Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-4518 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff(s) & Address(es) Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a/s/o Lowell Latshaw 5050 W. Tilghman St., Suite 200 Allentown, PA 18104 VS. Case No. Civil Term Civil Action Law Defendant(s) & Address(es) REH Mechanical, 647 Alexander Spring Rd.,: Carlisle., PA 17015 AND Pentair Filtration Inc., 502 Indiana Rd.; Sheboygan, WI 53081 AND Quality Water Treatment, P.O. Box 1188, A1ta,CA 95701-1188 PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in the above case C ; n?- Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to Attorne j P ase Circle choice) VA- ttorney Date : July 17 , 2012 ignatur Print Name: Paul J. Hennessy Esq ire Address: 142 W. Market St.. Ste. 2 West Chester, PA 19382 Telephone #: 610-431-2727 Supreme Court ID Number: 65396 • • • • s r-° r WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: REH Mechanical AND Pentair Filtration Inc. AND Quality Water Treatm nt YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/HAVE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Date: JUL Q09 I L! Deputy L,44y SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor QF'F1CE(:cT?F -=.RIFF F PR 2912 AJGG-3 AID! 10: (05 CUMBERLAND COU TY PE'NNSY1_VAN Liberty Mutual Insurance Company vs. Case Number REH Mechanical 2012-4518 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 07/30/2012 10:32 AM - Elizabeth Muller, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on Jul) 30, 2012 at 1032 hours, she served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: REH Mechanical, by making known unto Ron Howard, Owner of REH Mechanical at 647 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. te. nn u-u MULLER, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $34.00 August 01, 2012 SO ANSWERS, 1?z ?? R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (c) Cour,, yyiiite Shonii, 1"e;eosoft, In 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS C) p -1 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ?r - c-) "rte LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. a/s/o CIVIL ACTION - LAW LOWELL LATSHAW, : { s Plaintiff, CASE NO. 12-4518 p _4 N V. REH MECHANICAL, PENTAIR FILTRATION INC., and QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, Defendants. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To the Prothonotary: Kindly enter the appearance of Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire, and Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire, of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, on behalf of Defendant, Pentair Filtration Inc., in the above-captioned matter. ?? ?rebauer, Esquire (PA I1M964i yle J. Meyer, Esquire (PA ID #307743) Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 Telephone : 717.23 7.6000 Facsimile: 717.237.6019 m ebauer&eckertseamans.com kmeyergeckertseamans. com Date: December 18, 2012 Attorneys for Pentair Filtration Inc. {L0501878.1 } ..4 P , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. a/s/o CIVIL ACTION - LAW C`-j C- rv C- LOWELL LATSHAW -V a N -? rnw .zm Plaintiff, CASE NO 12-4518 jr l . <> c 4 V. z N j REH MECHANICAL, PENTAIR FILTRATION INC., and QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, : Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT To the Prothonotary: Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a/s/o Lowell Latshaw, to file a Complaint in the above-captioned matter within twenty (20) days after service of this Rule or suffer Judgment of Non Pros. Mark L: Gebauer, Esquire (PA ID #79646) Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire (PA ID #307743) Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 Telephone: 717.23 7.6000 Facsimile: 717.237.6019 mgebauerneckertseamans.com kmeyer(2eckertseamans. com Date: December 18, 2012 Attorneys for Pentair Filtration Inc. {L0501683.1) .. . ! . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 18th day of December, 2012, a copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT was served via United States, First-Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire 142 West Market Street, Suite 2 West Chester, PA 19382 REH Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Quality Water Treatment P.O. Box 1188 Alta, CA 95701-1188 Mark E.GobhTe-r-,-Esquire Attorneys for Pentair Filtration Inc. L0501633.1 ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. a/s/o LOWELL LATSHAW, Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. REH MECHANICAL, PENTAIR FILTRATION INC., and QUALITY WATER TREATMENT Defendants. NO. 12-4518 RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this lot day of be C-1 , 2012, a Rule is hereby entered upon Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a/s/o Lowell Latshaw, to file a Complaint in the above-captioned matter within twenty (20) days after service of this Rule or suffer Judgment of Non Pros. Prothonotary Distribution: Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire, Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 213 Market Street, 8`h Floor, 81h Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire, 142 West Market Street, Suite 2, West Chester, PA 19382 REH Mechanical, 647 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, PA 17015 Quality Water Treatment, P.O. Box 1188, Alta, CA 95701-1188 L0501683.1) Paul J. Hennessy,Esquire Hennessy&Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 71 West Chester,Pa 19382 610-431-2727 ;:0 -urn r.a �:Uc) Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney for Plaintiffs -.e,> cn CD E5 C) Liberty Mutual Insurance Company In The Court of Common Pleas r a/s/o Lowell Latshaw Cumberland County, Pennsylvania V. Civil Action Law REH Mechanical and No. 12-4518 Ronald Howard and Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. and Quality Water Treatment . PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT PENTAIR, Inc. Plaintiff,Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw,by its counsel Hennessy& Walker Group, P.C.,hereby files the within Response in Opposition to the Preliminary Ojbections of Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. (herein"Pentair")to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and in support thereof responds as follows: 1. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs Complaint, being in writing, speaks for itself. By way of further response on December 21, 2012,Plaintiffs filed a Complaint asserting a negligence claim against Defendant REH Mechanical (herein REH") and Defendant Ronald Howard("Howard")and a products liability claim against Defendant Pentair and Defendant Quality Water Treatment. These claims are related to a December 24, 2010 water loss caused by a failure of a water softener system installed at the Devonshire Square Condominiums("Devonshire")( See Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit"A"at paragraph 16). It was determined that the loss occurred due to the fact that the water softener's control valve and drain line, both designed, constructed,assembled,produced, and/or sold by Defendant Pentair,were damaged and/or faulty and that said defects directly and proximately caused the loss. See Exhibit"A"paragraphs 17-24. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied as stated. The averments contained in paragraph 3 of Defendant's Preliminary objections contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.Plaintiff s Amended Complaint,being in writing, speaks for itself. It is admitted that Plaintiffs removed allegations of "willful,wanton,and/or reckless conduct from paragraph 47,and requested Attorney's fees from the original complaint. 4. Denied as stated. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint speaks for itself. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. Defendant Pentair misstates Plaintiff s allegations. With regards to the faulty and/or defective control valve,Plaintiff states: " It was determined that the loss occurred due to the fact that the control valve designed, constructed,assembled,produced and/or sold by Defendant Pentair was or became damaged and/or faulty when it was assembled by Defendant Pentair." See Plaintiff's Amended Complaint(Exhibit A at paragraph 16. with regard to the faulty and/or defective drain line,Plaintiff states: "...the loss was caused by the fact that the drain line designed, constructed, assembled,produced and/or sold by Defendant Pentair was unreliable and/or faulty... See Plaintiff's Amended Complaint(Exhibit A at paragraph 18). 7. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 7 of Defendant's Preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Any characterizations of the law by Defendants,however are denied. By way of further response, as plead in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Plaintiff s products liability claim is legally and factually sufficient, as required by Pa. R. C. P. 1019. 8. Denied. Paragraph 8 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections is an incorporation paragraph tp.whjch no response is required. To the extent a response is required the averments contained in paragraph 8 are denied. 9. Admitted. By way of further response, Plaintiff s products liability claim is legally and factually sufficient as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a)has been construed to mean that the Complaint must not only apprise the Defendant of the claim being asserted,but it must also summarize the essential facts to support the claim. See Cardenas v. Schober, 783 A.2d. 317, 325 (Pa. Super. 2001)(citing Dickerson v. Brind Truck Leasing, 524 A.2d 908, 910(Pa. Super. 1987). Moreover, preliminary objections should be sustained only when the law will not permit a remedy,"and where any doubt exists,that doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain the preliminary objections."P.J.S. v. Pennsyvlania State Ethics Commission, 669 A.2d. 1105, 1108 (Pa. Commw. 