HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-29451 . i n?1
Bryan W. Shook, Esquire w , w ,a
ID # 203250 L .
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC ?011 M- ?fA '? 1 L
2132 Market Street , t '= t ;
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone - (717) 975-9446
Fax - (717) 975-2309
BShookd.dplg,law.com Attorney for Plaintiff
DANIELLE JACOBS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and : No: 12- o)9C/S- CIVIL TERM
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM, :
individually and t/b/d/a CRUM BROS., :
and CRUM BROS. an unincorporated
association,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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 attorney, and
filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against
you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money
claimed in the Complaint or for any claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may
lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE OR KNOW A LAWYER, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
C)
DA \\ ,,S.14sPA ak?
Cc?? is sc?g
?? a -7 50 S `/
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de
estas demandas expuestas en las paginas signuientes, usted tiene vienta (20) dias de
plazo al partir de al fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una
apariencia escrita o en persona a por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita
sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado
que si usted no se fefiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede una orden contra usted
sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o akuvui que es pedido en la
peticion de demanda. Usted puedo parder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos
importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE
ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DIMERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO,
VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION
SE EMCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE
CONSSGUTA ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
2
Bryan W. Shook, Esquire
ID #203250
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone - (717) 975-9446
Fax - (717) 975-2309
BShook(&ADlelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff
DANIELLE JACOBS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and : No: 12- - CIVIL TERM
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM,
individually and t/bld/a CRUM BROS., :
and CRUM BROS. an unincorporated
association,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Danielle Jacobs, by and through her attorneys,
the DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC, by Bryan W. Shook, Esquire, and
makes the within Complaint against the Defendants, Stewart A. Crum, individually and
t/d/b/a Crum Bros., Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and Crum Bros. an
unincorporated association, and, in support thereof, avers as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Danielle Jacobs, is an adult individual currently residing at 305 1s' Street,
Summerdale, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17093.
3
2. Defendant, Stewart A. Crum, is an adult individual currently residing at 713 Trail
Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025.
3. Defendant, Steve Crum, with a business office located at 713 Trail Lane, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025.
4. Defendant, Crum Bros., is an unincorporated association with an office located at
713 Trail Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025.
5. Crum Bros. is an unregistered entity pursuant to Fictitious Names Act, 54 Pa. C.S.A.
§ 301, et seq.
6. On or about late 2008 or early 2009, Plaintiff decided to renovate her home so that
she could move her hair salon, Oasis Salon to her house.
7. Plaintiff had an existing long-time friendship with Defendant, Stewart A. Crum's wife,
Christina L. Crum as well as Defendants, Stewart and Steve Crums' sister, Cori
(Crum) Messimer.
8. Plaintiff had known Defendants, Stewart and Steve Crum, for many years and had
heard them discuss with her the problems with other contractors that they would
routinely have to fix on behalf of contractors.
9. During social gatherings, Defendants, Stewart and Steve Crum, would discuss their
business with Plaintiff and represented to Plaintiff that they were professional
contractors who always strived for excellence.
10. Plaintiff had already been in talks with the East Pennsboro Township when she first
talked with Defendant, Stewart Crum, regarding budget and her plans for the
renovations to her home located at 305 1St Street, Summerdale.
4
11. On or about late 2008 or early 2009 Defendant, Stewart Crum, visit Plaintiff at her
residence to provide Plaintiff with a bid to do the project.
12. During this visit, Defendant, Stewart Crum, gave Plaintiff a handwritten estimate on a
piece of notebook paper which only included the shell of the renovations, i.e. roof
joists, foundation, windows, roof, doors, etc. (Plaintiff is unable to locate a copy of
this estimate therefore she is unable to attach it to this Complaint).
13. Plaintiff believes that the total price of the estimate was approximately $70,000.00
but since she cannot locate the handwritten estimate, she is unable to say precisely
what the total price of the estimate was.
14. Defendant, Stewart Crum, orally told Plaintiff that the build would take two to four
months and that they would have a future meeting on budget and the interior and
exterior appointments to finish the project.
15. Based upon the existing friendship and the manner in which Defendants always
carried themselves around her and talked up their accomplishments as contractors,
Plaintiff decided to accept Defendants' estimate and hire Defendants to perform the
renovations she desired on her residence.
16. Defendants never gave Plaintiff a written contract.
17. Defendants worked at Plaintiff's residence from early 2009 through September 2010.
18. Plaintiff paid Defendants, starting in July 2009 through June 21, 2010 a total of
$79,865.00. (Copies of the checks and invoices in the possession of Plaintiff are
attached hereto, made part hereof and marked as Exhibit "A")
19. Plaintiff has learned that the work completed by Defendants is substandard.
5
20. Plaintiff has further learned that much of the work will either need redone, has
needed redone since the Defendants left the project.
21. Further, Plaintiff has learned that the structural integrity of her residence is
compromised as a result of the actions of Defendants.
22. Defendants knew that Plaintiff was planning on using part of her addition as her
salon for use in her business.
23. By reason of Defendants actions, as more particularly described previously in this
Complaint, Plaintiff had to incur addition rent and other expenses by reason that she
was unable to move into her salon during the time agreed upon by the parties at the
start of the transaction.
COUNT 1- BREACH OF CONTRACT
24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 23 above as if fully set forth
herein.
25. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff and Defendants had an oral contract whereby
Defendants would provide home improvement services to Plaintiff in exchange for
Plaintiff paying Defendants for said services and Plaintiff purchasing and selecting
many of the finishes, fixtures and cabinets.
26. Restated, Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to construct an addition on the rear of
Plaintiff's residence.
27. The addition includes, inter alia, a great room and a salon for Plaintiff's business.
28. The Defendants made other modifications inside the original structure including a
new roof surface on the entire building, new gutters and downspouts, new
6
heating/cooling system, plumbing, electric and finishing of all addition and
remodeled areas.
29. Plaintiff did the painting, including the majority of the staining of the interior trim and
doors that Defendants' ultimately installed, at the suggestion of Defendants in an
effort for Plaintiff to save money.
30. Plaintiff noticed several issues and deficiencies with Defendants' work as stated
more particularly herein.
31.As Plaintiff discovered more and more problems she became increasingly
concerned about the problems the renovations and addition performed by
Defendants would have on her home's structural integrity, value and problems in the
future, Plaintiff retained the inspection services of Mr. Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE
of Criterium-Yingst Engineers, Inc.
32. Mr. Yingst visited Plaintiff's residence on October 24, 2011 and also on January 30,
2012 and prepared a report detailing the items he found deficient or needed repair
caused by the actions of Defendants. (A true and correct copy of the March 2, 2012
report of Mr. Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE of Criterium-Yingst Engineers, Inc. is
attached hereto, made part hereof and marked as Exhibit "B").
ENTRANCE DOOR TO SALON
33. As part of the contract, Plaintiff informed Defendants and Defendants knew that a
portion of the addition to Plaintiff's renovated residence would be utilized for
commercial purposes as a hair salon.
34. By reason of this, the exterior entrance door to the salon portion of the project had to
comply with the American Disabilities Act (hereinafter referred to as "ADA")
7
35. Defendants, in an attempt to save Plaintiff money, offered Plaintiff a mahogany door
which Defendant, Stewart A. Crum, purchased at an auction, the door being
previously used as a display door.
36. When Defendant, Stewart A. Crum, installed the door in his home he noticed that the
seal around the glass had become compromised and caused the glass to fog in
humid conditions.
37. Defendants offered this door to Plaintiff.
38. Plaintiff accepted the door knowing the foggy glass situation but also upon the
reassurance that the door would be ADA compliant.
39. Shortly after the door was installed, in the late summer/early fall 2009, the salon
entrance door began to leak.
40. The leak was not from the glass section, but rather from around the door itself.
41. For the next one and one half (1 Y2) to two (2) years, the Defendants tried various
fixes for the door before finally informing Plaintiff that she needed an entirely new
door and Plaintiff needed to pay for the new door.
42. Plaintiff eventually relented out of necessity for having a door work properly for her
clients and not leak when it rained, she bought a replacement door at Carter
Lumber.
43. The replacement door was installed by Defendants on July 11, 2011.
44. Upon completion of installation of the new door, Defendant, Steve Crum, informed
Plaintiff that the new door wasn't built correctly and was catching at the bottom; he
demonstrated by kicking the door to shut it completely.
8
45.The replacement door was of the pre-hung variety and worked properly prior to
installation.
46. Plaintiff was upset with the fact that Defendant, Steve Crum, had kicked her newly
installed door and pointed out the damage to the finish of the door which Mr. Crum
had caused.
47. When Plaintiff inquired with Defendant, Steve Crum, as to why the door fit the
opening in the same manner as the old door (pushed out at the bottom left, sunken
in top left and tilted down from the top right to the top left), she was assured by Mr.
Crum that the doorframe opening was plumb and square.
48. Since the Defendants were denying any responsibility and placing all blame on the
door's manufacturer, Plaintiff contacted the manufacturer of the door.
49. The manufacturer of the door sent technicians on six or seven occasions throughout
the fall/winter 2011 and replaced the door's jam, the door's sill and the door was
taken completely out and reinstalled, the problem persisted.
50. The manufacturer's technician also found evidence of water that had gotten inside of
the door's jam due to improper installation by Defendants.
51. Plaintiff has been forced to place an order for yet a third door which has yet to arrive
and be installed.
52. But for Defendants' verbal assurance that the first door would work correctly and
Defendants' improper installation of both doors and/or improper framing of the door's
opening during initial construction of Plaintiff's residence's addition, Plaintiff would
not be experiencing problems with the entrance door to her salon.
9
FLOORING IN GREAT ROOM & DINING ROOM
53. As part of the oral contract, Defendants installed laminate flooring in the great room
and dining room of Plaintiff's residence.
54.The great room is located in the addition portion of Plaintiff's residence which
Defendants constructed; the dining room is located in the original portion of Plaintiff's
residence and Defendant's removed a former exterior wall to open both rooms into
one another.
55. During the construction of the addition, Defendants realized that the floor height of
the great room and the dining room were not the same, the addition was higher.
56. Upon realizing this Defendants informed Plaintiff that she would have "slight slope"
between the two portions of the residence.
57. Plaintiff thought Defendants had made the aforementioned reference this in jest.
58. Once Plaintiff realized that Defendants were not joking, Plaintiff suggested that
perhaps the floor of the dining room could be raised to the level of the addition to
make the two areas match.
59. Defendants accepted this suggestion and placed a layer of luan plywood over the
existing hardwood floor in the dining room.
60. Once the laminate flooring was installed the floor began to "hump-up".
61. Defendants were notified immediately upon Plaintiff's noticing of the hump in the
floor.
62. Defendants investigated the hump and denied that it was present.
10
63. Plaintiff, knowing that the laminate flooring was of tongue and groove construction
became concerned that the hump would put undue stress on the tongue and groove
joints and would eventually lead to breaking or cracking of the flooring.
64. After Defendants refused to recognize or remedy the flooring hump, Plaintiff called
upon another contractor, Rick L. Durham, who recognized and remedied the
problem.
65. Mr. Durham uninstalled the floor and found that it was installed incorrectly.
66. Specifically Mr. Durham found that the required gap to permit the floor to "float" was
not present and, in fact, the floor was so tight against the walls that Mr. Durham had
to cut some of the laminate to remove it.
67. Further Mr. Durham found that the green foam underlayment was not taped at the
seams, was missing in some areas and in some areas was rolled under instead of
cut to fit.
68. Mr. Durham corrected the issue with the subfloor by cutting out a high section and
replacing it with a thinner piece of luan plywood and thereafter applied a floor
leveling product and correctly reinstalled the laminate flooring.
WATER ISSUE - SPOUTING
69. As part of the oral agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants were to install or have
installed gutters and downspouts onto Plaintiff's residence.
70. The Defendants left Plaintiff's residence without finishing the downspouting.
71.As a result of Defendants' actions, when it rained water coming down the
downspouts was directed towards the foundation of Plaintiff's residence.
11
72. Plaintiff had to remedy the downspouting issue by directed the downspouts away
from the foundation of her residence.
WATER ISSUE - WINDOWS
73. As part of the oral agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants installed a foundation and a
crawl space beneath the addition to Plaintiff's residence.
74.After the addition was completed, Plaintiff began to notice that after rains, the block
inside the crawl space would become wet just beneath the windows.
75. Plaintiff informed Defendants of this problem and when Defendants came to
investigate they informed Plaintiff that it was "groundwater seeping up the block" and
that it was not coming from the windows.
76. Plaintiff has since discovered that the windows are Jeldwen brand and that there are
detailed installation specifications from these windows from Jeldwen which included
flashing requirements.
77. Plaintiff has learned that there is riot any flashing at the bottom of the windows
continuing out over the brick areas.
78. Specifically there are no weep holes or flashing to allow the water to drain from away
from around the windows out over the brick exterior.
79. Plaintiff further believes that water entry around the windows may also be occurring
as a result of Defendants' improper installation of the windows.
80. Plaintiff has learned that to correct the issues with the windows and their improper
installation, the windows would need to be removed and extensive work performed
to make them function and seal as designed„ including the possible necessity of
removing the exterior siding and brickwork.
12
MASTER BATHROOM
81.As part of the oral agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants agreed to construct a master
bedroom and bathroom for Plaintiff.
82. Within the master bathroom, Defendants constructed a water closet and did tile
work.
83. Plaintiff has noticed several issues within the master bathroom, many of which were
unknown to Plaintiff until such time as she retained Mr. Yingst for an investigation.
