1100 Facsimile: (215) 461-1300 MEMBERS 1st FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, V. NO. 12-2580 J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., et al. Brill Defendants, V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., et al. Additional Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Gregory F. Brown, Esquire, certifies that, on this date, she caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply of Defendants J. Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M. Navarro to Cross-Claims of Pyramid Construction Services, Inc., with New Matter to Cross- Claim, to be served via First Class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel and parties ofrecord: C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 17 N. Second Street 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Plaint Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counsel for Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Jake Sulzer, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Counsel for Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Frederick Brehm, Esquire Michael J. Zettlemoyer, Esquire Powell, Trachtman, Logan Carrle & Lombardo PC 475 Allendale Road Suite 200 King of Prussia, PA 19406-1496 Counsel for Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. CMX, Inc. c/o Edward L. Balsavage 910 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Glenn M. Campbell, Esquire William J. Ferren & Associates 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Blue Bell PA 19422 Counsel for John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. Stephen L. Grose, Esquire Saidis, Sullivan & Rogers 635 N. 12th Street, Suite 400 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Counsel for Lane Enterprises, Inc. KAUFMAN DOLO CH & VOLUCK, LLP G gory F. Brown squire Dated: August 20, 2013 4822-3043-7397,v. l i.. POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, OF THE PROTHONOTARY CARRLE & LOMBARDO,P.C. 2013 AUG 26 PM t 45 BY: Frederick M. Brehm, Esquire Attorney I.D.No. 78376 CUMBERLAND COUNTY Michael J. Zettlemoyer, Esquire PENNSYLVANIA Attorney I.D. No. 313620 475 Allendale Road, Suite 200 Attorneys for Defendants, King of Prussia, PA 19406 Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Tel: 610.354.9700/Fax: 610.354.9760 Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. MEMBERS I"FEDERAL CREDIT UNION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF . Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. CASE NO. 12-2580 CIVIL TERM SCHROEDER, P.E., AND AARON M. NAVARRO Defendants V. CIVIL ACTION PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS, LLC, CMX, INC., DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE, JR., STEVE R. READ, P.G., EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E., JOHN W. GLEIM, JR., INC. and LANE ENTERPRISES, INC. Additional Defendants REPLY,OF DEFENDANTS ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS, LLC, DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE,JR., STEVE R. READ,P.G.,AND EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E. TO NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT,PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,INC. Defendants, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. and Advantage Engineers, LLC (hereinafter "Answering Defendants"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby reply to the New Matter Crossclaim of Defendant, Pyramid Construction Services, Inc., and avers as follows in support thereof: 177. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their Answer to Joinder Complaint of defendants Michael Brill, P.E., Erik T. Schroeder, P.E. and Aaron M.Navarro, #1276223vl6292-01 their New Matter,their New Matter Crossclaims, and their replies to all crossclaims as if set forth fully at length herein. 178. Denied. All the allegations in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations in this paragraph are directed to a defendant other than Answering Defendants, then a responsive reply is not required under the Pennsylvania rules of Civil Procedure. 179. Denied. All the allegations in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations in this paragraph are directed to a defendant other than Answering Defendants, then a responsive reply is not required under the Pennsylvania rules of Civil Procedure. 180. Denied. All the allegations in this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that the allegations in this paragraph are directed to a defendant other than Answering Defendants, then a responsive reply is not required under the Pennsylvania rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that judgment be entered in their favor; and that the New Matter Crossclaim of Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. be dismissed with prejudice; and that Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. be assessed the reasonable cost and expense incurred in defending this litigation; and that this Honorable Court grant such other relief as it deems necessary or appropriate. #1276223v1 6292-01 Respectfully submitted, POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE& LOMBARDO, P.C. BY: ' Frederick M. Brehm, Esquire Michael