1996). In deciding whether to overrule or sustain preliminary objections,"[a]ll material facts set forth in the [pleading at issue] as well as all inferences reasonably deductible therefrom are admitted as true."Corestates Bank,N.A. v. Curtillo, 1999 Pa. Super. 14, 723 A.2d 1053, 1057 (Pa. Super. 1999). 10. Denied as stated. Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, being in writing speaks for itself. By way of further response, in order to prevail on a claim of strict liability against the seller of a defective product for injuries caused by that product, a Plaintiff's prima facie case under section 402(a)of the Restatement(Second)of Torts requires a showing that: (1)the product was defective; (2)that the defect existed at the time the product left the manufacturer's hands; and(3)that the defect was the proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries. See Walton v. Avco Corp., 530 Pa. 568, 575 (Pa. 1992); Barnish v. KWI Building Co., 602 Pa. 402 (Pa. 2009). Here,Plaintiff's Amended Complaint sufficiently sets forth a cause of action for products liability against Defendant Pentair by alleging: (1)that the control valve and drain line manufactured by Pentair were defective; (2)that the control valve and drain line were defective prior to leaving Pentair's hands; and(3)the defects inherent to the control valve and drain line proximately caused the injuries sustained to Plaintiffs. 11. Denied. See Plaintiff's response to paragraph number 10 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. By way of farther response, Pennsylvania is a fact pleading state. The purpose behind the rules of pleading is to enable parties to ascertain,by utilizing their own professional discretion,the claims and defenses asserted in the case. See Estate of Swift v. Northeastern Hospital of Philadelphia,690 A.2d 719, 723(Pa. Super. 1996). "While it is not necessary that the Complaint indentify the specific legal theory of the underlying claim, it must apprise the Defendant of the claim being asserted and summarize the essential facts to support that claim." Id. (citing Krajsa v. Keypunch, Inc., 622 A.2d 355, 357(Pa. Super. 1993). Here, Pennsylvania law does not require that Plaintiff's Complaint give a specific analysis, scientific or otherwise, as to the exact reason why Defendant Pentair's defective product caused the instant loss. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is sufficient under Pa.R.C. P. 1019 as it apprises Defendant Pentair of all the facts necessary to ascertain Plaintiff's product's liability claim,namely,that the control valve and drain line were defective at the time of the manufacture and that these products ultimately failed, causing the loss at issue. 12. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 12 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections are denied as conclusions of law. By way of further response, see Plaintiff s response No. 11. Pa-R.C.P. 1019(a)has been construed to mean that the Complaint must not only apprise the Defendant of the claim being asserted, but it also must summarize the essential facts to support the claim. See Cardenas, 783 A.2d 317 at 325 (citing Dickerson, 524 A.2d at 910(citations omitted)). It is the duty of the court to discover from the facts alleged in a complaint the cause of action, if any, stated therein, See Cardenas, 783 A.2d at 325 (citing Burnside v. Abbott Laboratories, 505 A.2d 973, 980 (Pa. Super. 1985)). In order for a pleading to be considered factually and legally sufficient,it must allege the facts needed to sustain the cause of action. See MeShea v. City of Philadelphia, 606 Pa. 88, 97 (Pa. 2010). As stated in Plaintiff s Response numbers 10 and 11, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint sufficiently sets forth a cause of action for products liability and is sufficient under Pa.R.C. P. 1019 as it apprises Defendant Pentair of all facts necessary to ascertain Plaintiff's products liability claim. 13. Denied as stated. Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, being in writing speaks for itself. By way of further response, see Plaintiff s Response Number 11. 14. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 14 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required the averments are denied. By way of further response, see Plaintiff's Response Number 11. 15. Denied as stated. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint,being in writing speaks for itself. By way of further response, see Plaintiff's Response Number 11. 16. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, being in writing speaks for itself. By way of further response, see Plaintiffs Response Number 11. 17. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint complies with Pa.R.C.P. 1019 as it apprises Defendant Pentair of the claim being asserted and summarizes the essential facts necessary to ascertain Plaintiffs products liability claim. See Cardenas, 783 A.2d 317 at 325. The technical reasons for the failure of the defective control valve and drain line will be disclosed to Defendant Pentair during the course of discovery through the use of expert testimony. However, such a technical analysis as to how and why the control valve and drain line failed is not required in Plaintiff s Complaint. 18. Denied. See Plaintiff's Response Number 15. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw respectfully requests that this Honorable Court OVERRULE and DENY the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Pentair,Inc. requesting that Plaintiff's products liability claim be dismissed. 19. Denied. Paragraph 19 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required, denied. 20. Admitted. 21. Denied The averments contained in paragraph 21 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 22. Denied. Please see Plaintiffs Response Number 11. E 23. Denied. Please see Plaintiff's Response Number 11. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw respectfully requests that this Honorable Court OVERRULE and DENY the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Pentair, Inc. requesting that Plaintiff's products liability claim be dismissed. 24. Denied. Paragraph 24 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. To the extent any response is required, denied. 25. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 25 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent a responsive pleading is required the averments are denied. 25. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 26 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent a responsive pleading is required the averments are denied. By way of fiuther response Plaintiff's Amended j Complaint properly states a cause of action for Products Liability. 27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 27 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent a responsive pleading is required the averments are denied. By way of further response Plaintiffs Amended Complaint properly states a cause of action for Products Liability. 28. Denied. . The averments contained in paragraph 28 of Defendant's Preliminary Objections contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent a responsive pleading is required the averments are denied. By way of firrther response Plaintiffs Amended Complaint properly states a cause of action for Products Liability. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw respectfully requests that this Honorable Court OVERRULE and DENY the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Pentair, Inc. requesting that Plaintiff's products liability claim be dismissed. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons,Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant Pentair, Inc.'s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint concerning Cout II of its Amended Complaint. Pik J. H essy, E re COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF CHESTER : ss The undersigned verifies that the facts contained herein are true and correct. The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa. C.S. Section 4904,relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. If applicable,this affidavit is made on behalf of the Plaintiff(s);that the said Plaintiff(s)is/are unable and unavailable to make this verification on its/his/her own behalf within the time allotted for filing of this pleading,and the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of counsel's knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024 and is based on interviews, conferences,reports,records and other investigative material in the file I Dated: Paul J. Hennessy,Esquire Hennessy&Walker Group,P.C. 142 W. Market street, Suite 2 West Chester,Pa 19382 610431-2727 Attorney I.D.65396 Attorney for Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell Latshaw Cumberland County,Pennsylvania V. :Civil Action Law REH Mechanical and :No. 12-4518 Ronald Howard and Pentair, Inc.d/b/a Pentair Water,Inc. aWa.Fleck Co.and Quality Water Treatment CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's Preliminary Objectionsupon the Defendant's counsel on March 22, 2013 by First Class United States mail,postage prepaid addressed as follows: Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin& Mellot, LLC 213 Market Street 8'h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Paul J.lHessy, Esquire Hennessy& Walk CP / 14 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for -XtLo Argument Court.) Please list this matter on the May 10, 2013 Argument List --------------------- CAPTION OF CASE CD -4c> (entire caption must be stated in full) Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a/s/o Lowell Latshaw WOO VS. --4 R.E.H. Mechanical, Ronald Howard, Pentair -V -**4 a No. 12-4518 CIVIL Term 1. State matter to be argued(i.e.,plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint,etc.): Pentair,int.'s Preliminary Objecdons to Plaintiffs Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire, Hennessy & Walker Group (Name and Address) 142 W. Market Street, West Chester, PA 19382, 610-431-2727 (b) for defendants: Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC (Name and Address) 213 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101, 717-237-6000 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: May 10,2013 Sign tur �Vure. Aver Print y6ur name' Pentair, Inc. Date: 4/5/2013 Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: I.Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary)before argument. 2.The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3.The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4.If argument Is continued now briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary)after the case is rellsted. GkU 49 9? 9'yr/VA&_ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 5`h day of April, 2013, a copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT was served via United States, First-Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Hennessy& Walker Group 142 W. Market Street West Chester, PA 19382 R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Quality Water Treatment P.O. Box 1188 Alta, CA 95701-1188 4E. e Esquire (PA ID#7964 6) , quire (PA ID#307743) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN& MELLOTT, LLC 213 Market Street, 8h Floor P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 Telephone: 717.23 7.6000 Facsimile: 717.23 7.6019 msebauerna eckertseamans com kmeverna eckertseamans com Date: April 5, 2013 Counsel for defendant, Pentair, Inc. f L0513174.11 i OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY CUMBERLAND COUNTY DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY Quality Water Treatment, Pro Se P. O. Box 1188 Alta, CA 95701-1188 DATE: April 22°d, 2013 TO defendant: THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT CASE NUMBER 2012-4518 Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. VS. Quality Water Treatment, et al. HAS BEEN LISTED FOR ARGUMENT ON MAY I01H, 2013. Cumberland County Argument Court Rules 1028(c), 1034(a) and 1035.2(a) shall be strictly enforced. If the issue was listed for prior argument you must re-file your brief as per Local Rule 1028(c) 10. Argument Court Schedule, showing the time you must appear in court, can he fm--A vu-o-+,. *1.-. •------- . David D. Buell U.S.POSTAG, Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, Ste.100 G!�r- 045. "'�V Carlisle, PA 17013 ZIP 17013 .- .� •�+ 2 0001368848 r3 2. CUM S��Va J P E�� I Quality Water Treatment, Pro Se P. O. Box 1188 �� Alta, CA 95701-1188 s c�lp� PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) please re-list this matter on the June 21, 2013 Argument -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) CD Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a/s/o Lowell Latshaw vs. -<:r>2> co o , R.E.H. Mechanical, Ronald Howard, Pentair, <� !`;I+t a-I;onT.�e Oval i+y I�ua�(er Ireaime�i 0 12-4518 civil � > No. Tercet cD > 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Pentair,Inc.'s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire, Hennessy & Walker Group (Name and Address) 142 W. Market Street, West Chester, PA 19382, 610-431-2727 (b) for defendants: Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC (Name and Address) 213 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 , 717-237-6000 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: June 21,2013 Sign` to e V�1fl e MejLC:C Print your name Pentair, Inc. Date: 5/7/2013 Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2.The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3.The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary)after the case is relisted. Pp A71� �d40o2.(pb CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 7th day of May, 2013, a copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT was served via United States, First-Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Hennessy & Walker Group 142 W. Market Street West Chester, PA 19382 R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Quality Water Treatment P.O. Box 1188 Alta, CA 95701-1188 Mark E. qeb uer, tsquire (PA ID #79646) Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire (PA ID #307743) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN&MELLOTT, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA. 17108-1248 Telephone: 717.23 7.6000 Facsimile: 717.23 7.6019 m ebauer_,eckertseamans.com kme ergeckertseamans.com Date: May 7, 2013 Counsel for defendant, Pentair, Inc. (L0513174.1) LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS a/s/o LOWELL LATSHAW, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW R.E.H. MECHANICAL; RONALD HOWARD; PENTAIR INC. d/b/a PENTAIR WATER, INC. a/k/a FLECK CO.; No. 12-4518 Civil Term QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, Defendants. IN RE: PENTAIR, INC.'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J., MASLAND, J. and PLACEY, J. ORDER AND NOW,this?l day of July, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and after oral argument, heard June 21, 2013,the Preliminary Objections of Defendant are SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part. For reasons contained in the opinion filed of even date herewith, Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Count II,purported negligence claim, are hereby SUSTAINED. AND FURTHER, Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Count II, strict products liability claim, are hereby OVERRULED. BY THE COURT, 7Kevi . Hess, P.J. »' = J Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire 142 West Market Street West Chester, PA 19382 For the Plaintiff J O Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire 213 Market Street, 8 Floor O P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 For Defendant Pentair, Inc. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS a/s/o LOWELL LATSHAW, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW R.E.H. MECHANICAL; RONALD HOWARD; PENTAIR INC. d/b/a PENTAIR WATER, INC. a/k/a FLECK CO.; No. 12-4518 Civil Term QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, Defendants. IN RE: PENTAIR INC.'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J.,MASLAND, J. and PLACEY, J. OPINION and ORDER Before the court are the preliminary objections of Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. (hereinafter"Pentair") to an Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (hereinafter"Liberty") as subrogee of Lowell Latshaw. (Prelim. Objs. to Pl.'s Am. Compl., filed Mar. 6, 2013). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains two counts: at Count I, a negligence claim against Defendant R.E.H. Mechanical (hereinafter "R.E.H.") and Ronald Howard and at Count I1, a products liability claim against Quality Water Treatment(hereinafter"QWT") and Pentair. (Pl.'s Am. Compl., filed Feb. 27, 2013). Pentair objects to Count II's strict products liability claim as factually and legally insufficient. (Prelim. Objs. to Pl.'s First Am. Compl., filed Mar. 6, 2013). Pentair also preliminarily objects to a purported negligence claim in Count 11 as factually insufficient, legally insufficient, and for failure to conform to law or rule of court.' (Prelim. Objs. to Pl.'s First Am. Compl., filed Mar. 6, 2013). This case was initiated by a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on July 20, 2012. (Praec. Writ Summs., filed July 20, 2012). The Praecipe for Writ of Summons was followed by the Plaintiff's initial Complaint. (Compl., filed Dec. 21, 2012). Pentair preliminarily objected to that initial Complaint. (Prelim. Objs. to Pl.'s Compl., filed Feb. 8, 2013). As result, Liberty filed an Amended Complaint. (Am. Compl., filed Feb. 27, 2013). Before us now are Pentair's Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Prelim. Objs. to Pl.'s Am. Compl., filed Mar. 6, 2013). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint may be summarized as follows: Liberty is an insurance company with its principal place of business at 5050 Tilghman Street, Suite 200, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18104. (Am. Compl.,¶ 1). At all times relevant, Lowell Latshaw owned a condominium at Devonshire Square Condominiums, 13 Devonshire Square, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. (Am. Compl.,¶6). Liberty provided insurance to Mr. Latshaw at all times relevant, and Liberty is acting as subrogee in the proceedings before us. (Am. Compl., ¶¶22, 24). Defendant QWT, located at 15431 Wilkshire Court, Houston, Texas 77069, is a company in the water softener business and regularly conducts business in Cumberland County. (Am. Compl.,¶2). In September of 2010, Mr. Latshaw purchased a water softener from Defendant QWT. (Am. Compl., ¶¶7, 11). The water softener contained a control valve and drain line, "both designed, constructed, assembled and/or sold by" Defendant Pentair, located at 5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 800, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416. (Am. Compl.,¶¶3, 13). R.E.H., located at 647 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015, is a company which In addition to the negligence claim at Count I,plaintiff also incorporates an allegation of negligence in one of the paragraphs in Count II. In paragraph 47,the plaintiff alleges that the"defective design,manufacturing defects and inadequate warnings relating to the water softener and its components were acts that amount to negligent conduct by defendants." 