84. Mr. Yingst has informed Plaintiff of the following issues within the master bathroom,
including that:
a. the water closet rocks bath and forth from front-to-rear and was not
properly set; the water closet will need to be reset;
b. the ceramic tile was set over moisture resistant drywall instead of '/2"
cement board;
c. there was no isolation mat used beneath the floor ceramic tile;
d. the ceramic tile angle pieces do not match at joints in the corner of the
shower stall;
e. the grouting in the tile work is cracking at the corners of the shower stall;
f. there is no sealant behind the shower head escutcheon;
g. there is a gap and no sealant around the escutcheon for the faucet in the
show and the faucet is not solidly mounted;
h. the dimensions of the shower are 59" at the rear and 58 5/8" at the front,
in the front to rear dimension, the shower stall is 56 5/8" one side and 56
13
1/8" on the other side, this differential indicates that the shower was not
installed in a square manner;
i. the above mentioned dimensions of the shower result in the door to the
shower being Y2" out of square; and
j. additional cracking was noted by Mr. Yingst during his second visit to
Plaintiff's residence which was not present during his initial visit.
85. Plaintiff is concerned and has learned that the cracking will continue into the future
until such time as the individual tiles begin to fall from the wall.
86. Plaintiff is concerned that the cracking and sealing issues are causing or have
caused water damage to Plaintiff's bathroom walls since the same were not
constructed properly by Defendants.
EXTERIOR
87.As part of the oral contract with Plaintiff to renovate her residence, Defendants
agreed to refinish parts of the exterior of Plaintiffs residence, including the finishing
of the exterior of the addition.
88. The flashing beneath the vinyl siding is installed directly over top of the house wrap
and extends out over the top of the brick half-wall on the exterior.
89. There are no weep holes in the brick work to allow any water trapped on the house
wrap to escape from the base of brick work causes the drainage plane on the
exterior of the wall sheathing to not function as designed and required by building
code.
14
RETAINING WALL
90. As parts of the oral contact with Plaintiff, Defendants agreed to construct a small
retaining wall at the right rear of Plaintiff's residence.
91. The wall contains four rows of exposed E P Henry 12" deep retaining blocks plus a
cap black and is approximately 32" high.
92. Plaintiff noted during installation that no reinforcement (geo-grid or equivalent) was
placed behind the wall and Defendants informed Plaintiff it was not needed.
93. There is also no drainage around the wall.
94. Plaintiff has since learned that E P Henry has specific requirements for reinforcing
(geo-grid) and drainage.
95. Although the wall has not yet experienced any issues, Plaintiff fears that since it was
not constructed appropriately, it is only a matter of time before it too becomes a
problem for Plaintiff.
96. Defendants breached their agreement with Plaintiff by failing to perform the work
required of them in a workmanlike manner and within the requirements of the
building code.
97. Specifically, Defendants breached their agreement with Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing
to..
a. properly install Plaintiff's shower in her master bathroom;
b. properly select and install the salon entrance door;
c. properly install the windows;
d. properly install the flooring system;
15
e. properly construct the addition so as the floor height would be the same as
the floor height of the existing structure;
f. properly install and route the downspouting;
g. properly install the flashing beneath the brickwork and vinyl siding; and
h. properly construct the E P Henry block retaining wall.
98.All of those breaches identified in the immediately preceding paragraph are more
particularly identified and discussed in the prior paragraphs as well as in the report
of Mr. Stephen Yingst.
99. Defendant has violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in their
contact with Plaintiff.
100. Specifically, Defendants have used subterfuges and evasions in dealing with
Plaintiff and the deficiencies discovered by Plaintiff.
101. The inaction by Defendants with respect to the remedy of the deficiencies
discovered by Plaintiff violates the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
102. Defendants slacked off during the performance of their contractual duties in
violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
103. Defendants exhibited a lack of diligence during the performance of their
contractual duties in violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
104. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants willfully rendered
imperfect performance of their contractual duties to the severe detriment of Plaintiff.
105. Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendants' actions.
106. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer ascertainable damages which are
the direct and proximate cause of Defendants' actions.
16
107. By reason of the numerous defects with Defendants' work on Plaintiff's
residence, Plaintiff has had extreme difficulty locating a contractor who even feels
comfortable giving her an estimate to repair Defendants' work.
108. At least two contractors have told Plaintiff that they would not want the job
because they would not want to take responsibility if the repairs cannot be carried
out and fixed properly without extensive actions.
109. Plaintiff sought to have her home improved, renovated and an addition added in
an effort to maintain and protect her real estate investment.
110. By reason of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff's investment has been jeopardized as
the house now exhibits many defects and issues, many of which are outlined herein
and should Plaintiff wish to sell her residence she would be forced to disclose these
deficiencies to her severe financial detriment.
111. Plaintiff believes that her home's value and integrity have been compromised by
the actions of Defendants.
112. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants evaded the spirit of the
bargain in their dealings with Plaintiff after they secured the job from Plaintiff to
Plaintiff's severe financial detriment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
Judgment in her favor and against Defendants, Defendants, Stewart A. Crum,
individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros., Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and
Crum Bros. an unincorporated association, jointly and severally in an unliquidated
amount, to be determined at the trial in this matter, together with interest, costs of suit
and whatever other relief this Honorable Court deems necessary and just.
17
COUNT II - VIOLATIONS OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT AND THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
LAW
113. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 112 above as if fully set forth
herein.
114. Plaintiff hereby brings forth this Count for violations of the Pennsylvania Home
Improvement Consumer Protection Act ("HICPA"), 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. and the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 P.S. § 201-1
et seq.
115. The HICPA was signed by Governor Rendell on October 17, 2008 and became
effective July 1, 2009.
116. A large portion of the work completed by Defendants was completed after July 1,
2009.
117. All of the finish work was completed after July 1, 2009.
118. Pursuant to 73 P.S. § 517.10 a violation of any of the provisions of the Home
Improvement Consumer Protection Act, 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. shall be deemed a
violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-
1 et seq.
119. Pursuant to 73 P.S. § 517.2 Plaintiff is the owner of a private residence situate at
and known as 305 1St Street, Summerdale, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17093.
120. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that Defendants, pursuant to 73 P.S. §
517.2 are contractors.
18
121. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that during the previous taxable year
Defendants performed more than $5,000.00, total cash value, of home
improvements.
122. The work for which Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to perform constitutes a
home improvement as defined by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act,
73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq.
123. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract which complied with the
requirements of the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act specifically, after
June 30, 2009, Defendants:
a. failed to provide Plaintiff with a written and/or legible contract which
contained the home improvement contractor registration number of the
performing contractor in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(1):;
b. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that contained the entire
agreement between the owner and the contractor in violation of 73 P.S. §
517.7(a)(3);
c. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included all required notices
in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(3);
d. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included the approximate
starting date and completion date in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(6);
e. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included a description of the
work to be performed, the materials to be used and a set of specifications,
in violation of 73 P.S. § 5177(a)(7);
19
f. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that listed separately the amount
of down payment and the cost of the special order materials, in violation of
73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(9);
g. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included the names,
addresses and telephone numbers of all subcontractors on the project
known at the date of signing of the contract, in violation of 73 P.S. §
517.7(a)(10);
h. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that stated that Defendant agrees
to maintain liability insurance covering personal injury in an amount not
less than $50,000 and insurance covering property damage caused by the
work of a home improvement contractor in an amount not less than
$50,000, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(11);
i. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that identified the current amount
of insurance coverage maintained at the time of signing of the contract in
violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(11);
j. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included the toll-free
telephone number under section 3(b) of the Home Improvement
Consumer Protection Act, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(12);
k. failed to provide Plaintiff with a notice of right of rescission, in violation of
73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(13) and 71 P.S. § 517.7(b); and
1. failed to provide Plaintiff with a completed copy of the home improvement
contract at the time the contract was executed that contained all required
notices, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(c).
20
124. As more particularly described above, the contract entered into between Plaintiff
and Defendants is invalid and unenforceable against Plaintiff.
125. By failing to provide Plaintiff with a proper Home Improvement Contract, pursuant
to 73 P.S. § 517.7, Defendants are precluded from enforcing any agreement with
Plaintiff against Plaintiff. 73 P.S. § 517.7(a).
126. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants made false or misleading
statements to induce, encourage or solicit Plaintiff to enter into an oral, unwritten
agreement for home improvement services, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(1).
127. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that Defendants abandoned or failed to
perform, without justification, the home improvement contract and project engaged in
and undertaken by Defendants, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.9(5).
128. Specifically, Defendants failed to recognize and repair the deficiencies noted by
Plaintiff and brought to Defendants attention by Plaintiff in violation of 73 P.S. §
517.9(5).
129. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-3, that
Defendants used unlawful and unfair methods of competition and/or unfair and
deceptive acts in the conduct of trade as more particularly described herein when
dealing with Plaintiff and contracting to perform home improvements for Plaintiff.
130. Defendants held themselves out to be a contractor in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania after July 1, 2009 in a manner in which Defendants knew or should
have known had the likelihood of causing confusion or of a misunderstanding to
Plaintiff, in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii).
21
131. Specifically, Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff of her rights under the HICPA on
or after July 1, 2009.
132. The HICPA makes it clear that the burden is upon the contractor to offer the first
line of protection to the consumer, Plaintiff, in this instance.
133. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a written contract, as outlined above,
which Defendants knew or should have known had the likelihood of causing
confusion or of a misunderstanding to Plaintiff, in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii).
134. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that Defendants engaged in other
fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created a likelihood of confusion or of
misunderstanding, more particularly described herein, in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-
2(4)(xxi).
135. Furthermore, Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that Defendants held
themselves out to be capable of meeting the expectations of Plaintiff with respect to
the aforementioned renovations to Plaintiff's residence.
136. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendants advertised good or
services with intent not to sell them as advertised, in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-
2(4)(ix).
137. Specifically, Plaintiff believes, and therefore, avers that Defendants held
themselves out as being capable of performing the construction for Plaintiff's
addition and the renovations to Plaintiff's residence when in fact they knew or should
have known they did not have the requisite skill, experience and/or intention to
complete the aforesaid project.
22
138. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants made false or misleading
statements and representations to induce, encourage or solicit Plaintiff to enter into
an oral unwritten agreement for home improvement services at Plaintiff's residence.
139. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a Notice of Cancellation pursuant to 73
P.S. § 201-7.
140. Defendants have misrepresented Plaintiff's right to cancel by failing provide
Plaintiff with the Notice of Cancellation in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-7(b)(2)(f).
141. In light of the foregoing and to the extent that monies have been paid to
Defendants by Plaintiff, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order
Defendants disgorged of any fruits of their deceptive conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
Judgment against Defendants, Stewart A. Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros.,
Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and Crum Bros. an unincorporated
association, jointly and severally, and in favor of Plaintiff, in an unliquidated amount, for
violations of the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act, 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq.
and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq.
in an amount equal to three times the actual damages sustained by Plaintiff plus costs,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, disgorgement of any monies which have been
paid to or have been authorized to be paid to Defendants and reasonable attorney fees,
and whatever other relief this Honorable Court deems necessary and just pursuant to
73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a).
23
COUNT III - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
142. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 141 above as if fully set forth
herein.
143. Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff, as described more particularly herein,
Defendants' skill, knowledge and intention to perform the work contractually agreed
to by the parties.
144. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants made misrepresentations
as to Defendants' skill, experience, knowledge and intention to perform work to
induce Plaintiff into contracting with Defendants, as more particularly described
herein.
145. Defendants had a pecuniary interest in securing this job from Plaintiff.
146. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the representations of Defendants, which are
more particularly described herein.
147. Plaintiff justifiably relied on the fraudulent misrepresentations, statements,
actions and concealment, as more particularly described herein, of the Defendants.
148. Plaintiff believes, and therefore, avers, that Defendants had actual knowledge of
the fraudulent nature of Defendants actions, concealment and representations, as
more particularly described herein.
149. Plaintiff believes, and therefore, avers, that Defendants utilized willful, wanton,
malicious and intentional fraud, misrepresentation, concealment and false
advertising in contracting to perform the construction and renovation services for
Plaintiff, as more particularly described herein.
24
150. The actions of the Defendants had a tendency to and did, in fact, deceive
Plaintiff.
151. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a proximate result of Defendants'
misrepresentations, as more particularly described herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
Judgment against Defendants, Stewart A. Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros.,
Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and Crum Bros. an unincorporated
association, jointly and severally, and in favor of Plaintiff, in an unliquidated amount, to
be determined at the trial in this matter, together with interest, costs of suit and
whatever other relief this Honorable Court deems necessary and just. Plaintiff also
respectfully requests punitive damages for the willful, wanton, malicious and fraudulent
misrepresentation utilized by Defendants.
COUNT IV - BREACH OF COMMON LAW IMPLIED WARRANTIES
152. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 151 above as if fully set forth
herein.
153. Plaintiff brings forth this count for breaches of the common law implied warranties
of fitness for an intended purpose and skilled workmanship.
154. Plaintiff relied upon Defendants advertised skill and knowledge in performing the
work she contracted with Defendants to perform, as more particularly described
supra.
155. Based upon the relationship of the parties and the discussions which Plaintiff and
Defendants had, some of which are averred in paragraphs six (6) through eight (8)
25
supra, Plaintiff was justified in her relying upon Defendants' purported skill and
knowledge.
156. Plaintiff, at all times material hereto, possessed no particular skill or knowledge
as it relates to home improvements or construction methods.
157. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff is trained was a hair dresser and had no
measurable home improvement experience outside of that which is merely incident
to home ownership.
158. As more particularly averred supra, the entrance door to the salon was not
chosen, on one occasion and installed properly on two occasions by Defendants.