J. Zettlemoyer, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. i Balsavage, P.E. Date: (( 41276223v1 6292-01 POWELL, TRACHTMAN,LOGAN, CARRLE & LOMBARDO, P.C. BY: Frederick M. Brehm, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78376 Michael J. Zettlemoyer, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 313620 475 Allendale Road, Suite 200 Attorneys for Defendants, King of Prussia, PA 19406 Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Tel: 610.354.9700 /Fax: 610.354.9760 Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. MEMBERS 1 S'FEDERAL CREDIT UNION COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA V. J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., ERIK T. CASE NO. 12-2580 CIVIL TERM SCHROEDER, P.E., AND AARON M. NAVARRO Defendants V. CIVIL ACTION PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS, LLC, CMX, INC., DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE, JR., STEVE R. READ, P.G., EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E., JOHN W. GLEIM, JR., INC. and LANE ENTERPRISES, INC. Additional Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the Reply of Defendants Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage, P.E. to the New Matter Crossclaim of Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. was sent to all counsel of record and all unrepresented parties via First-Class mail on this date to: C. Grainger Bowman,Esquire Eileen M.Ficaro, Esquire K&L Gates Kaufman Dolowich Voluck&Gonzo LLP 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor 1777 Sentry Park West Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 Gwynedd Hall, Suite 301 Attorney for Plaintiff Blue Bell,PA 19422 Attorneys for J. Michael Brill&Assocs. Inc. Stuart H. Sostmann, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Jake Sulzer,Esquire Coleman &Goggin Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, 600 Grant Street, Suite 2900 Coleman &Goggin Pittsburgh, PA 15219 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Attorney for Pyramid Construction Harrisburg,PA 17112 #1276223v16292-01 Services, Inc. Attorney for Pyramid Construction Services,Inc. Stephen L. Grose, Esquire Glenn M. Campbell,Esquire Saidis, Sullivan &Rogers William J. Ferren&Associates 635 North 12th St., Ste. 400 10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 301 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Blue Bell PA 19422 Attorney for Additional Defendant, Attorney for John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. Lane Enterprises,Inc. CMX,Inc. c/o Edward L. Balsavage 910 Century Drive Mechanicsburg,PA 17055 POWELL, TRACHTMAN, LOGAN, CARRLE & LOMBARDO, P.C. BY: Frederick M. Brehm, Esquire Michael J. Zettlemoyer, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants, Advantage Engineers, LLC, Daniel R. Schauble, Jr., Steve R. Read, P.G., and Edward L. Balsavage,P.E. Date: #1276223v1 6292-01 MEMBERS 1ST FEDERAL CREDIT: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF UNION, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff . v: NO. 12-2500 CIVIL TERM PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., J. MICHAEL: BRILL & ASSOCIATES, INC., : ADVANTAGE ENGINEERS, LLC, : DANIEL R. SCHAUBLE, JR., STEVE R. READ, P.G., EDWARD L. BALSAVAGE, P.E.,: and CMX,INC., Defendants v. JOHN W. GLEIM, JR., INC., ET. AL., Additional Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MEMBERS 1ST FEDERAL CREDIT: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF UNION, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff . v. NO. 12-2580 CIVIL TERM J. MICHAEL BRILL, P.E., . ERIK SCHROEDER, P.E., and : AARON M. NAVARRO, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -17 RE: STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2014, after a status conference in chambers, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. If any mediation is to occur, the first mediation shall occur on or before September 30, 2014. 2. All discovery shall be completed by January 30, 2015. 3. Plaintiff's expert report shall be due on or before March 3, 2015. All Defendants' expert reports shall be due by April 3, 2015. 4. Any dispositive motions must be filed on or before May 4, 2015. I.t is noted that because of technical difficulties Attorneys Campbell, Grose and Brown could not participate in this status conference. If they have any objection to the dates so ordered, they may file said objection within 30 days of today's date. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. Grainger Bowman, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Members 1st Federal Credit Union �ichael Zettlemoyer, Esquire standing in for: Frederick M. Brehm, Esquire Attorney for Advantage Engineers, LLC; Daniel R. Schauble, Jr. /Steve R. Read, P.G.; Edward L. Balsavage, P.E.; and CMX, Inc. Jacob J. Sulzer, Esquire standing in for: Stuart H Sostmann, Esquire Attorney for Pyramid Construction Services, Inc. Tenn M. Campbell, Esquire Attorney for John W. Gleim, Jr., Inc. i.. -Stephen L. Grose, Esquire Attorney for Lane Enterprises, Inc. �'regory F. Brown, Esquire Attorney for J. Michael Brill & Associates, Inc.. J. Michael Brill, P.E.; Erik Schroeder, P.E.; and Aaron M. Navarro srs ebp;es crti*l_reet_ VcaPY