2 provides plumbing services. (Am. Compl.,¶ 5). Defendant Ronald Howard is an adult individual who does business as R.E.H. Mechanical at the business address of 647 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015. (Am. Compl.,¶4). Defendant Howard, on behalf of R.E.H., was hired to install the water softener system at Mr. Latshaw's condominium, and the water softener was installed on December 10, 2010. (Am. Compl.,¶¶ 8, 14). On December 24, 2010,the water softener failed and discharged water. (Am. Compl., ¶ 15). As a result, floors, walls, rugs, and other property were damaged. (Am. Compl., ¶ 15). Plaintiff avers that it has been determined that the control valve that Pentair provided"was, or became, damaged and/or faulty when it was assembled"by Pentair. (Am. Compl.,¶ 16). Likewise, Plaintiff contends that the drain line was "unreliable and/or faulty,"thus, causing the loss. (Am. Compl., 18). Plaintiff further avers that poor quality control by QWT allowed the faulty control valve and drain line to be incorporated into the water softener. (Am. Compl.,¶¶ 17, 19). Additionally, it is alleged that Defendants Howard and R.E.H.jointly caused the loss by improperly installing the water softener since: (i) they failed to install the water softener's retaining ring or failed to notice its absence, and (ii)they failed to properly test the water softener. (Am. Compl., $20). Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a), preliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading on several limited grounds, including the following: (2) Failure of a pleading to conform to law or rule of court . . .; (3) Insufficient specificity in a pleading; (4) Legal insufficiency of a pleading(demurrer).... Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2), (3), (4). 3 The standard of review for preliminary objections in this Commonwealth is well-settled. Preliminary objections are properly granted only when, "based on the facts pleaded, it is clear and free from doubt that the complainant will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish a right to relief." Mazur v. Trinity Area School Dist., 961 A.2d 96, 101 (Pa. 2008) (internal citations omitted). In considering preliminary objections, "all well-pleaded allegations and material facts averred in the complaint, as well as all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, must be accepted as true." Wurth by Wurth v. City of Philadelphia, 584 A.2d 403, 407 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). However,the trial court"need not accept as true conclusions of law, unwarranted inferences from fact, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion." Penn Title Insurance Co. v. Deshler, 661 A.2d 481, 483 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Initially, Pentair seeks the dismissal of Count II's products liability claim based on two grounds: (i) insufficient specificity, and(ii) legal insufficiency (demurrer). . Pennsylvania is a fact pleading jurisdiction. Foster v. UPMC South Side Hosp., 2 A.3d 655, 666 (Pa. Super. 20 10) (quoting Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1235 (Pa. Super. 2008). The plaintiff must state the material facts on which a cause of action is based "in a concise and summary form."Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). It is well established that a plaintiff's complaint must provide sufficient factual averments in order to sustain a cause of action. Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937, 942 (Pa. Super. 2011). The complaint must"not only give the defendant notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, but the complaint must also formulate the issues by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim." Id. (internal citations omitted). Moreover, the complaint must be sufficiently specific so that the opposing party will know how to prepare his defense. Commonwealth ex rel. Pappert v. Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 868 A.2d 624, 635 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). "Rule 1019(a) is satisfied if allegations 4 in a pleading . . . contain averments of all facts the plaintiff will eventually have to prove in order to recover . . . ." Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Shipley Humble Oil Co., 370 A.2d 438, 439 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). However,preliminary objections relating to the sufficiency of a pleading are not available as a tool to compel an opposing party to plead evidence and should be denied when items pleaded generally are readily available in discovery. Commonwealth. ex rel Milk Marketing Bd. v. Sunnybrook Dairies, Inc., 370 A.2d 765, 768 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). Lastly, our Supreme Court has held that"the lower court has broad discretion in determining the amount of detail that must be averred since the standard of pleading set forth in Rule 1019(a) is incapable of precise measurement." United Refrigerator Co. v. Appplebaum,189 A.2d 253, 255 (Pa. 1963). Comparably, a demurrer is "an assertion that a complaint does not set forth a cause of action or a claim on which relief can be granted." Lerner, 954 A.2d at 1234 (internal citations omitted). If any theory of law will support the claim raised by the complaint, dismissal is improper. Slaybaugh v. Newman, 479 A.2d 517, 519 (Pa. Super. 1984). Our Supreme Court has adopted § 402A of the Restatement(Second) of Torts as the law of Pennsylvania. Webb v. Zern., 220 A.2d 853, 854 (Pa. 1966). Section 402A states: (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if (a)the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and (b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection(1) applies although (a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and (b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. 5 Restatement(Second) of Torts § 402A (1965). Accordingly, success on a strict liability claim requires the plaintiff to prove that(1)the product was defective, and (2)the defect was the proximate cause of the harm. French v. Commonwealth. Assocs., Inc., 980 A.2d 623, 632 (Pa. Super. 2009). (citing Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co., 696 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 1997)). "There are three types of defective conditions which may give rise to strict liability: manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn defect."Id. The Superior Court has provided direction on preliminary objections regarding products liability claims in D'Antona v. Hampton Grinding and Wheel Company, Inc., et al., 310 A.2d 307 (Pa. Super. 1973). In D'Antona, the plaintiff was injured when a grinding wheel, a component of a grinding wheel machine, exploded. Id. at 308. On a theory of strict liability,the plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturer of the grinding wheel and the manufacturer of the grinding wheel machine. Id. Both defendants demurred to the complaint. Id. at 309. A demurrer was sustained as to the machine manufacturer and overruled as to the wheel manufacturer; that is to say, the trial court determined the complaint sufficiently set forth a cause of action against the wheel manufacturer but not the machine manufacturer. Id. Before ultimately holding that the plaintiff's complaint was sufficient to sustain a claim against machine manufacturer,the Superior Court found that the trial court was correct in holding that the complaint was sufficient as to the wheel manufacturer. Id. In doing so,the Superior Court affirmed the trial courts reliance on MacDougall v. Ford Motor Co., 257 A.2d 676 (Pa. Super. 1968) (overruled on other grounds in REM Coal Co., v. Clark Equipment Co., 563 A.2d 128 (Pa. Super. 1989)). MacDougall stated, "the occurrence of a malfunction of machinery in the absence of abnormal use and reasonable secondary causes is evidence of a `defective condition' within the meaning of§ 402A. . . ." Id. at 680. Furthermore, courts have been consistent in 6 recognizing a malfunction itself as circumstantial evidence of a defective condition. See Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 319 A.2d 914, 920 (Pa. 1974) (a plaintiff's hand in strict liability case will be strengthened by evidence of a specific defect but such evidence is not necessary to take the case to a jury); Ducko v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 639 A.2d 1204, 1204 (Pa. Super. 1994) (when party relies on malfunction of product to prove that it was defective, testimony identifying exact nature of defect is not essential). Applying the foregoing, Plaintiff has sufficiently plead a cause of action for strict products liability. Plaintiff avers that the water softener failed, discharged water, and that property was damaged. Plaintiff contends that the loss was due to the control valve which was damaged and/or faulty when it was assembled by Pentair and that the loss was caused by an unreliable and/or faulty drain line. No other components have been alleged as defective. Plaintiff avers what components of the water softener malfunctioned even though they do not make allegations as to the exact nature of the defect. However, at least at this initial stage, when all reasonable inferences must be accepted, the Plaintiff need only allege that the product malfunctioned._ Further evidence will be available in discovery, and, when formulating a defense, Pentair is, in any event, in a superior position of expertise concerning the control valve and drain line. Pentair further objects to a purported negligence claim in Count Il as factually and legally insufficient. Additionally, Pentair preliminarily objects to any such claim for failure to conform to law or rule of court. This additional preliminary objection is based on Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a), which states: "The plaintiff may state in the complaint more than one cause of action cognizable in a civil action against the same defendant. Each cause of action and 7 any special damage related thereto shall be stated in a separate count containing a demand for relief." Pa.R.C.P. 1020(a). To the extent that Count II contains a cause of action for negligence, Pentair's preliminary