159. As more particularly averred supra, the flooring in the great room and dining
room was not installed properly by Defendants.
160. As more particularly averred supra, the downspouts were not finished and
installed properly by Defendants and as a result water was directed towards the
foundation of Plaintiff's residence, not away from the foundation of Plaintiff's
residence.
161. As more particularly averred supra, the windows were not chosen and/or
installed and/or flashed properly by Defendants.
162. As more particularly averred supra, the construction of the water closet in the
master bathroom by Defendants is improper.
163. As more particularly averred supra, the flashing beneath the vinyl siding was
installed incorrectly by Defendants.
26
164. As more particularly averred supra, there are no weep holes in the brick work to
allow for any water trapped on the house wrap to escape from the base of the brick
work.
165. As more particularly averred supra, the retaining wall, constructed by
Defendants, contains no reinforcement and has no drainage as required by E P
Henry, the block manufacturer.
166. As more particularly averred supra, the height of the floors between the addition
and the existing portion of the residence were not properly calculated by
Defendants.
167. Defendants failed to use ordinary care and skill, common in the building trades,
in performing the work at Plaintiff's residence.
168. This failure, described in the immediately preceding paragraph, proximately
caused Plaintiff's damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
Judgment against Defendants, Stewart A. Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros.,
Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and Crum Bros. an unincorporated
association, jointly and severally, and in favor of Plaintiff, in an unliquidated amount, to
be determined at the trial in this matter, together with interest, costs of suit and
whatever other relief this Honorable Court deems necessary and just.
RespectIfully Submitted,
Dated: M a? 10, :Lola By:
Bryan W. Shook, Esquire
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
Attorney Id. No.: 203250
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
27
I'
r
SOVEREIGN BANK
` l
.,.i r...P I.
i['u^.:?t-?
i
3?S E? "1 ?. O !3 A 1?I ?
BURCn- TA -
I
C?
:Kl
? 7 ? cz) rj
- - 1 ? q> N fTS --?
L _ I
-------------------
r_ 9E
-vu
SOVEREIGN BAIW ,
SD'. EIGNPANK.COM
i
[At', L --_-
r.i:?ll-li,..d;?-i
rSET?'E7 RANK
` C
I'?1
C) o _
?y
m r°la rn-A
r
03 . M -
?= 67 rrt O
r.
C-3 Twa 01 CD
Q
7
CO/ls
,? fir; •?%uaL r l?,
SOVEREIGN
cr, SOVFnEIGNBANK-CO .x
ter "?, ° `M1 t ,
c ,
:
980
Y
_i i_i
-
>03130184&<
Metro Bank Hub #01
9009-1n-OA
m"
b
M
° n
z?
;R Q
2
SOVEREIGN BANK
Sp'.'CAEtGNtSAt:H_CC?1 ? - /? ?
i '
?? _ ?¦ ? ¦O? / lleOLl [J ????DSJ IJ [.J YIe
?,11 wi,h"I I W, •,?tur r:u:Jl'uiri:U uSUneni.F'l.;y:- n.l,Al'r.-'ILiLI
METRO BANK
HARP I SBUWC FAA
WTI 2-09
I
1968 -66 02
1
Pat
i
CJ
2313
J "Y
r f J ?. l.i 1
JJ ?
SOVEREIGN BANK _
e ?? LD l 001 10110[1(_10o'
int: AlL?1c?ctt T.m k11) ¢71 ,J00. 011) I
?ldt.!:h1r:IJI' 1?1if,-x:510 1:[, 1:11,1PiliII OnusA'f1asi1.,- n?yuem, 1d1dd,?i1
i?S E; T R C? B f3 N Y?
I-3ARR I SBURG PA `
-A-) 41 0
o
-r _
P P?o; (
aa
CD A
11
f
SOVEREIGN
,OVEREIGNBANM
, I't .1 -1-.. ?'l ?f_? i ru,-: ?.nC :,9?C> +YA1f,1?c C: ;en -:5 :, ?..?.il ii l - l i -:.3i 'I'•. lii nri„ ,-.
.,t ,in:l-.,? i?:;- t-i: ?:.; r, .:.lii I•b; :I..dI'.-n
>2 NNOWWWWW,
Metro Bank Hub #01
2010_04_12
80,7269-2313
a
no m -1
F.I. 'm .11
L-. 1
:31 1
ICZ
i., _ ?i - ?J' ;:r.V' -' SiI?C'1r?7``Fl•?f; r
1 0 8 0
JL'Ur1/Ilt%Yla7l) L)jV /? ?•
VEREIGN?.
!
SOVFREIGNBANK.C ?iy
7f
/
r r ?. ?
tfr ,?
? Q
'
41
`i ri 'J
,
?'
t ti'??
J f„/
'l'Rt
aYr
?Si?4?G'??3iAF
?i';
.1:/
;v
A??il?
[??•
LfI?LWkI?
?Cl?a
?f5lSiq`•? ?'?11?'???tv:r37t
? u
?
.Y!
l
,
,
- .
.
•
,
.
,
.
.
e
.
.
.
..... .. .,
,.,..
>
.
. .
i .i
.
.
Metro Bank Hub #01
20110-06-29
0 -U
C) o'<
mf %. m
c
,Rr >a
Crum Bros.
713 Trail Ln
Enola PA 17025
PA Reg # PA031834
BILL TO
Danielle Jacobs
Box 45
Summerdale PA 17093
Invoice
DATE INVOICE #
6/14/2010 1263
TERMS DUE DATE
Due on receipt 6/1412010
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Residential part off addition 29,660.00
Kitchen cabinets 2,014.00
Fence 600.00
Retaining wall 1,000.00
Carpet, pad, and install 870.00
Master bath fixtures, cabinets, and tile 3,628.00
Fireplace and mantel 1,445.00
-34,852.00
Any balance not paid within terms of original billing will be charged 1.5 %
a month TO 1 $4,365.00
Any questions please call Stew or Steve at
(717) 319-8776
YINGST ENGINEERS
CRITERIUM -YINGST ENGINEERS, INC.
421 W. CHOCOLATE AVENUE
HERSHEY, PA 17033
TEL 717 533-3346
1 800 231-3346 (PA)
FAX 717 533-3376
www.YingstEngineers.com
March 2, 2012
Ms. Danielle Jacobs
305 ls' Street, P.O. Box 45
Summerdale, PA 17093
RE: Inspection of new construction
305 1st Street
P.O. Box 45
Summerdale, PA 17093
Project No.: 11-0291H
Dear Ms. Jacobs:
At your request inspections of the above property was performed on October 24, 2011 and
January 30, 2012. The report that follows has been prepared based on those inspections. The
primary purpose of the inspections and this report was to investigate the construction quality of
an addition to the home.
These inspections were performed by and report written by Stephen M. Yingst„ P.E., CBIE.
As you requested, this evaluation is limited in scope, focusing on the construction quality of the
addition only.
This inspection report is limited to observations made from visual evidence. No destructive or
invasive testing was performed. The report is not to be considered a guarantee of condition and
no warranty is implied.
For your reference while reading the report that follows, the following definitions may be helpful:
Excellent - Component or system is in "as new" condition requiring no rehabilitation and
should perform in accordance with expected performance.
Good - Component or system is sound and performing its function, although it may
signs of normal wear and tear. Some minor rehabilitation work may be requ
LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS
HOME/STRUCTURAL INSPECTIONS
COMMERCIAL DUE DILIGENCE INSPECTIONS
ASSOCIATION RESERVEITRANSITION STUDIES
HOME & COMMERCIAL BUILDING DESIGN
FORENSIC ENGINEERING
40
Jacobs
March 2, 2012
Fair - Component or system falls into one or more of the following categories: a)
Evidence of previous repairs not in compliance with commonly accepted
practice, b) Workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards,
c) Component or system is obsolete, d) Component or system approaching end of
expected performance. Repair or replacement is required to prevent fiu ther
deterioration or to prolong expected life.
Poor - Component or system has either failed or cannot be relied upon to continue
performing its original function as a result of having exceeded its expected
performance, excessive deferred maintenance, or state of disrepair. Present
condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of other adjoining
elements or systems. Repair or replacement is required.
All ratings are determined by comparison to other buildings of similar age and construction type.
Further, some details of workmanship and materials will be examined more closely in higher quality
homes where such details of workmanship and materials typically become more relevant.
This inspection and report have been conducted in compliance with the appropriate sections of the
Standards of Practice of the National Academy of Building Inspection Engineers.
DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
This property contains a single family, detached residence with an attached salon at the rear.
There is a full basement under the front main portion of the building with a crawl space under the
rear addition.
You reported that you contracted with Crum Brothers of Enola, PA to construct an addition on
the rear of the building for the salon area and make other modifications inside the original
structure. As a part of this work, they did the complete construction, including a new roof
surface on the entire building, new gutters and downspouts, new heating/cooling, plumbing,
electric and finishing of all addition and remodeled areas. You also reported that you did the
painting including all staining of the interior trim and doors that Crum Brothers ultimately
installed.
As the construction was completed, you discovered a number of concerns, including uneven
floor systems, significant problems with the operation of the salon door, cracks in the tile work,
etc. As a result, you requested that we inspect the property and provide this initial report
regarding construction quality.
For purposes of this report, all directions (left, right, rear, etc.) are taken from the viewpoint of an
observer standing in front of the building and facing it.
INSPECTION FINDINGS
During my site inspections, I visually inspected the interior and exterior of the addition pc
of the home. This included the crawl space. I also met with a representative of the
company that supplied and installed the salon door during my second visit. Based on
inspections, I have the following observations:
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC 2
Jacobs
March 2, 2012
Uneven Floor - You reported that during original construction by Crum Brothers, the
first floor surface was very uneven between the first floor and the addition.
Subsequently, you had other contractors repair this deficiency. As a result, I have not
further investigated that issue beyond looking at the structural support of the floor system
in the addition above the crawl space. As we discussed, the support for the floor system
in that area consists of 2x10 - 16o.c. floor joists spanning approximately 12'. The band
joists are bolted at the ledger board, joist hangers were provided, and there are steel
columns and support footings. The center girder consists of a laminated wood beam that
appears to be adequately sized and in good condition. Overall, I do not believe there is a
structural problem with the floor of the addition or the perimeter foundation. Rather, it
appears that the uneven floor condition was the result of the contractor originally
"missing the floor height" with the original building.
2. Windows - The windows in the home are Jeldwen brand. Installation specifications for
these windows include detailed flashing requirements. These are consistent with general
requirements within the building code. As we discussed, there does not appear to be any
flashing at the bottom of the windows continuing out over the brick areas. Specifically,
there are no weep holes or flashing to allow water to drain from around the windows out
over the brick exterior. This needs to be further investigated to determine exactly how
the flashing was installed. Currently, it does not appear to be appropriate.
3. Master bathroom - Several concerns were noted in the master bathroom regarding the tile
work and the water closet. These include:
• The water closet rocks back and forth from front-to-rear and was not properly set.
The water closet should be reset.
• You indicated that the contractor did use 1/2" cement board under the ceramic
floor tile. The ceramic tile on the walls was reportedly set over a moisture
resistant drywall.
• No isolation mat was used beneath the floor ceramic tile as can be seen in the
opening at the heating/cooling vent in Photograph 2, Appendix A. Other concerns
with the ceramic tile include:
y The ceramic tile angle pieces did not match at joints in the corner of the
shower stall (Photograph 4).
? The grouting in the tile work is cracking at the corners of the shower stall
(Photograph 5).
There was no sealant behind the shower head escutcheon (Photograph 6).
There is a gap and no sealant around the escutcheon for the faucet in the
shower and the faucet is not solidly mounted.
The dimensions of the shower are 59" at the rear and 58-5/8" at the front.
In the front-to-rear dimension, the shower stall is 56-5/8" one side and
56-
1/8" on the other side. This differential indicates that the shower was not
installed in a square manner. These conditions result in the door to the
shower being 1/2" out-of-square.
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC.
40
Jacobs
March 2, 2012
Portions of the file work are not flush across joints (Photograph 8,
Appendix A).
Furthermore, additional cracking in the tile work was noted between my two site visits.
4. Door to Salon - The door to the salon area at the right side of the home has been repaired
on several occasions but continues to be out-of-plumb and does not operate properly.
Moisture meter readings around the door were taken and elevated moisture levels up to
30% + were noted around the door (Tramex Moisture Encounterer Moisture Meter on
scale 2). The door is also out-of-plumb approximately 1/4" with respect to the vertical in
and out condition of the wall.
You reported that the threshold has been adjusted by Jeldwin on at least one occasion. At
the time of my last inspection, the threshold was dragging and causing the door to twist
and bind at the bottom.
On the exterior, heavy caulking was applied around the door to stop water entry. This
caulking now has created a situation where any water inside the wall envelope and on the
exterior water drainage plain cannot get out of the wall. This has resulted in excessive
water collecting at the base of the wall, the elevated moisture levels in the wall, and water
entry along the band joists below the door in the crawl space. Furthermore, no flashing
was visible at the sides of the door and the trim was not caulked or sealed on the exterior.
The flashing and water management around the door was not properly installed and
integrated with the house wrap applied to the home.
5. Crawl space - As previously noted, the structural condition of the crawl space appears to
be good. Water entry (dripping conditions) was noted at the right side of the crawl space
under the salon door, however. These conditions are consistent with the flashing problem
previously noted and require removal and resetting of the door with proper flashing.
6. Exterior - There is metal flashing beneath the vinyl siding and extending out over the top
of the brick half-wall on the exterior. This is as normal, however, the flashing was
installed over top of the house wrap which is applied directly on the exterior wall
sheathing. Furthermore, there are no weep holes in the brick work to allow any water
trapped on the house wrap to escape from the base of the brick work. As a result, the
drainage plane on the exterior of the wall sheathing is not functioning as designed and
required by the building code.