objections are sustained. Paragraph 47 of Plaintiff s original complaint stated, "[t]he Defendant's defective design, manufacturing defects and inadequate warnings relating to the water softener and its components were acts that amount to willful, wanton, andlor reckless conduct by the Defendants." (Compl., filed Dec. 21, 2012 ) (emphasis added). Pentair preliminary objected to that original complaint, including the language used in paragraph 47. As a result, in their Amended Complaint, Plaintiff modified paragraph 47 to state, "[t]he Defendant's defective design, manufacturing defects and inadequate warnings relating to the water softener and its components were acts that amount to negligent conduct by the Defendants." (Am. Compl.,¶47) (emphasis added). However, in Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Preliminary Objections of Defendant Pentair, Inc., the Plaintiff denies any intention to make such a claim. (Pl.'s Resp. Opp'n. Prelim. Objs.,¶¶21, 26, 28). Furthermore, at oral argument on June 21, 2013, Plaintiff represented that Count II is only meant to contain a claim for strict products liability. ORDER AND NOW, this ui day of July, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and after oral argument, heard June 21, 2013, the Preliminary Objections of Defendant are SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part. For reasons contained in the opinion filed of even date herewith, Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Count II, purported negligence claim, are hereby SUSTAINED. 8 AND FURTHER, Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Count II, strict products liability claim, are hereby OVERRULED. BY THE COURT, . A a-r-, Kevi . Hess, P.J. Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire 142 West Market Street West Chester, PA 19382 For the Plaintiff Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire 213 Market Street, 8t'Floor P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 For Defendant Pentair, Inc. 9 r, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LOWELL LATSHAW, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION - LAW =t; V. --� G y R.E.H. MECHANICAL, CASE NO. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD, acs -v PENTAIR, INC., d/b/a PENTAIR G , WATER, INC. a/k/a FLECK CO., QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, Defendants. NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw c/o Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Hennessy& Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 West Chester,PA 19382 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the New Matter set forth in Pentair, . Inc.'s Answer to plaintiff's Amended Complaint within twenty(20) days from service hereof or a judgment maybe entered against you. (L0526404.1) Respectfully submitted, Mark E bauer, ksquire (PA ID #79646) Kyle J. eyer, Esquire (PA ID #307743) Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 Telephone: 717.23 7.6000 Facsimile: 717.237.6019 mizebauer@eckertseamans.com kmeyer@eckertseamans.com Date: August 19, 2013 Counsel for Pentair, Inc. (LO526404.1) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LOWELL LATSHAW, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. R.E.H. MECHANICAL, CASE NO. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD, PENTAIR, INC., d/b/a PENTAIR WATER, INC. a/k/a FLECK CO., QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, Defendants. DEFENDANT PENTAIR, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT For its Answer to plaintiff's Amended Complaint, defendant Pentair, Inc. ("Pentair") states: ANSWER TO "PARTIES" 1. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1. 2. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 2. 3. It is admitted that Pentair, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with a business location at 5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 800, Golden Valley, Minnesota, 55416. Pentair denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 3. f L0526045.1} 4. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 4. 5. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5. ANSWER TO "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS" 6. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 6. 7. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7. 8. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8. 9. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9. 10. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 10. 11. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11. 12. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 12. 13. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13. 14. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14. 2 15. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 15. 16. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 16. By way of further response, the language "[i]t was determined" is vague and ambiguous, and Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this allegation in paragraph 16. 17. Pentair denies the allegation in paragraph 17 that the control valve was "damaged and/or fault [sic]." By way of further response, Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 17 relating to the quality control of co-defendant QWT. The remaining allegations in paragraph 17 are denied. 18. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 18. 19. Pentair denies the allegation in paragraph 19 that the drain line was "unreliable and/or faulty." By way of further response, Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 19 relating to the quality control of co-defendant QWT. The remaining allegations in paragraph 19 are denied. 20. Pentair denies the allegation in paragraph 20 that the water softener contained defects caused by Pentair. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 20. 21. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 21. 22. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 22. 23. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 23. 3 24. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 24. ANSWER TO COUNT I 25. Pentair incorporates herein its answers to paragraphs 1 through 24, above. 26. The allegations in paragraph 26 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 26. 27. The allegations in paragraph 27(a)-(k) are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 27(a)-(k). 28. The allegations in paragraph 28 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 28. 29. The allegations in paragraph 29 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 29. ANSWER TO COUNT II 30. Pentair incorporates herein its answers to paragraphs 1 through 29, above. 31. The allegations in paragraph 31 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 31. 4 32. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 32, incorporates its answer to paragraph 3, above, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the identity of the control valve and drain line alleged in the Amended Complaint. 33. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 33. By way of further response, Pentair is not responsible for alterations to its products after manufacture. 34. The allegations in paragraph 34 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 34. 35. The allegations in paragraph 35 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 35. 36. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 36. 37. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 37. 38. The allegations in paragraph 3 8 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 38. 39. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 39. 40. The allegations in paragraph 40 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 40. 41. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 41. 42. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 42. 43. The allegations in paragraph 43 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 43. 5 44. The allegations in paragraph 44 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 44. 45. The allegations in paragraph 45 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 45. 46. The allegations in paragraph 46 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 46. 47. This paragraph was stricken by the Court's July 26, 2013 Order, which sustained in part and overruled in part Pentair's Preliminary Objections to the Amended Complaint. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 47. 48. The allegations in paragraph 48 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 48. 49. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 49, and denies that it is liable for any damages. NEW MATTER To the extent supported by the facts and the law, Pentair may rely upon the following defenses and affirmative defenses. 50. Pentair incorporates the averments and denials of the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein. 51. Pentair denies each and every allegation contained in the Amended Complaint that was not specifically admitted by Pentair. 52. By order dated July 26, 2013, the Court sustained Pentair's Preliminary Objection to plaintiff's purported negligence claim in paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint. 53. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 6 54. Some or all of plaintiff's claims may be barred by the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitations and/or repose for such actions. 55. Plaintiffs demands for pre judgment interest and for imposing joint and several liability have no basis in law and should be dismissed. 56. There exists no proximate cause between any of plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages and any alleged act or omission on the part of Pentair. 57. Any alleged act or omission on the part of Pentair was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's alleged damages as plaintiff's damages were solely the result of acts, omissions, or conduct of persons or entities over which Pentair exercised no control. 