Retaining wall - There is a small retaining wall constructed of E P Henry 12" deep
retaining blocks at the right rear of the home. The wall contains four rows of exposed
blocks plus a cap block and is approximately 32" high. You reported that you did not
observe any reinforcement (geo-grid or equivalent) placed behind the wall as it was built.
There also was no visible drainage through the wall.
E P Henry does have specific requirements for reinforcing (geo-grid) and drainage
requirements. Currently the wall has not experienced any significant visual moveme
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC 4
O
Jacobs
March 2, 2G 12
and appears to be performing as intended. However, the horizontal reinforcing (geo-grid)
could not be visually confirmed. Furthermore, the top row of cap blocks were not
adhered in place as normally done. Additionally, a drainage system behind the wall was
not present. If you desire, further investigation in this regard can be performed.
L:J
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the windows and door flashings around the exterior of this
home were not properly installed in accordance with the building code requirements and
manufacturer's requirements. This has resulted in moisture leakage within the wall cavity that
has caused problems with operation of the salon door as well as the water entry in the crawl
space beneath it. Water entry around the windows may also be occurring.
There are also concerns with the ceramic tile work in the master bathroom in that there has been
more than normal cracking, the shower was not properly square when constructed, and the tile
work was not aligned in normal fashion.
The installation of the retaining wall appears to be performing adequately, however, there is no
specific drainage installed and the horizontal support for the wall (geo-grid) has not been
confirmed. While this wall may continue to perform acceptably, hidden problems may exist and
would require further evaluation.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service and please call if you have any additional
questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC.
SMY/hek
Enclosures: Photographs
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC.
0
L*l
Jacob,
March 3. _'U1'
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC.
s
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 201 l
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen A Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen A Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Photo Number
18
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location:
Jacobs
Summerdale, PA
Photo Taken by: Date:
Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Project No. 11-0291
1
r
0
Photo Number
19
Photo Number
20
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements of fact made in the foregoing documents are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that
any false statements therein are subject to the criminal penalties contained in 18 Pa C.
S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DateAft
0'
26
SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Ronny R Anderson
Sheriff
Jody S Smith
Chief Deputy
Richard W Stewart
Solicitor
FILED-OFFi-j-
r H E PR0TH( X10 fA _'
2112 MAY 24 AM 8: 16
CUMBERLAND COU 1 Y
PENNSYLVANIA
Danielle Jacobs
vs Case Number
.
Stewart A Crum (et al.) 2012-2945
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
05/14/2012 06:55 PM - Dennis Fry, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on May 14,
2012 at 1855 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named
defendant, to wit: Stewart A. Crum, by making known unto himself personally, at 713 Trail Lane, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the
said true and correct copy of the same.
DENN FRY, DEP}
05/14/2012 06:55 PM - Dennis Fry, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on May 14,
2012 at 1855 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named
defendant, to wit: Steve Crum, by making known unto Stewart Crum, Brother of Defendant at 713 Trail
Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025 its contents and at the same time handing to him
personally the said true and correct copy of the same.
DENN IS FRY, DE
,DeY
05/14/2012 06:55 PM - Dennis Fry, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on May 14,
2012 at 1855 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named
defendant, to wit: Crum Bros., by making known unto Stewart Crum, Owner of Crum Bros. at 713 Trail
Lane, Enola, Cumbedand County, Pennsylvania 17025 its contents and at the same time handing to him
personally the said true and correct copy of the same.
DEN IS FRY, DEPU
SHERIFF COST: $75.45
May 18, 2012
SO ANSWERS,
WON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF
(c) CountySuite Sheriff, Teleosoft, Inc.
Johnson, Puffie, Stewart & Weidrf b
By: Jeffrey 'B. Rettig, Esquire ,. ? V31 14 1
I.D. No. 19616 ` r?kls,? ?f ,
,, Y
t ttorneys for Defendants
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4640
jbr@jdsw.cpm
DANIELLE "JACOBS,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
NO. 12-2945
V.
STEWART' A. CRUM, individually and
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM,
individually and t/d/b/a CRUM BROS.,
and CRUMI BROS., an unincorporated
association,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
To the Prothonotary of Cumberland County:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants in the above-captioned action.
Respectfully s! ibmi±ted,
J N„ UF.)IE, WART & WEIDNER
By:
ffrey B. Rettig
I. D. No. 19616
301 Market Street
P O Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 761-4540
jbr@jdsw.com
Counsel for Defendants
497952
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 2 _ day of May, 2012, the undersigned does hereby certify that he
did this date serve a copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance upon the other
parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage
prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Bryan W. Shook, Esquire
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Counsel for Plaintiff
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By:
effrey B. Rettig
k
Bryan W. Shook. Esquire
ID # 203250 UN -5 AN I E ;
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC "'
2132 Market Street
Pennsylvania 17011
Camp Hill S' G C S L "a i.` L t; 0 t s ..
f ?,
,
Telephone-(717)975-9446 A
1-?? 7YL?3Att P.
Fax - (717) 975-2309
BShookiddpIgIaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff
DANIELLE JACOBS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and : No: 12-2945 - CIVIL TERM
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM, :
individually and t/b/d/a CRUM BROS., :
and CRUM BROS. an unincorporated
association, .
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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 attorney, and
filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against
you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money
claimed in the Complaint or for any claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may
lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HAVE OR KNOW A LAWYER, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de
estas demandas expuestas en las paginas signuientes, usted tiene vienta (20) dias de
plazo al partir de al fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una
apariencia escrita o en persona a por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita
sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado
que si usted no se fefiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede una orden contra usted
sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o akuvui que es pedido en la
peticion de demanda. Usted puedo parder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos
importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE
ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DIMERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO,
VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION
SE EMCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE
CONSSGUTA ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
1)
Bryan W. Shook, Esquire
ID # 203250
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone - (717) 975-9446
Fax - (717) 975-2309
BShooki,dnlglaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff
DANIELLE JACOBS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and : No: 12-2945 - CIVIL TERM
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM, :
individually and t/b/d/a CRUM BROS., :
and CRUM BROS. an unincorporated
association, .
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Danielle Jacobs, by and through her attorneys,
the DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC, by Bryan W. Shook, Esquire, and
makes the within Amended Complaint against the Defendants, Stewart A. Crum,
individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros., Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and
Crum Bros. an unincorporated association, and, in support thereof, avers as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Danielle Jacobs, is an adult individual currently residing at 305 1St Street,
Summerdale, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17093.
2. Defendant, Stewart A. Crum, is an adult individual currently residing at 713 Trail
Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025.
3. Defendant, Steve Crum, with a business office located at 713 Trail Lane, Enola,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025.
3
4. Defendant, Crum Bros., is an unincorporated association with an office located at
713 Trail Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025.
5. Crum Bros. is an unregistered entity pursuant to Fictitious Names Act, 54 Pa. C.S.A.
§ 301, et seq.
6. On or about late 2008 or early 2009, Plaintiff decided to renovate her home so that
she could move her hair salon, Oasis Salon to her house.
7. Plaintiff had an existing long-time friendship with Defendant, Stewart A. Crum's wife,
Christina L. Crum as well as Defendants, Stewart and Steve Crums' sister, Cori
(Crum) Messimer.
8. Plaintiff had known Defendants, Stewart and Steve Crum, for many years and had
heard them discuss with her the problems with other contractors that they would
routinely have to fix on behalf of contractors.
9. During social gatherings, Defendants, Stewart and Steve Crum, would discuss their
business with Plaintiff and represented to Plaintiff that they were professional
contractors who always strived for excellence.
10. Plaintiff had already been in talks with the East Pennsboro Township when she first
talked with Defendant, Stewart Crum, regarding budget and her plans for the
renovations to her home located at 305 1St Street, Summerdale.
11. On or about late 2008 or early 2009 Defendant, Stewart Crum, visit Plaintiff at her
residence to provide Plaintiff with a bid to do the project.
12. During this visit, Defendant, Stewart Crum, gave Plaintiff a handwritten estimate on a
piece of notebook paper which only included the shell of the renovations, i.e. roof
4
joists, foundation, windows, roof, doors, etc. (Plaintiff is unable to locate a copy of
this estimate therefore she is unable to attach it to this Complaint).
13. Plaintiff believes that the total price of the estimate was approximately $70,000.00
but since she cannot locate the handwritten estimate, she is unable to say precisely
what the total price of the estimate was.
14. Defendant, Stewart Crum, orally told Plaintiff that the build would take two to four
months and that they would have a future meeting on budget and the interior and
exterior appointments to finish the project.
15. Based upon the existing friendship and the manner in which Defendants always
carried themselves around her and talked up their accomplishments as contractors,
Plaintiff decided to accept Defendants' estimate and hire Defendants to perform the
renovations she desired on her residence.
16. Defendants never gave Plaintiff a written contract.
17. Defendants worked at Plaintiff's residence from early 2009 through September 2010.
18. Plaintiff paid Defendants, starting in July 2009 through June 21, 2010 a total of
$79,865.00. (Copies of the checks and invoices in the possession of Plaintiff are
attached hereto, made part hereof and marked as Exhibit "A")
19. Plaintiff has learned that the work completed by Defendants is substandard.
20. Plaintiff has further learned that much of the work will either need redone, has
needed redone since the Defendants left the project.
21. Further, Plaintiff has learned that the structural integrity of her residence is
compromised as a result of the actions of Defendants.
5
22. Defendants knew that Plaintiff was planning on using part of her addition as her
salon for use in her business.
23. By reason of Defendants actions, as more particularly described previously in this
Complaint, Plaintiff had to incur addition rent and other expenses by reason that she
was unable to move into her salon during the time agreed upon by the parties at the
start of the transaction.
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 23 above as if fully set forth
herein.
25. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff and Defendants had an oral contract whereby
Defendants would provide home improvement services to Plaintiff in exchange for
Plaintiff paying Defendants for said services and Plaintiff purchasing and selecting
many of the finishes, fixtures and cabinets.
26. Restated, Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to construct an addition on the rear of
Plaintiff's residence.
27. The addition includes, inter alia, a great room and a salon for Plaintiffs business.
28.The Defendants made other modifications inside the original structure including a
new roof surface on the entire building, new gutters and downspouts, new
heating/cooling system, plumbing, electric and finishing of all addition and
remodeled areas.
29. Plaintiff did the painting, including the majority of the staining of the interior trim and
doors that Defendants' ultimately installed, at the suggestion of Defendants in an
effort for Plaintiff to save money.
6
30. Plaintiff noticed several issues and deficiencies with Defendants' work as stated
more particularly herein.
31.As Plaintiff discovered more and more problems she became increasingly
concerned about the problems the renovations and addition performed by
Defendants would have on her home's structural integrity, value and problems in the
future, Plaintiff retained the inspection services of Mr. Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE
of Criterium-Yingst Engineers, Inc.
32. Mr. Yingst visited Plaintiff's residence on October 24, 2011 and also on January 30,
2012 and prepared a report detailing the items he found deficient or needed repair
caused by the actions of Defendants. (A true and correct copy of the March 2, 2012
report of Mr. Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE of Criterium-Yingst Engineers, Inc. is
attached hereto, made part hereof and marked as Exhibit "B").
ENTRANCE DOOR TO SALON
33. As part of the contract, Plaintiff informed Defendants and Defendants knew that a
portion of the addition to Plaintiff's renovated residence would be utilized for
commercial purposes as a hair salon.
34. By reason of this, the exterior entrance door to the salon portion of the project had to
comply with the American Disabilities Act (hereinafter referred to as "ADA")
35. Defendants, in an attempt to save Plaintiff money, offered Plaintiff a mahogany door
which Defendant, Stewart A. Crum, purchased at an auction, the door being
previously used as a display door.
7
36. When Defendant, Stewart A. Crum, installed the door in his home he noticed that the
seal around the glass had become compromised and caused the glass to fog in
humid conditions.
37. Defendants offered this door to Plaintiff.
38. Plaintiff accepted the door knowing the foggy glass situation but also upon the
reassurance that the door would be ADA compliant.
39. Shortly after the door was installed, in the late summer/early fall 2009, the salon
entrance door began to leak.
40. The leak was not from the glass section, but rather from around the door itself.
41. For the next one and one half (1 '/2) to two (2) years, the Defendants tried various
fixes for the door before finally informing Plaintiff that she needed an entirely new
door and Plaintiff needed to pay for the new door.
42. Plaintiff eventually relented out of necessity for having a door work properly for her
clients and not leak when it rained, she bought a replacement door at Carter
Lumber.
43. The replacement door was installed by Defendants on July 11, 2011.
44. Upon completion of installation of the new door, Defendant, Steve Crum, informed
Plaintiff that the new door wasn't built correctly and was catching at the bottom; he
demonstrated by kicking the door to shut it completely.
45. The replacement door was of the pre-hung variety and worked properly prior to
installation.
8
46. Plaintiff was upset with the fact that Defendant, Steve Crum, had kicked her newly
installed door and pointed out the damage to the finish of the door which Mr. Crum
had caused.
47. When Plaintiff inquired with Defendant, Steve Crum, as to why the door fit the
opening in the same manner as the old door (pushed out at the bottom left, sunken
in top left and tilted down from the top right to the top left), she was assured by Mr.
Crum that the doorframe opening was plumb and square.
48. Since the Defendants were denying any responsibility and placing all blame on the
door's manufacturer, Plaintiff contacted the manufacturer of the door.
49. The manufacturer of the door sent technicians on six or seven occasions throughout
the fall/winter 2011 and replaced the door's jam, the door's sill and the door was
taken completely out and reinstalled, the problem persisted.
50. The manufacturer's technician also found evidence of water that had gotten inside of
the door's jam due to improper installation by Defendants.
51. Plaintiff has been forced to place an order for yet a third door which has yet to arrive
and be installed.
52. But for Defendants' verbal assurance that the first door would work correctly and
Defendants' improper installation of both doors and/or improper framing of the door's
opening during initial construction of Plaintiff's residence's addition, Plaintiff would
not be experiencing problems with the entrance door to her salon.
FLOORING IN GREAT ROOM & DINING ROOM
9
53.As part of the oral contract, Defendants installed laminate flooring in the great room
and dining room of Plaintiffs residence.
54. The great room is located in the addition portion of Plaintiff's residence which
Defendants constructed; the dining room is located in the original portion of Plaintiffs
residence and Defendant's removed a former exterior wall to open both rooms into
one another.
55. During the construction of the addition, Defendants realized that the floor height of
the great room and the dining room were not the same, the addition was higher.
56. Upon realizing this Defendants informed Plaintiff that she would have "slight slope"
between the two portions of the residence.
57. Plaintiff thought Defendants had made the aforementioned reference this in jest.
58. Once Plaintiff realized that Defendants were not joking, Plaintiff suggested that
perhaps the floor of the dining room could be raised to the level of the addition to
make the two areas match.
59. Defendants accepted this suggestion and placed a layer of luan plywood over the
existing hardwood floor in the dining room.
60. Once the laminate flooring was installed the floor began to "hump-up".
61. Defendants were notified immediately upon Plaintiff's noticing of the hump in the
floor.
62. Defendants investigated the hump and denied that it was present.
63. Plaintiff, knowing that the laminate flooring was of tongue and groove construction
became concerned that the hump would put undue stress on the tongue and groove
joints and would eventually lead to breaking or cracking of the flooring.
10
64.After Defendants refused to recognize or remedy the flooring hump, Plaintiff called
upon another contractor, Rick L. Durham, who recognized and remedied the
problem.
65. Mr. Durham uninstalled the floor and found that it was installed incorrectly.
66. Specifically Mr. Durham found that the required gap to permit the floor to "float" was
not present and, in fact, the floor was so tight against the walls that Mr. Durham had
to cut some of the laminate to remove it.
67. Further Mr. Durham found that the green foam underlayment was not taped at the
seams, was missing in some areas and in some areas was rolled under instead of
cut to fit.
68. Mr. Durham corrected the issue with the subfloor by cutting out a high section and
replacing it with a thinner piece of luan plywood and thereafter applied a floor
leveling product and correctly reinstalled the laminate flooring.
WATER ISSUE - SPOUTING
69.As part of the oral agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants were to install or have
installed gutters and downspouts onto Plaintiff's residence.
70. The Defendants left Plaintiff's residence without finishing the downspouting.
71. As a result of Defendants' actions, when it rained water coming down the
downspouts was directed towards the foundation of Plaintiff's residence.
72. Plaintiff had to remedy the downspouting issue by directed the downspouts away
from the foundation of her residence.
WATER ISSUE - WINDOWS
11
73. As part of the oral agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants installed a foundation and a
crawl space beneath the addition to Plaintiff's residence.
74.After the addition was completed, Plaintiff began to notice that after rains, the block
inside the crawl space would become wet just beneath the windows.
75. Plaintiff informed Defendants of this problem and when Defendants came to
investigate they informed Plaintiff that it was "groundwater seeping up the block" and
that it was not coming from the windows.
76. Plaintiff has since discovered that the windows are Jeldwen brand and that there are
detailed installation specifications from these windows from Jeldwen which included
flashing requirements.
77. Plaintiff has learned that there is not any flashing at the bottom of the windows
continuing out over the brick areas.
78. Specifically there are no weep holes or flashing to allow the water to drain from away
from around the windows out over the brick exterior.
79. Plaintiff further believes that water entry around the windows may also be occurring
as a result of Defendants' improper installation of the windows.
80. Plaintiff has learned that to correct the issues with the windows and their improper
installation, the windows would need to be removed and extensive work performed
to make them function and seal as designed, including the possible necessity of
removing the exterior siding and brickwork.
MASTER BATHROOM
81.As part of the oral agreement with Plaintiff, Defendants agreed to construct a master
bedroom and bathroom for Plaintiff.
12
82. Within the master bathroom, Defendants constructed a water closet and did tile
work.
83. Plaintiff has noticed several issues within the master bathroom, many of which were
unknown to Plaintiff until such time as she retained Mr. Yingst for an investigation.
84. Mr. Yingst has informed Plaintiff of the following issues within the master bathroom,
including that:
a. the water closet rocks bath and forth from front-to-rear and was not
properly set; the water closet will need to be reset;
b. the ceramic tile was set over moisture resistant drywall instead of Y2'
cement board;
c. there was no isolation mat used beneath the floor ceramic tile;
d. the ceramic tile angle pieces do not match at joints in the corner of the
shower stall;
e. the grouting in the tile work is cracking at the corners of the shower stall;
f. there is no sealant behind the shower head escutcheon;
g. there is a gap and no sealant around the escutcheon for the faucet in the
show and the faucet is not solidly mounted;
h. the dimensions of the shower are 59" at the rear and 58 5/8" at the front,
in the front to rear dimension, the shower stall is 56 5/8" one side and 56
1/8" on the other side, this differential indicates that the shower was not
installed in a square manner;
i. the above mentioned dimensions of the shower result in the door to the
shower being Y2" out of square; and
13
j. additional cracking was noted by Mr. Yingst during his second visit to
Plaintiff's residence which was not present during his initial visit.
85. Plaintiff is concerned and has learned that the cracking will continue into the future
until such time as the individual tiles begin to fall from the wall.
86. Plaintiff is concerned that the cracking and sealing issues are causing or have
caused water damage to Plaintiff's bathroom walls since the same were not
constructed properly by Defendants.
EXTERIOR
87. As part of the oral contract with Plaintiff to renovate her residence, Defendants
agreed to refinish parts of the exterior of Plaintiff's residence, including the finishing
of the exterior of the addition.
88. The flashing beneath the vinyl siding is installed directly over top of the house wrap
and extends out over the top of the brick half-wall on the exterior.
89. There are no weep holes in the brick work to allow any water trapped on the house
wrap to escape from the base of brick work causes the drainage plane on the
exterior of the wall sheathing to not function as designed and required by building
code.
RETAINING WALL
90.As parts of the oral contact with Plaintiff, Defendants agreed to construct a small
retaining wall at the right rear of Plaintiff's residence.
14
91. The wall contains four rows of exposed E P Henry 12" deep retaining blocks plus a
cap black and is approximately 32" high.
92. Plaintiff noted during installation that no reinforcement (geo-grid or equivalent) was
placed behind the wall and Defendants informed Plaintiff it was not needed.
93. There is also no drainage around the wall.
94. Plaintiff has since learned that E P Henry has specific requirements for reinforcing
(geo-grid) and drainage.
95. Although the wall has not yet experienced any issues, Plaintiff fears that since it was
not constructed appropriately, it is only a matter of time before it too becomes a
problem for Plaintiff.
96. Defendants breached their agreement with Plaintiff by failing to perform the work
required of them in a workmanlike manner and within the requirements of the
building code.
97. Specifically, Defendants breached their agreement with Plaintiff by, inter alia, failing
to,
a. properly install Plaintiff's shower in her master bathroom;
b. properly select and install the salon entrance door;
c. properly install the windows;
d. properly install the flooring system,
e. properly construct the addition so as the floor height would be the same as
the floor height of the existing structure;
f. properly install and route the downspouting;
g. properly install the flashing beneath the brickwork and vinyl siding; and
15
h. properly construct the E P Henry block retaining wall.
98. All of those breaches identified in the immediately preceding paragraph are more
particularly identified and discussed in the prior paragraphs as well as in the report
of Mr. Stephen Yingst.
99. Defendant has violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in their
contact with Plaintiff.
100. Specifically, Defendants have used subterfuges and evasions in dealing with
Plaintiff and the deficiencies discovered by Plaintiff.
101. The inaction by Defendants with respect to the remedy of the deficiencies
discovered by Plaintiff violates the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
102. Defendants slacked off during the performance of their contractual duties in
violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
103. Defendants exhibited a lack of diligence during the performance of their
contractual duties in violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
104. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants willfully rendered
imperfect performance of their contractual duties to the severe detriment of Plaintiff.
105. Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendants' actions.
106. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer ascertainable damages which are
the direct and proximate cause of Defendants' actions.
107. By reason of the numerous defects with Defendants' work on Plaintiff's
residence, Plaintiff has had extreme difficulty locating a contractor who even feels
comfortable giving her an estimate to repair Defendants' work.
16
108. At least two contractors have told Plaintiff that they would not want the job
because they would not want to take responsibility if the repairs cannot be carried
out and fixed properly without extensive actions.
109. Plaintiff sought to have her home improved, renovated and an addition added in
an effort to maintain and protect her real estate investment.
110. By reason of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff's investment has been jeopardized as
the house now exhibits many defects and issues, many of which are outlined herein
and should Plaintiff wish to sell her residence she would be forced to disclose these
deficiencies to her severe financial detriment.
111. Plaintiff believes that her home's value and integrity have been compromised by
the actions of Defendants.
112. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants evaded the spirit of the
bargain in their dealings with Plaintiff after they secured the job from Plaintiff to
Plaintiff's severe financial detriment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
Judgment in her favor and against Defendants, Defendants, Stewart A. Crum,
individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros., Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and
Crum Bros. an unincorporated association, jointly and severally in an unliquidated
amount, in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, to be determined at the trial in
this matter, together with interest, costs of suit and whatever other relief this Honorable
Court deems necessary and just.
COUNT II - VIOLATIONS OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT AND THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
LAW
17
113. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 112 above as if fully set forth
herein.
114. Plaintiff hereby brings forth this Count for violations of the Pennsylvania Home
Improvement Consumer Protection Act ("HICPA"), 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. and the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), 73 P.S. § 201-1
et seq.
115. The HICPA was signed by Governor Rendell on October 17, 2008 and became
effective July 1, 2009.
116. A large portion of the work completed by Defendants was completed after July 1,
2009.
117. All of the finish work was completed after July 1, 2009.
118. Pursuant to 73 P.S. § 517.10 a violation of any of the provisions of the Home
Improvement Consumer Protection Act, 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. shall be deemed a
violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-
1 et seq.
119. Pursuant to 73 P.S. § 517.2 Plaintiff is the owner of a private residence situate at
and known as 305 1St Street, Summerdale, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17093.
120. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that Defendants, pursuant to 73 P.S. §
517.2 are contractors.
121. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that during the previous taxable year
Defendants performed more than $5,000.00, total cash value, of home
improvements.
18
122. The work for which Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to perform constitutes a
home improvement as defined by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act,
73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq.
123. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract which complied with the
requirements of the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act specifically, after
June 30, 2009, Defendants:
a. failed to provide Plaintiff with a written and/or legible contract which
contained the home improvement contractor registration number of the
performing contractor in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(1);
b. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that contained the entire
agreement between the owner and the contractor in violation of 73 P.S. §
517.7(a)(3);
c. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included all required notices
in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(3);
d. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included the approximate
starting date and completion date in violation of 73 P.S. § 5173(a)(6);
e. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included a description of the
work to be performed, the materials to be used and a set of specifications,
in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(7);
f. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that listed separately the amount
of down payment and the cost of the special order materials, in violation of
73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(9);
19
g. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included the names,
addresses and telephone numbers of all subcontractors on the project
known at the date of signing of the contract, in violation of 73 P.S. §
517.7(a)(10);
h. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that stated that Defendant agrees
to maintain liability insurance covering personal injury in an amount not
less than $50,000 and insurance covering property damage caused by the
work of a home improvement contractor in an amount not less than
$50,000, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(11);
i. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that identified the current amount
of insurance coverage maintained at the time of signing of the contract in
violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(11);
j. failed to provide Plaintiff with a contract that included the toll-free
telephone number under section 3(b) of the Home Improvement
Consumer Protection Act, in violation of 73 P.S. § 5177(a)(12);
k. failed to provide Plaintiff with a notice of right of rescission, in violation of
73 P.S. § 517.7(a)(13) and 71 P.S. § 517.7(b); and
1. failed to provide Plaintiff with a completed copy of the home improvement
contract at the time the contract was executed that contained all required
notices, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.7(c).
124. As more particularly described above, the contract entered into between Plaintiff
and Defendants is invalid and unenforceable against Plaintiff.
20
125. By failing to provide Plaintiff with a proper Home Improvement Contract, pursuant
to 73 P.S. § 517.7, Defendants are precluded from enforcing any agreement with
Plaintiff against Plaintiff. 73 P.S. § 517.7(a).
126. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants made false or misleading
statements to induce, encourage or solicit Plaintiff to enter into an oral, unwritten
agreement for home improvement services, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(1).
127. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that Defendants abandoned or failed to
perform, without justification, the home improvement contract and project engaged in
and undertaken by Defendants, in violation of 73 P.S. § 517.9(5).
128. Specifically, Defendants failed to recognize and repair the deficiencies noted by
Plaintiff and brought to Defendants attention by Plaintiff in violation of 73 P.S. §
517.9(5).
129. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-3, that
Defendants used unlawful and unfair methods of competition and/or unfair and
deceptive acts in the conduct of trade as more particularly described herein when
dealing with Plaintiff and contracting to perform home improvements for Plaintiff.
130. Defendants held themselves out to be a contractor in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania after July 1, 2009 in a manner in which Defendants knew or should
have known had the likelihood of causing confusion or of a misunderstanding to
Plaintiff, in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii).
131. Specifically, Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff of her rights under the HICPA on
or after July 1, 2009.
21
132. The HICPA makes it clear that the burden is upon the contractor to offer the first
line of protection to the consumer, Plaintiff, in this instance.
133. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a written contract, as outlined above,
which Defendants knew or should have known had the likelihood of causing
confusion or of a misunderstanding to Plaintiff, in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(iii).
134. Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that Defendants engaged in other
fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created a likelihood of confusion or of
misunderstanding, more particularly described herein, in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-
2(4)(xxi).
135. Furthermore, Plaintiff believes, and therefore aver, that Defendants held
themselves out to be capable of meeting the expectations of Plaintiff with respect to
the aforementioned renovations to Plaintiff's residence.
136. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendants advertised good or
services with intent not to sell them as advertised, in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-
2(4)(ix).
137. Specifically, Plaintiff believes, and therefore, avers that Defendants held
themselves out as being capable of performing the construction for Plaintiff's
addition and the renovations to Plaintiff's residence when in fact they knew or should
have known they did not have the requisite skill, experience and/or intention to
complete the aforesaid project.
138. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants made false or misleading
statements and representations to induce, encourage or solicit Plaintiff to enter into
an oral unwritten agreement for home improvement services at Plaintiff's residence.
2-2
139. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a Notice of Cancellation pursuant to 73
P.S. § 201-7.
140. Defendants have misrepresented Plaintiff's right to cancel by failing provide
Plaintiff with the Notice of Cancellation in violation of 73 P.S. § 201-7(b)(2)(f).
141. In light of the foregoing and to the extent that monies have been paid to
Defendants by Plaintiff, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order
Defendants disgorged of any fruits of their deceptive conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
Judgment against Defendants, Stewart A. Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros.,
Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and Crum Bros. an unincorporated
association, jointly and severally, and in favor of Plaintiff, in an unliquidated amount, in
excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, for violations of the Home Improvement
Consumer Protection Act, 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. and the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. in an amount equal to three times
the actual damages sustained by Plaintiff plus costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, disgorgement of any monies which have been paid to or have been authorized
to be paid to Defendants and reasonable attorney fees, and whatever other relief this
Honorable Court deems necessary and just pursuant to 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a).
COUNT III - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
142. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 141 above as if fully set forth
herein.
23
143. Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff, as described more particularly herein,
Defendants' skill, knowledge and intention to perform the work contractually agreed
to by the parties.
144. Specifically, and upon information and belief, Defendants did not disclose to
Plaintiff the extent of skills which were necessary to complete the job and at all times
led Plaintiff to believe they possessed this experience and skills when they did not.
145. In the alternative and upon information and believe, upon commencement of the
project, Defendants began to lower their level of diligence or started to slack off but
did not disclose this to Plaintiff to her detriment and reliance otherwise.
146. Further, as Defendants held themselves out, at all times material hereto,
professionals in the field of contracting, Plaintiff had no reason to believe otherwise
that the information regarding their ability to remodel and add to her home was not
true.
147. Defendants never informed Plaintiff that they did not possess the requisite skill to
complete in the manner contemplated by Plaintiff and Defendants original
agreement.
148. Specifically, Defendants did not inform, nor did Defendants acknowledge the
deficiencies in their work before or after they became known to Plaintiff.
149. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants knew at the time they bid
Plaintiff's job that they did not have the requisite skill and/or knowledge to perform
the job they were contracting to perform yet made the bid with the knowledge of this
false statement with the intent to having Plaintiff rely upon the same in the hopes to
get the job.
24
150. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendants made misrepresentations
as to Defendants' skill, experience, knowledge and intention to perform work to
induce Plaintiff into contracting with Defendants, as more particularly described
herein.
151. Defendants had a pecuniary interest in securing this job from Plaintiff.
152. Defendants had an implied common law duty to disclose to Plaintiff that they
were unable to complete the job as presented by Plaintiff.
153. Defendants' nondisclosure that they did not possess the skill and knowledge to
perform the work required of Plaintiff's project was calculated on Defendants' part to
induce Plaintiff into hiring Defendants.
154. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the representations of Defendants, which are
more particularly described herein.
155. Plaintiff justifiably relied on the fraudulent misrepresentations, statements,
actions and concealment, as more particularly described herein, of the Defendants.
156. Plaintiff believes, and therefore, avers, that Defendants had actual knowledge of
the fraudulent nature of Defendants actions, concealment and representations, as
more particularly described herein.
157. Plaintiff believes, and therefore, avers, that Defendants utilized willful, wanton,
malicious and intentional fraud, misrepresentation, concealment and false
advertising in contracting to perform the construction and renovation services for
Plaintiff, as more particularly described herein.
158. The actions of the Defendants had a tendency to and did, in fact, deceive
Plaintiff.
25
159. Plaintiff has suffered actual damages as a proximate result of Defendants'
misrepresentations, as more particularly described herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
Judgment against Defendants, Stewart A. Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros.,
Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and Crum Bros. an unincorporated
association, jointly and severally, and in favor of Plaintiff, in an unliquidated amount, in
excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, to be determined at the trial in this matter,
together with interest, costs of suit and whatever other relief this Honorable Court
deems necessary and just. Plaintiff also respectfully requests punitive damages for the
willful, wanton, malicious and fraudulent misrepresentations utilized by Defendants.
COUNT IV - BREACH OF COMMON LAW IMPLIED WARRANTIES
160. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 159 above as if fully set forth
herein.
161. Plaintiff brings forth this count for breaches of the common law implied warranties
of fitness for an intended purpose and skilled workmanship.
162. Plaintiff relied upon Defendants advertised skill and knowledge in performing the
work she contracted with Defendants to perform, as more particularly described
supra.
163. Based upon the relationship of the parties and the discussions which Plaintiff and
Defendants had, some of which are averred in paragraphs six (6) through eight (8)
supra, Plaintiff was justified in her relying upon Defendants' purported skill and
knowledge.
26
164. Plaintiff, at all times material hereto, possessed no particular skill or knowledge
as it relates to home improvements or construction methods.
165. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff is trained was a hair dresser and had no
measurable home improvement experience outside of that which is merely incident
to home ownership.
166. As more particularly averred supra, the entrance door to the salon was not
chosen, on one occasion and installed properly on two occasions by Defendants.
167. As more particularly averred supra, the flooring in the great room and dining
room was not installed properly by Defendants.
168. As more particularly averred supra, the downspouts were not finished and
installed properly by Defendants and as a result water was directed towards the
foundation of Plaintiff's residence, not away from the foundation of Plaintiff's
residence.
169. As more particularly averred supra, the windows were not chosen and/or
installed and/or flashed properly by Defendants.
170. As more particularly averred supra, the construction of the water closet in the
master bathroom by Defendants is improper.
171. As more particularly averred supra, the flashing beneath the vinyl siding was
installed incorrectly by Defendants.
172. As more particularly averred supra, there are no weep holes in the brick work to
allow for any water trapped on the house wrap to escape from the base of the brick
work.
27
173. As more particularly averred supra, the retaining wall, constructed by
Defendants, contains no reinforcement and has no drainage as required by E P
Henry, the block manufacturer.
174. As more particularly averred supra, the height of the floors between the addition
and the existing portion of the residence were not properly calculated by
Defendants.
175. Defendants failed to use ordinary care and skill, common in the building trades,
in performing the work at Plaintiff's residence.
176. This failure, described in the immediately preceding paragraph, proximately
caused Plaintiff's damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter
Judgment against Defendants, Stewart A. Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros.,
Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and Crum Bros. an unincorporated
association, jointly and severally and in favor of Plaintiff, in an unliquidated amount, in
excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, to be determined at the trial in this matter,
together with interest, costs of suit and whatever other relief this Honorable Court
deems necessary and just.
Respectfully Submitte ,
Dated. of By:
Brya . Shook, squire
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
Attorney Id. No.: 203250
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
28
7
SOVEREIGN BANK
-- - ?? / /'
..L. wT'+S7 ailb iL., uu( .j', dJU.,i.l
C`
- - - ---- - -. -o`rz C)
-? ? ?i? C7a?o
- -- _?? ?m
r+ O >
t=
ii I l..
9 G
1 - ... . . ` I ?. `?•??Y"
SOVEREIGN 8 ? i
/
A1t4-.'1t-n,.1611:,..?i,U(iO.ii1,
i ?l?li:?d•, ? -? ? ?,? ? 1'-i ? ?.. ?...?;'? ;-?l;ii l' L:urll`r.inl :i; 3? ? r,r?.?:?i Fl.:?l:- ?iiiic:`, -r.,n?! i i c Iu.-.i, ..Pl?.unll..r -
980
-45
SOVEREIGN
gOVEREIGNBANK-CO r
n ?
d
LI:If 71: Iliii. UL? __
i ?,I '? .!.t 1;,ul irl.? ? u'.111 I'al,, i _„Il?lu,•: _
>031301846<
Metro Bank Hub #01
9009-;,)-oR
Z
no o?
3 m°
b
Pw§mo
12: D4
1
10 0 0
SOVEREIGN BANK
SQ'.TREIGNBAt:K-CDM - ?,
I ?j
1-
ion .0
i ? .. L? _? I it ??•.?uii :???l!....r?_:lv;?uunl.iU U?.1C-t?(1 it°t.. 1' ???? ,, L ??i i ?l'
.I I,. '1?.1 ui, I7 lug f, :l)iW,iili:0 A.{.,i?Ur?nirt'?.;,
METRC) BANK
PARR I SBURG PAS
-O9
1968 -66 02
4
t
I
Pat
#+
cn
Pat
?1
/ i
c3t3 10--2
j7 4
- r
A?/rn
SOVEREIGN BANK
PAI
t f . ?' iD 1 2 0L
-10 IDDU11110.'
ni'_ } AILAL(t'.
L;u,IP,1inL A Ad
METRO BANK
HARRISBURG PA
l-On,- 1O
ti U
-r
a Y c?
14n?3 <<t,5 ? 02
o ?
y?
00
?a °
to 'i?)m
PO?;T m o
a ? ? C?
Ai Y 'MS'S.. 11
SOVEREIGN
SOVEREIGNRANK.CQ
6
----- ---- ' ".j Lu
1
%tl ?ffmmw 10 SIG
• ?
;Yl
? li-? I I'- ? ? ?.I I'ni n• ',. I I:I :i u••i,f '..-...I' 'n ? ? .c ?. - `Fluutl,,.r
>
Metro Bank Hub #01
2010-04_12
ev m -4
80.7289-2313 o ?` a
f•
/s 10 R 0
CL.
VEHEIGN': .
i. SOVEREIGNBANK.0 '
_. a.
-? - ?• is
/.^.. .,., ..;v.ifGkM?A?i1;t?xK?nlv..?i't:!sj'.s?' •...' ?J.,.fL4ti..'???di?'k+1.!'., ... ... 't?f?1??33'.1?G'?'1e6?33?e?sl
?.,j,j'[•-
u:?-:tom.'\.:.'.`+"'.: , .\r l -_61i! PC: )0
i
Metro Bank Hub #01
20',.0-06-2.9
n
C7 a
mb??
?? z
Crum Bros.
713 Trail Ln
Enola PA 17025
PA Reg # PA031834
BILL TO
Danielle Jacobs
Box 45
Summerdaie PA 17093
Invoice
DATE INVOICE*
6/14/2010 1263
TERMS DUE DATE
Due on receipt 6/14/2010
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Residential part off addition 29,660.00
Kitchen cabinets 2,014.00
Fence 600.00
Retaining wall 1,000.00
Carpet, pad, and install 870.00
Master bath fixtures, cabinets, and tile 3,628.00
Fireplace and mantel 1,445.00
-34,852.00
Any balance not paid within terms of original billing will be charged 1.5 % Total
a month $4,365.00
Any questions please call Stew or Steve at
(717) 319-8776
(RJ
YIN6ST ENGINEERS
CRITERIUM -YINGST ENGINEERS, INC.
421 W. CHOCOLATE AVENUE
HERSHEY, PA 17033
TEL 717 533-3346
1 800 231-3346 (PA)
FAX 717 533-3376
www.YingstEngineers.com
March 2, 2012
Ms. Danielle Jacobs
305 1" Street, P.O. Box 45
Summerdale, PA 17093
RE: Inspection of new construction,,
305 1" Street
P.O. Box 45
Summerdale, PA 17093
Project No.: 11-0291H
Dear Ms. Jacobs:
At your request inspections of the above property was performed on October 24, 2011 and
January 30, 2012. The report that follows has been prepared based on those inspections. The
primary purpose of the inspections and this report was to investigate the construction quality of
an addition to the home.
These inspections were performed by and report written by Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE.
As you requested, this evaluation is limited in scope, focusing on the construction quality of the
addition only.
This inspection report is limited to observations made from visual evidence. No destructive or
invasive testing was performed. The report is not to be considered a guarantee of condition and
no warranty is implied.
For your reference while reading the report that follows, the following definitions may be helpful:
Excellent -
Good -
Component or system is in "as new" condition requiring no rehabilitation and
should perform in accordance with expected performance.
Component or system is sound and performing its function, although it may show
signs of normal wear and tear. Some minor rehabilitation work may be required.
LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS
HOME/STRUCTURAL INSPECTIONS
OMMERCIAL DUE DILIGENCE INSPECTIONS
SOCIATION RESERVEITRANSITION STUDIES
HOME & COMMERCIAL BUILDING DESIGN
FORENSIC ENGINEERING
0
Jacobs
March 2, 2012
Fair - Component or system falls into one or more of the following categories: a)
Evidence of previous repairs not in compliance with commonly accepted
practice, b) Workmanship not in compliance with commonly accepted standards,
c) Component or system is obsolete, d) Component or system approaching end of
expected performance. Repair or replacement is required to prevent further
deterioration or to prolong expected life.
Poor - Component or system has either failed or cannot be relied upon to continue
performing its original function as a result of having exceeded its expected
performance, excessive deferred maintenance, or state of disrepair. Present
condition could contribute to or cause the deterioration of other adjoining
elements or systems. Repair or replacement is required.
All ratings are determined by comparison to other buildings of similar age and construction type.
Further, some details of workmanship and materials will be examined more closely in higher quality
homes where such details of workmanship and materials typically become more relevant.
This inspection and report have been conducted in compliance with the appropriate sections of the
Standards of Practice of the National Academy of Building Inspection Engineers.
DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
This property contains a single family, detached residence with an attached salon at the rear.
There is a full basement under the front main portion of the building with a crawl space under the
rear addition.
You reported that you contracted with Crum Brothers of Enola, PA to construct an addition on
the rear of the building for the salon area and make other modifications inside the original
structure. As a part of this work, they did the complete construction, including a new roof
surface on the entire building, new gutters and downspouts, new heating/cooling, plumbing,
electric and finishing of all addition and remodeled areas. You also reported that you did the
painting including all staining of the interior trim and doors that Crum Brothers ultimately
installed.
As the construction was completed, you discovered a number of concerns, including uneven
floor systems, significant problems with the operation of the salon door, cracks in the tile work,
etc. As a result, you requested that we inspect the property and provide this initial report
regarding construction quality.
For purposes of this report, all directions (left, right, rear, etc.) are taken from the viewpoint of an
observer standing in front of the building and facing it.
INSPECTION FINDINGS
During my site inspections, I visually inspected the interior and exterior of the addition portion
of the home. This included the crawl space. I also met with a representative of the door
company that supplied and installed the salon door during my second visit. Based on these
inspections, I have the following observations:
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC. 2
40 0
.Jacobs
March 2, 2012
Uneven Floor - You reported that during original construction by Crum Brothers, the
first floor surface was very uneven between the first floor and the addition.
Subsequently, you had other contractors repair this deficiency. As a result, I have not
further investigated that issue beyond looking at the structural support of the floor system
in the addition above the crawl space. As we discussed, the support for the floor system
in that area consists of 2x10 - 16o.c. floor joists spanning approximately 12'. The band
joists are bolted at the ledger board, joist hangers were provided, and there are steel
columns and support footings. The center girder consists of a laminated wood beam that
appears to be adequately sized and in good condition. Overall, I do not believe there is a
structural problem with the floor of the addition or the perimeter foundation. Rather, it
appears that the uneven floor condition was the result of the contractor originally
"missing the floor height" with the original building.
2. Windows - The windows in the home are Jeldwen brand. Installation specifications for
these windows include detailed flashing requirements. These are consistent with general
requirements within the building code. As we discussed, there does not appear to be any
flashing at the bottom of the windows continuing out over the brick areas. Specifically,
there are no weep holes or flashing to allow water to drain from around the windows out
over the brick exterior. This needs to be further investigated to determine exactly how
the flashing was installed. Currently, it does not appear to be appropriate.
3. Master bathroom - Several concerns were noted in the master bathroom regarding the tile
work and the water closet. These include:
The water closet rocks back and forth from front-to-rear and was not properly set.
The water closet should be reset.
You indicated that the contractor did use 1/2" cement board under the ceramic
floor tile. The ceramic tile on the walls was reportedly set over a moisture
resistant drywall.
No isolation mat was used beneath the floor ceramic tile as can be seen in the
opening at the heating/cooling vent in Photograph 2, Appendix A. Other concerns
with the ceramic tile include:
The ceramic tile angle pieces did not match at joints in the corner of the
shower stall (Photograph 4).
r The grouting in the tile work is cracking at the corners of the shower stall
(Photograph 5).
r There was no sealant behind the shower head escutcheon (Photograph 6).
There is a gap and no sealant around the escutcheon for the faucet in the
shower and the faucet is not solidly mounted.
The dimensions of the shower are 59" at the rear and 58-5/8" at the front.
In the front-to-rear dimension, the shower stall is 56-5/8" one side and 56-
1/8" on the other side. This differential indicates that the shower was r
installed in a square manner. These conditions result in the door to the
shower being 1/2" out-of-square.
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC. 3
40
i?
Jacobs
March 2, 2012
Portions of the tile work are not flush across joints (Photograph 8,
Appendix A).
7
Furthermore, additional cracking in the tile work was noted between my two site visits.
4. Door to Salon - The door to the salon area at the right side of the home has been repaired
on several occasions but continues to be out-of-plumb and does not operate properly.
Moisture meter readings around the door were taken and elevated moisture levels up to
30% + were noted around the door (Tramex Moisture Encounterer Moisture Meter on
scale 2). The door is also out-of-plumb approximately 1/4" with respect to the vertical in
and out condition of the wall.
You reported that the threshold has been adjusted by Jeldwin on at least one occasion. At
the time of my last inspection, the threshold was dragging and causing the door to twist
and bind at the bottom.
On the exterior, heavy caulking was applied around the door to stop water entry. This
caulking now has created a situation where any water inside the wall envelope and on the
exterior water drainage plain cannot get out of the wall. This has resulted in excessive
water collecting at the base of the wall, the elevated moisture levels in the wall, and water
entry along the band joists below the door in the crawl space. Furthermore, no flashing
was visible at the sides of the door and the trim was not caulked or sealed on the exterior.
The flashing and water management around the door was not properly installed and
integrated with the house wrap applied to the home.
5. Crawl space - As previously noted, the structural condition of the crawl space appears to
be good. Water entry (dripping conditions) was noted at the right side of the crawl space
under the salon door, however. These conditions are consistent with the flashing problem
previously noted and require removal and resetting of the door with proper flashing.
6. Exterior - There is metal flashing beneath the vinyl siding and extending out over the top
of the brick half-wall on the exterior. This is as normal, however, the flashing was
installed over top of the house wrap which is applied directly on the exterior wall
sheathing. Furthermore, there are no weep holes in the brick work to allow any water
trapped on the house wrap to escape from the base of the brick work. As a result, the
drainage plane on the exterior of the wall sheathing is not functioning as designed and
required by the building code.
Retaining wall - There is a small retaining wall constructed of E P Henry 12" deep
retaining blocks at the right rear of the home. The wall contains four rows of exposed
blocks plus a cap block and is approximately 32" high. You reported that you did not
observe any reinforcement (geo-grid or equivalent) placed behind the wall as it was built.
There also was no visible drainage through the wall.
E P Henry does have specific requirements for reinforcing (geo-grid) and drainage
requirements. Currently the wall has not experienced any significant visual movemer
CRITERIUM-YINGS"r ENGINEERS, INC_ 4
40 &
Jacobs
March 2, 2012
and appears to be performing as intended. However, the horizontal reinforcing (geo-grid)
could not be visually confirmed. Furthermore, the top row of cap blocks were not
adhered in place as normally done. Additionally, a drainage system behind the wall was
not present. If you desire, further investigation in this regard can be performed.
CONCLUSIONSIRECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the windows and door flashings around the exterior of this
home were not properly installed in accordance with the building code requirements and
manufacturer's requirements. This has resulted in moisture leakage within the wall cavity that
has caused problems with operation of the salon door as well as the water entry in the crawl
space beneath it. Water entry around the windows may also be occurring.
There are also concerns with the ceramic tile work in the master bathroom in that there has been
more than normal cracking, the shower was not properly square when constructed, and the tile
work was not aligned in normal fashion.
The installation of the retaining wall appears to be performing adequately, however, there is no
specific drainage installed and the horizontal support for the wall (geo-grid) has not been
confirmed. While this wall may continue to perform acceptably, hidden problems may exist and
would require further evaluation.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service and please call if you have any additional
questions.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Yingst, P. E., CBIE
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC.
S MY/hek
Enclosures: Photographs
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC.
40
F A L7
8
Jacobs
?v umh ?, 2012
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
CRITERIUM-YINGST ENGINEERS, INC.
0
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CB1E October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 201 1
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., GBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location:
Jacobs
Summerdale, PA
Photo Taken by:
Date:
Stephen A Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Project No. H -0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerda1c, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Suinmerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen M. Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
Location: Photo Taken by: Date:
Jacobs Stephen A Yingst, P.E., CBIE October 24, 2011
Summerdale, PA Project No. 11-0291
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements of fact made in the foregoing documents are
true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I
understand that any false statements therein are subject to the criminal penalties
contained in 18 Pa C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: 1
;eJra cob s f
29
DANIELLE JACOBS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and : No: 12-2945 - CIVIL TERM
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM,
individually and t/b/d/a CRUM BROS., :
and CRUM BROS. an unincorporated
association,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT, was
hereby served by depositing the same within the custody of the United States Postal
Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
Dated: J J^ , S. ?C>I
Respectfully Submitted,
By: 6, U , __
BryW. Shook, Esquire
I. D.# 203250
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Plaintiff
J I'll-
?, e n ' I t o f
Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner
-? r- t
By: Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire
I.D. No. 19616' Attorneys for Defendants
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
jbr@jdsw.com
DANIELLE JACOBS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
Plaintiff
NO. 12-2945
V.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM,
individually and t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
and CRUM BROS., an unincorporated
association,
Defendants
NOTICE TO PLEAD
To: Plaintiff, Danielle Jacobs
c/o Bryan W. Shook, Esquire
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Defendant's Answer to
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a
judgment may be entered against you.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner
By: Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire
I.D. No. 19616
301 Market Street
P. O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109
(717) 761-4540
jbr@jdsw.com
DANIELLE JACOBS,
Plaintiff
V.
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM,
individually and t/d/b/a CRUM BROS.,
and CRUM BROS., an unincorporated
association,
Defendants
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 12-2945
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW, come the Defendants, Steward A. Crum, (erroneously referred to as
Stewart A. Crum), Individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros., Steve Crum, Individually and
t/d/b/a Crum Bros., and Crum Bros., an unincorporated association, by and through
their attorneys, Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, and Jeffrey B. Rettig, Esquire, and
answer the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Denied as stated. Steward A. Crum, t/b/d/a Crum Brothers, has a
business office located at 713 Trail Lane, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17025.
3. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Steve Crum, t/b/d/a Crum Brothers,
has a business office located at 713 Trail Lane, Enola, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17025.
4. - 5. Admitted.
6. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
7. It is admitted that Plaintiff was friends with Ms. Crum and Ms. Messimer.
8. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the parties have known
each other for years. As to the remainder of the averments in Paragraph 8, Defendants
are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
said averments and proof thereof is demanded.
9. It is admitted that Steward had discussions with Plaintiff.
10. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
11. Admitted except that Defendant, Steward Crum, is unsure of the correct
date.
12. Admitted.
13. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
14. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Crum orally told the
Plaintiff that the salon addition to her home would take two to four months and that they
would have future meetings on budget to finish the project. It is denied that the whole
project would take two to four months.
15. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
16. Admitted.
17. Denied as stated. The Defendants worked at Plaintiffs residence various
times from early 2009 through on or about September, 2010, when an occupancy
permit was issued.
18. The checks and invoices, being written documents, speak for themselves.
19.-21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said
averments and proof thereof is demanded.
22. Admitted.
23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
24. Defendants repeat and reiterate all of their responses to Paragraphs 1
through 23 as if fully set forth at length herein.
25. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the parties had an oral
contract whereby the Defendants would provide home improvement services in addition
to building a new commercial addition in exchange for Plaintiff paying Defendants for
their services. It is also admitted that Plaintiff selected many of the finishes, fixtures and
cabinets. It is denied that Plaintiff purchased many of the finishes, fixtures and cabinets.
26.-27. Admitted.
28. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendants made
modifications to the original structure, including replacing the roof on the entire building,
replacing the heating/cooling system, and replacing some of the plumbing and electrical
work. It is denied that they performed all finishing of the addition and remodeled areas.
It is further denied that they added new gutters and downspouts to the original structure.
29. Denied as stated. The majority of the painting and staining of the interior
trim and doors was completed by Steve Crum.
30.-32. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
ENTRANCE DOOR TO SALON
33.-34. Admitted.
35. Denied as stated. The door was not offered to the Plaintiff; rather, the
Plaintiff requested the door.
36. Admitted.
37. Denied as stated. The door was not offered to the Plaintiff; rather the
Plaintiff requested the door.
38. Denied. See Answer to Paragraph 35, above.
39. Denied as stated. The door began to leak sometime after it was installed.
40. Denied.
41. Admitted.
42. Admitted that the Plaintiff bought a replacement door at Carter Lumber.
43. It is admitted that the Defendants installed a replacement door on or about
July 11, 2011.
44. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Steve Crum informed
the Plaintiff that the new door was not built correctly. It is denied that Steve Crum kicked
the door.
45. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the replacement door
was of the pre-hung variety. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
remainder of the averments in Paragraph 45 and proof thereof is demanded.
46. Denied. It is denied that Steve Crum kicked the door.
47. It is admitted that Steve Crum told the Plaintiff that the doorframe was
plumb.
48. Denied. Defendant, Steve Crum, contacted the door supplier, Carter
Lumbar.
49. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
50. It is denied that the Defendants installed the door improperly. After
reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remainder of the averments and proof
thereof is demanded.
51.-52. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
FLOORING IN GREAT ROOM & DINING ROOM
51-55. Admitted.
56. Denied. It is denied that the Defendants told the Plaintiff that she would
have a "slight slope."
57. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
58. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff made this "suggestion."
59. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff made this suggestion. It is admitted that a
layer of luan plywood was placed over the existing hardwood floor.
60. Denied as stated. At some time after installation of the laminate flooring a
slight deflection was noticed.
61. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
62. Denied as stated. The slight deflection with the laminate flooring was not
always present when the Defendants investigated the floor.
61-68. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
WATER ISSUE - SPOUTING
69. Denied as stated. As part of the oral agreement the Defendants were to
install or have installed gutters and downspouts onto the addition to Plaintiffs residence.
70. Denied. The downspouting was finished when the Defendants completed
the project. The Plaintiff was to have a landscaper bury the downspouting at a later
time.
71.-72. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
WATER ISSUE - WINDOWS
73. Admitted.
74. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
75. Admitted.
76. Denied. As to what Plaintiff "discovered," Defendants are without sufficient
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said
averments and proof thereof is demanded.
77. Denied as stated. There is window flashing tape around the windows.
There is no exposed flashing as exposed flashing is not required.
78. Denied as stated. There is window flashing tape around the windows.
Neither exposed flashing nor weep holes are required.
79. Denied. It is denied that the Defendants improperly installed the windows.
80. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
MASTER BATHROOM
81.-82. Admitted.
83.-86. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and
proof thereof is demanded.
EXTERIOR
87--88. Admitted.
89. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that there are no weep holes
as they are not necessary due to the design of the foundation. The remainder of the
averments of Paragraph 89 are denied generally pursuant to 1029.
RETAINING WALL
90. Denied as stated. Defendants agreed to construct a small retaining wall at
the right rear of Plaintiff's salon.
91. Admitted that the wall contains four rows of E P Henry 12" deep retaining
blocks plus a cap block and is approximately 32" high.
92. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that no reinforcement was
placed behind the wall as it was not needed. The remainder of the averments in
Paragraph 92 are denied.
93. Admitted, except for stone abutting the wall.
94.-95. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and therefore said
averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
96.-97. Paragraphs 96 and 97 set forth a legal conclusions to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, said averments
are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
98. Insofar as the averments of Paragraph 98 refer to the Complaint and
report of Mr. Yingst, both are written documents which speak for themselves. By way of
further response, Paragraph 98 sets forth a legal conclusion to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
and strict proof thereof is demanded.
99. Paragraph 99 sets forth a legal conclusion to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
and strict proof thereof is demanded.
100. Denied. It is denied that Defendants have used subterfuges and or
evasions in dealing with the Plaintiff.
101. -106. Paragraphs 101 through 106 set forth a legal conclusions to which
no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, said
averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
107. The allegations of defects are denied. As for the balance of the
allegations, after reasonable investigation, Defendants have insufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and strict proof
thereof is demanded.
108. -112. After reasonable investigation, Defendants have insufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments. Therefore, said
averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment in their favor without costs to them.
COUNT II - VIOLATIONS OF HOME IMPROVEMENT CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT AND THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
113. Defendants repeat and reiterate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through
112 as if fully set forth at length herein.
114. Admitted that the Plaintiff purports to bring an action under the
Pennsylvania Home Improvement Protection Act and Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Laws.
115. Admitted.
116. Denied as stated. Some of the work was completed after July 1, 2009.
The project began prior to July 1, 2009.
117. Denied as stated. Some of the finish work was completed after July 1,
2009.
118. Admitted that the Act cited so indicates.
119. - 120. Paragraphs 119 through 120 set forth legal conclusions to which no
response is required.
121. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and strict proof is
demanded.
122. Paragraph 122 sets forth a legal conclusion to which no response is
required.
123. -134. The allegations of Paragraphs 123 through 134, and all of their
subparts, set forth legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a
response is deemed necessary, the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act
became effective on July 1, 2009, after the oral contract between the parties was
entered into, and after work on the project began.
135. Admitted.
136. Paragraph 136 sets forth a legal conclusion to which no response is
required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
and strict proof thereof is demanded.
137. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendants held
themselves out as being capable of performing construction and renovations to the
Plaintiffs property. The remainder of the allegations are legal conclusions to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, said averments
are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
138. Denied. It is denied that Defendants made false and misleading
statements. As to the balance of the allegations, after reasonable investigation,
Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of said averments are strict proof thereof is demanded.
139. - 140 Paragraphs 139 through 140 set forth legal conclusions to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, said averments
are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
141. Denied. It is denied that the Defendants' conduct was deceptive.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss the
Plaintiffs Complaint and enter judgment in their favor without costs to them.
COUNT III - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
142. Defendants repeat and reiterate all of their responses to Paragraphs 1
through 141 as if fully set forth at length herein.
143. -145. Denied. It is denied that Defendants misrepresented anything to the
Plaintiff. The balance of the allegations are denied as conclusions of law.
146. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and strict proof
thereof is demanded.
147. Admitted as the Defendants did possess the requisite skill.
148. Admitted as there were not deficiencies with Defendants' work.
149. -150. Denied as conclusions of law.
151. Admitted.
152. -153. Denied as conclusions of law.
154. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without information or
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments and strict
proof thereof is demanded.
155. Denied as the Defendants made no misrepresentations.
156. - 159. Denied as conclusions of law.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss the
Plaintiffs Complaint and enter judgment in their favor without costs to them.
COUNT IV - BREACH OF COMMON LAW IMPLIED WARRANTIES
160. Defendants repeat and reiterate all of their responses to Paragraphs 1
through 159 as if fully set forth at length herein.
161. Admitted that the Plaintiff purports to bring forth an action for breach of
implied warranties.
162. -165. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averments. Therefore, said
averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
166. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendants installed
the salon door properly on two occasions. It is denied that the Defendants chose the
salon door; rather, the Plaintiff requested the salon door from Steward Crum.
167. - 171. Denied. It is denied that Defendants' work was improper in any
way.
172. Admitted as weep holes are not necessary due to the design of the
foundation.
173. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the retaining wall
contains no reinforcement and has no drainage beyond the stones abutting the wall. It is
denied that these elements are required for the height of the particular wall installed.
174. Denied.
175. - 176 Paragraphs 175 and 176 set forth legal conclusions to which no
response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, said averments
are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment in their favor without costs to them.
NEW MATTER ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFF
177. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action against the Defendants
upon which relief may be granted.
178. The Defendants did not breach their duty of good faith and fair dealing.
179. Plaintiff has or may have failed to mitigate her damages.
180. The Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act took effect on July 1,
2009, after the oral contract between the parties and after the commencement of the
construction and is not applicable.
181. The Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act does not apply to this
contract.
182. The Defendants did not breach the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.
183. The Defendants made no fraudulent misrepresentations.
184. The Defendants performed their work in a workmanlike manner.
185. The Defendants did not breach any implied warranties.
186. Some or all of the damages alleged by the Plaintiff, the truth and extent of
which is specifically denied, may have been the result of the acts or omissions of third
parties to which the Defendants have no control.
187. Some or all of the damages alleged by the Plaintiff, the truth and extent of
which is specifically denied, may have been the result of product defects including
design and/or manufacture to which the Defendants have no control.
188. Some or all of the damages alleged by the Plaintiff, the truth and extent of
which is specifically denied, may have been the result of preexisting conditions with the
original residence to which the Defendants have no control.
189. Some or all of the damages alleged by the Plaintiff, the truth and extent of
which is specifically denied, may have been the result of the Plaintiffs own acts or
omissions to which the Defendants have no control.
190. Some or all of the Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the applicable
Statute of Limitations.
191. At all times relevant to the matters alleged in the Plaintiffs Complaint, the
Defendants conducted themselves in a proper, reasonable, lawful, professional and
prudent manner.
192. The claims of the Plaintiff are or may be barred because of spoliation of
evidence.
193. Any damages alleged by the Plaintiff, the truth and extent of which are
specifically denied, may have been caused by a superseding intervening cause.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss the
Plaintiffs Complaint and enter judgment in their favor without costs to them.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: f
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By. G-
ffrey B. Rettig
D. No. 19616
301 Market Street
P O Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 761-4540
jbr@jdsw.com
Counsel for Defendants
VERIFICATION
I, Steward Crum, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing
Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are true and correct to the
best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn
verification to authorities.
CF
By
'S ?2
DATE: 4,/.2
VERIFICATION
I, Steve Crum, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing
Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are true and correct to the
best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn
verification to authorities.
CRUM BR
By:
to a Cru
DATE: V 1251 z
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2012, the undersigned does hereby certify that
he did this date serve a copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Amended
Complaint upon the other parties of record by causing same to be deposited in the
United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed
as follows:
Bryan W. Shook, Esquire
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Counsel for Plaintiff
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By:
effrey . Re
Bryan W. Shook, Esquire
ID # 203250
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone - (717) 975-9446
Fax - (717) 975-2309
i- lLED-OV F}?
?:llL"??ERNSY?vpC,Nl?
pEN
Attorney for Plait
DANIELLE JACOBS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI
V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and : No: 12-2945 - CIVIL TERM
tld/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM, :
individually and t/b/d/a CRUM BROS., :
and CRUM BROS. an unincorporated
association,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Danielle Jacobs, by and through her
the DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC, by Bryan W. Shook, Esquire, and of
the following as her response to Defendants, Stewart A. Crum, individually and t/d
Crum Bros., Steve Crum, individually and t/d/b/a Crum Bros. and Crum Bros.
unincorporated association, New Matter and, in support thereof, avers as follows:
177. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred seven
seven (177) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which r
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed
the averments are specifically denied.
178. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred seve
eight (178) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which n
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requirled
the averments are specifically denied.
179. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred
nine (179) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requi
the averments are specifically denied.
180. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred
(180) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requ
the averments are specifically denied.
181. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred eig
one (181) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which rho
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requi
the averments are specifically denied.
182. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred e
two (182) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requi
the averments are specifically denied.
183. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred
three (183) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requ
the averments are specifically denied.
184. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred eig4ty
four (184) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which i o
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requir d
the averments are specifically denied.
185. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred eig ty
five (185) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which o
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed required
the averments are specifically denied.
186. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred eigh y
six (186) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which o
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requir(
the averments are specifically denied. To the extent that Defendants are allegir
that the acts or omission of third parties contributed to Plaintiff's injuries, Plaint
is, after reasonable investigation, without information sufficient to form a belief
the veracity of this allegation. Should Defendants believe that a third par
contributed to Plaintiff's injuries, Plaintiff urges Defendants to cross claim again
such third party and make Plaintiff aware of who they are.
187. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred eight
seven (186) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which n
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed require
the averments are specifically denied. To the extent that Defendants are allegin
that the acts or omission of a specific manufacturer contributed to Plaintiff
injuries, Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation, without information sufficient t
form a belief to the veracity of this allegation. Should Defendants believe that a
third party contributed to Plaintiff's injuries, Plaintiff urges Defendants to
claim against such manufacturer and make Plaintiff aware of who they are.
188. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred e
eight (188) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requi
the averments are specifically denied.
189. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred e
nine (189) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requ
the averments are specifically denied.
190. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred n
(190) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requ
the averments are specifically denied.
191. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred nin
one (191) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed
the averments are specifically denied.
192. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred ni
two (192) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requi
the averments are specifically denied.
193. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph one hundred nin
three (193) of Defendants' New Matter constitute conclusions of law to which
response is necessary. The extent that a response is judicially deemed requi
the averments are specifically denied.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court e
judgment in her favor and against Defendants as requested in her Amended Complain
Date:
Respectfully Sou/bmJitte
4ryan Shook, Esquire
I. D. # 203250
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Attorney for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
hereby verify that the statements of fact made in the Answe
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand
that any false statements therein are subject to the criminal penalties contained in 18
C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: 0 (d 1
~i N e: Danielle Jacobs
.. .
Bryan W. Shook, Esquire
ID #E 203250
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone - (717) 975-9446
-ti-uuuV,a,aw.wm Attorney for Pla.
DANIELLE JACOBS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN
V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and : No: 12-2945 - CIVIL TERM
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM,
individually and t/b/d/a CRUM BROS., :
and CRUM BROS. an unincorporated
association, ;
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Response
Defendants' New Matter, were hereby served by depositing the same within
custody of the United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed
follows:
Jeffrey B. Rettig
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Attorney for Defendants
Respectfully Submitted,
Dater 1 a , D 2??'
Bryan U. Shook, Esquire
DANIELLE JACOBS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : CIVIL ACTION — LAW
c
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and : No: 12-2945—CIVIL TERM
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM, : r
individually and tlb/d/a.CRUM BROS., : ca
and CRUM BROS. an unincorporated
association, _� ;�
Defendants CED r
v-4
CD
PRAECIPE
To the Prothonotary:
Kindly mark the above captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: 7— aZ 1- A o l3 By: ,
Bryan . Shook, Esquire
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
Attorney Id. No.: 203250
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-9446
Attorney for Danielle Jacobs
DANIELLE JACOBS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : CIVIL ACTION !LAW
STEWART A. CRUM, individually and : No: 12-2945-CIVIL TERM
t/d/b/a CRUM BROS., STEVE CRUM,
individually and t/b/d/a CRUM BROS., :
and CRUM BROS. an unincorporated
association,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE :iERVIGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe, were hereby served by
depositing the same within the custody of the'United States Postal Service, First Class,
postage prepaid,`addressed as follows:
Jeffrey B. Rettig
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Attorney for Defendants
Respectfully Submitt ,
Date: �- Ct`�-07 0/3 ,
Bra a . IV. Shook, .Esquire .