58. The acts and/or omissions of other individuals or entities, over which Pentair exercised no control, constitute intervening or superseding causes for the damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff. 59. The damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff were solely or partly the result of acts or omissions on the part of persons or entities other than Pentair, who were not under the control or right of Pentair, and for whom Pentair is not liable. 60. To the extent plaintiff failed to reduce and/or mitigate any and all damages referred to in the Amended Complaint, plaintiff may have no recovery against Pentair. 61. The product in question was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. 62. Plaintiff's claims are barred because the product was materially altered. 63. Plaintiff's claims are barred because the accident in question and plaintiff's alleged damages were caused by the misuse or unintended use of the product, and/or plaintiff's actions were contrary to instructions and warnings. 7 64. Any alleged risks associated with the product were open, obvious, and known. 65. The subject product was designed and manufactured and/or distributed in conformity with the applicable state of the art, industry standards and/or consumer expectations. 66. The utility of the subject product outweighs the alleged risk, the product is not unreasonably dangerous and strict liability does not apply. 67. Plaintiff's claims are barred due to the express or implied assumption of the risk. 68. Plaintiff's claims are barred or reduced by plaintiff's contributory negligence and/or comparative fault. 69. Pentair reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses which may be disclosed during the investigation of this case or throughout the discovery process. WHEREFORE, having fully answered plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Pentair respectfully requests this Court to enter its Order: a) Dismissing plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice; b) Entering judgment in favor of Pentair; C) Awarding Pentair her costs of defense; and d) Awarding such further relief as the Court deems just. CROSS-CLAIMS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 1. Pentair denies the material allegations of the Amended Complaint and denies any liability to plaintiff, but pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, Pentair asserts cross-claims against each of the co-defendants, based upon their sole liability on the underlying causes of action and/or the liability to or with Pentair under contractual or common law indemnity and/or contribution. 8 WHEREFORE, Pentair respectfully requests judgment be entered in its favor on its cross-claims, with costs and such further relief as the Court deems just. Respectfully submitted, 4 �km/L Mark E. e uer, Es uire (PA ID #79646) Kyle J. leAr, Esquire (PA ID 4307743) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN& MELLOTT, LLC 213 Market Street, Bch Floor P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 Telephone: 7 17.23 7.6000 Facsimile: 717.237.6019 mgebauergeckertseamans.com kmeyer@eckertseamans.com Date: August 19, 2.013 Attorneys for Pentair, Inc. 9 VERIFICATION I, Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire, do hereby verify that any facts set forth in the foregoing Pentair Inc.'s Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I am the attorney representing Pentair Inc. in this matter, and am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. Pentair Inc. is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and verification from Pentair Inc. cannot be obtained within the time'allowed for filing this pleading. A Verification has been provided to Pentair Inc. for execution. Upon receipt of that Verification by the undersigned, the same will be filed with the Court as a substitute Verification of this pleading. I understand that all statements contained herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: August 19, 2013 . Kyle J. lyt, Esq 're Counsel for Pentair, Inc. {L0526389.1} CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 19th day of August, 2013, a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT PENTAIR, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT was served via United States, First-Class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Quality Water Treatment Hennessy & Walker Group, P.C. 125 Heaaula Street 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 Haiku, Hawaii 96708 West Chester, PA 19382 Ronald Howard R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Carlisle, PA 17015 Kyle J. e r, Es ire Counse fo Pentair, Inc. ty Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire i;i:. i,Hi `P R 6'r H0N0 TARY Hennessy & Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 2D 3 St:.P 12 PM 1; 4 9 West Chester, PA 19382 610-431-2727 UMBERLAND COUNT'- Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney for�'P�§Pfy,VVANIA Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas. a/s/o Lowell Latshaw : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania V. : Civil Action Law REH Mechanical : No. 12-4518 AND Ronald Howard And Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair- Water, Inc: a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter of Defendant Pentair, Inc. 50. Denied. Paragraph 50 of Defendant Pentair, Inc.'s New Matter is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required the averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 51. Denied. Paragraph 51 of Defendant Pentair, Inc.'s New Matter is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required the averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 52. Admitted. 53. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 53 of Defendant's New Matter contains conclusion and conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 54-57. Denied. The averments contained in paragraphs 54 through 57 of Defendant's New Matter contains conclusion and conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 58. Denied. After reasonable investigation Plaintiff is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the averments contained in paragraph 58 of Defendant's New Matter, therefore the averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 59. Denied. After reasonable investigation Plaintiff is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the averments contained in paragraph 59 of Defendant's New Matter, therefore the averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 60. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff failed to reduce and/or mitigate the damages referenced in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 61-69. Denied. The averments contained in paragraphs 61 though 69 of Defendant's New Matter contain conclusions and conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required the averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff; Liberty Mutual.Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lowell Latshaw respectfully demands jiidginent against.Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, lne. a/k/a Fleck Co. for darnages in the amount of$17,558.11 plus interest, costs, and any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant Pentair's Cross-Claims Against All Defendants 1. Denied. The averments contained in Defendant Pentair's Cross-Claims Against All Defendants are not directed to Plaintiff, and as such do not require a responsive pleading. To the extent a responsive pleading is required by Plaintiff the averments are denied. Strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lowell Latshaw respectfully demands judgment against Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. for damages in the amount of$17,558.11. plus interest, costs, and any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. P' ul J. H nnessy, Es Hennessy & Walker Group, P.C. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF CHESTER : ss The undersigned verifies that the facts contained herein are true and correct. The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. If applicable, this affidavit is made on behalf of the Plaintiff(s); that the said Plaintiff(s) is/are unable and unavailable to make this verification on its/his/her own behalf within the tirne allotted for filing of this pleading, and the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of counsel's knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024 and is based on interviews, conferences, reports, records and other investigative material in the file Dated: Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Hennessy& Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 West Chester, PA 19382 610-431-2727 Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney for Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell Latshaw : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania V. : Civil Action Law REH Mechanical : No. 12-4518 AND Ronald Howard And Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant Pentair's New Matter upon the Defendants on September 10, 2013, by First Class United States mail, postage prepaid addressed as follows: Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8"' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Quality Water Treatment 15431 Wilkshire Court Houston, TX 77069 0 Yaull J. H nessy, Esq ire Hennessy& Wal . . 1 2;11 m3 Paul .1. Hennessy, Esquire I✓ t S` LV lA Hennessy & Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 West Chester, I'A 19382 I 610-431-2727 11 Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney For Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw Liberty Mutual Insurance Company: In The Court of Common Pleas 4 1 a/s/o Lowell Latshaw : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania v. : Civil Action Law R.I/.II. Mechanical : No. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD PENTAIR, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment Insurance Company of Greater New : In The Court of Common Pleas P York, as subrogee of Devonshire : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Square Condominium Association : Civil Action Law v. : No. 12-7514 Quality Water Treatment Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. !a Ronald Howard AND R.E.H Mechanical MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE UNDER RULE 213(a) Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw by and ii through their attorney, Paul .I. Hennessy, Esquire, hereby moves this Honorable Court. pursuant to Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order joining the above- captioned actions for purposes of discovery and trial as 1 follows: it 1. The above-captioned captioned actions arise from a December 24, 2010 water loss caused by a failure of a water softner system installed at Devonshire Square Condominiums of which Plaintiff insured Lowell Latshaw owned a unit. 2. On July 20, 2012, Plaintiffs 1,iberty Mutual Insurance Company initiated the present action by filing a Writ of Summons in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."" 3. On December 14, 2012, the action initiated by Insurance Company of Greater New York. as subrogee of Devon Shire Square Condominium Assocation was filed in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhbit :' 4. These litigations involve the same witnessess and substantially the same 11 documents. 5. Consolidation of the above actions will not prejudice any substantial rights of any party to the actions, will alleviate the danger of inconsistent awards and will avoid the cost and inconvenience of separate discovery and hearings. 6. The above captioned cases arise from the same transaction or occurrence. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw respectfully requests that the above matters shall be consolidated for all discovery and trial. Respectfully Submitted: ed , By: A ?� , dI Paul J. H, nessy, Esquire it Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Hennessy & Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 West Chester, PA 19382 610-431-2727 Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney For Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell Latshaw : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania v. : Civil Action Law R.E.M. Mechanical : No. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD PENTAIR, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment Insurance Company of Greater New: In The Court of Common Pleas York, as subrogee of Devonshire : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Square Condominium Association : Civil Action Law v. : No. 12-7514 Quality Water Treatment Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard AND R.E.H Mechanical MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LIBERTY MUTUAL a/s/o LOWELL LATSHAW'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE The above captioned matters arise from a December 24, 2010, water loss that was caused by a failure of a water softner system installed at Devonshire Square Condominiums of which Plaintiffs insured Lowell Latshaw owned a unit. See Exhibits "A" and-B." Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 213 (a) provides for the consolidation of matters arising from the same occurrence to avoid unnecessary cost and delay. Rule 213 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides: Questions of law or fact or which arise from the same transaction or occurrence, the Court on its own motion or on the motion of any party may order a joint hearing or trial of any matter and issue in the actions, may order the actions consolidated and they make orders that avoid unnecessary delay or cost. The phrase ``arising from the same transaction or occurrence" was added to Rule 213(a) 1990 to recognize that "sound judicial administration" favors handling "together all cases arising from the same transaction or occurrence." Pa R. C. P. 213, explanatory, 1990. As amended Rule 213 applies whether "the actions (have to be consolidated) involve the same or different persons." Id. It authorizes the Court to provide for a joint trial, consolidate the actions or make such order as it deems appropriate." Id. Rule 213(a) has at its purpose conservation of judicial resources, avoidance of duplicative efforts by the Court and the parties, and prevention of inconsistent verdicts or judgments. PA R. C. P. 213; Sisc. V. Duffy, 201 Pa. Super. 213, 192 A. 2d. 251 (1963); 13 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 8213(a)2. The above captioned cases arise from the same transaction or occurrence. These litigations involve the same witnesses and substantially the same documents. If the actions are not consolidated, the parties will expend unnecessary resources by having two separate trials involving the same witnesses, documents and substantially similar legal arguments on Plaintiffs' claims and defendant's defenses thereto. In order to protect the rights of the parties and minimize duplicative efforts by the Court, the above cases should be consolidated for purposes of trial. Moreover, it is long-standing and well settled law in Pennsylvania that courts allow consolidation whenever possible in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Schwartz v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., 34 Pa. D. & C.546 (1939). If these actions are not consolidated there is a real danger of inconsistent rulings to the Plaintiff s detriment. Furthermore, these cases involve the same witnesses and exhibits. Having multiple trials that will inevitably involve the same witnesses and documents would be a waste of the Court's time and resources. In order to protect the parties and minimize duplicative efforts by the Court the above captioned cases should be consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw respectfully requests that the above matters shall be consolidated for all discovery and trial. Respectfully Submitted, Hennessy & Walker Group, P.C. caul J. '7'ennessy, Esquir Paul 3. Hennessy. Esquire Hennessy& Walker 142 West Market Street West Chester, PA 19382 610-431-2727 Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney for Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell Latshaw 5050 West 'Tilghman Street, Suite 200 : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Allentown, PA 18014 vs. : Civil Action Law REH Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road : No: 12-4518 Carlisle, PA 17015 AND Ronald Howard ' "' 647 Alexander Spring Road —� ; . Carlisle, PA 17015 ; " c-) AND r,a Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. N, a/k/a Fleck Co. - - 5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55416 AND Quality Water Treatment 15431 Wilkshire Court Houston, TX 77069 AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a1s/o Lowell Latshaw, by its counsel Hennessy & Walker Group, states in its Complaint against Defendant Quality Water Treatment, Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co., Defendant Ronald Howard individually and d/b/a Defendant R.E.I I. Mechanical the following: PARTIES 1 1. Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw is a corporation with a principal place of business located at 5050 Tilghman Street, Suite 200 in Allentown, PA hereto regularly conducts its insurance business in and about this judicial district. 2. Defendant. Quality Water Treatment ("QWT") is, under information and belief, a company which designs,assembles, constructs, produces and sells water softener systems with a business address of 15431 Wilkshire Court, Houston, Texas 77069, which at all times material hereto regularly conducted business in and about this judicial district. 3. Defendant,Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. ("Pentair") is, under information and belief, a company which designs, assembles, constructs,produces and sells water softener valves with a business address of 5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 800, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416, which at all times material hereto regularly conducted business in and about this judicial district. 4. Defendant, Ronald Howard ("Howard") is an adult individual, who upon information and belief,provides plumbing services and does business as R.E.I 1. Mechanical, with a business address 647 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015. 5. Defendant R.E.H. Mechanical ("R.E.H.") is,upon information and , belief, a company which provides plumbing services, organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business located at 647 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015, which at all times material hereto conducted its business in and about this judicial district. I i FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. At all times material hereto, on or before December 24. 2010, Plaintiffs' subrogor owned a condominium located at Devonshire Square Condominiums. 13 Devonshire Square, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 7. At all times relevant Plaintiffs insured,Lowell Latshaw purchased a new water conditioning system in September,2010. The unit was installed on on or about December 10, 2010. 8. At all times material hereto, Defendant Howard was an individual hired and engaged through his business,Defendant R.E.H., to install a water softener system ("the water softener") at the condominium unit (the"Unit") at 13 Devonshire Square, Mechanicsburg,Pennsylvania 17050. 9. At all times material hereto, Defendant R.E.II. was the company engaged to install the water softener at the Unit. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendants Howard and R.E.H. acted by and through their employees, agents, servants, workers and subcontractors, each of whom was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority, subject to the control and direction, and for the benefit of his or her respective principal and employer, the Defendants herein, Howard and R.E.H. 11. "[he Unit's owner purchased the water softener from Defendant QWT. 12. The water softener was designed,constructed, assembled, produced and/or sold by Defendant QWT. i 3. At all times material hereto, the water softener contained a control valve and a drain line to the control valve. both designed, constructed. assembled, produced and/or sold b P by Defendant Pentair. 14. On or about December 10,2010, Defendant Howard,on behalf of Defendant R.E.H., installed the water softener at the Unit. 15. On or about December 24, 2010,the water softener failed and discharged water, causing damage to the floors, walls, rugs and other property owned by Devonshire. 16. It was determined that the loss occurred due to the fact that the control valve designed, constructed,assembled,produced and/or sold by Defendant Pentair was or became damaged and/or faulty when it was assembled by Defendant Pentair. 17. The damaged and/or fault control valve was allowed to be incorporated into the water softener due to the poor quality control of Defendant QWT. 18. Additionally, the loss was caused by the fact that the drain line designed.constructed, assembled,produced and/or sold by Defendant Pentair was unreliable and/or faulty. 19. The unreliable and/or faulty drain line was allowed to be incorporated into the water softener due to the poor quality control of Defendant QWT. 20. Finally, the loss was jointly caused by Defendants Howard and R.E.H. due to the fact that they improperly installed the system by: (1) failing to install the water softener's retaining ring or failing to notice its absence and (2)failing to properly test the water softener, which would have detected the system's defects caused by Defendants Pentair and QWT. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' acts and/or omissions, the water damage caused significant property damage throughout the condominium owned by Lowell Latshaw. 22. At the time of the incident, Liberty Mutual provided insurance to Lowell Latshaw. 23. Pursuant to the policy of insurance between Liberty Mutual and Latshaw, Liberty Mutual made payments to Latshaw for the damage caused by the wafer softener failure and subsequent water intrusion. 24. To the extent of the aforesaid payments by Liberty Mutual, Liberty Mutual is subrogated to Latshaw's rights against Defendants, QWT, Pentair, Howard and R.E.H. COUNT I PLAINTIFF V. HOWARD AND R.E.H. NEGLIGENCE 25 Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraph 1 through 24 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 26. Defendants Howard and R.E.H. owed a duty of care to Lowell Latshaw to use reasonable care in installing the water softener and to not cause any damage to Latshaw. 27. The aforesaid damage to Iatshaw's condominium was the direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants Howard and R.E.H., including but not limited to: (a) Failing to install the water softener's retaining ring; (b) Failing to determine the water softener's retaining ring was absent; (c) Failing to properly test the water softener; (d) Causing and/or allowing the damage to Lowell Latshaw's condominium; (e) Failing to prevent the damage to Lowell Latshaw's condominium; (f) Failing to notice, observe, understand, discern and/or perceive the dangerous condition caused by the failure to install the water softener's retaining ring; (g) Failing to notice, observe, understand,discern and/or perceive the dangerous condition caused by the failure to properly test the water softener; (h) Failing to warn Lowell Latshaw of the dangerous condition caused by the failure to install the water softener's retaining ring; (i) Failing to warn the Unit's owner or Devonshire of the dangerous condition caused by the failure to properly test the water softener; (j) Failing to act in a reasonable prudent manner in disregard of the property; and (k) Failing to comply with the standard of care in the industry. 28. The aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants Howard and R.E.H. proximately caused and directly resulted in the water softener failure that caused significant water damage to Lowell Latshaw's condominium on December 24, 2010. Due to their aforesaid acts and omissions, Defendants Howard and R.E.H. are liable to Liberty Mutual. 29. As a result of said negligence, Liberty Mutual suffered damages in the amount of$17,558.11 WHEREFORE. Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance, as subrogee of Lowell Latshaw respectfully demands judgment against Defendant Ronald Howard and Defendant R.E.H. Mechanical for damages in the amount of$17,558.11 plus interest, costs, and any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT II PLAINTIFF V. QWT AND PENTAIR PRODUCTS LIABILITY 30. PIaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though more fully set forth herein at length. 31. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant QWT'manufactured, designed, assembled, produced, advertised,promoted, marketed, sold and/or distributed water softener systems such as the water softener that caused the loss. 32. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Pentair manufactured, designed, assembled, produced, advertised,promoted,marketed, sold and/or distributed water softener control valves and drain Iines such as those incorporated into the water softener that caused the loss. 33. Defendant QWT's water softener systems and Defendant Pentair's control valves and drain lines incorporated into said water softener systems were expected to and did reach the usual consumers,handlers, and persons coming into contact with said products without substantial change in the condition in which they were designed, produced, manufactured, sold, installed and marketed by Defendants QWT and Pentair. 34. At all times.QWT's water softener, including its components provided by Defendant Pentair, were in an unsafe, defective and inherently dangerous condition,and as a result were dangerous to consumers. particularly Devonshire and its residents. 35. The water softener manufactured, designed, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold and/or distributed by Defendant QWT was defective in design or formulation in that, when installed the foreseeable risks exceeded the benefits associated with the design or formulation of the water softener. 36. The control valve and drain line manufactured, designed, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold and/or distributed by Defendant Pentair were defective in design or formulation in that, when installed the foreseeable risks exceeded the benefits associated with the design or formulation of the control valve and drain line. 37. At all times mentioned herein, QWT's water softener and its components provided by Defendant Pentair were in a defective condition and unsafe, and Defendants QWT and Pentair knew or had reason to know that said products were defective and unsafe, especially when used in the form and manner as provided by the Defendants. 38. The water softener manufactured,designed, advertised, promoted, marketed,sold and/or distributed by Defendant QWT was defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions as Defendant QWT knew or should have known that it was subject to failure and Defendant QWT had a duty to warn Devonshire of same. 39. The control valve and drain line manufactured, designed, advertised, promoted,marketed, sold and/or distributed by Defendant Pentair were defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions as Defendant Pentair knew or should have known that they was subject to failure and Defendant Pentair had a duty to warn Devonshire of same. 40. Defendant QWT knew, or should have known, that at all times herein mentioned the water softener they designed was defective, inherently dangerous and unsafe. 41. Defendant Pentair knew, or should have known,that at all times herein mentioned the control valve and drain line they designed were defective, inherently dangerous and unsafe. 42. At all times,the aforesaid products were being used for the purpose and in the manner normally intended. 43. Defendants QWT and Pentair manufactured, designed, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold and/or distributed a defective products which created an unreasonable risk to consumers and to Devonshire, in particular, and Defendants QWT and Pentair are therefore strictly liable for the loss. 44. Defendants QWT and Pentair had a duty to create a product that was not unreasonably dangerous for its normal, intended use. 45. Lowell Latshaw could not, by the exercise of reasonable care, discover the defective nature of the water softener. 46. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants QWT and Pentair have become strictly liable in tort to the Plaintiff for the manufacture,design, advertisement, promotion, marketing, sale and/or distribution of defective products. 47. The Defendants' defective design, manufacturing defects and inadequate warnings relating to the water softener and its components were acts that amount to negligent conduct by Defendants. 48. Defendants QWT and Pentair are strictly liable in tort for the loss and the Plaintiff cannot be held liable due to contributory negligence as the Unit's owner was a consumer purchasing products,not a party involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of the defective products. 49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' defective design, manufacturing defects and inadequate warnings relating to the water softener and its components, Liberty Mutual suffered damages in the amount of$17,558.11. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,as subrogee of Lowell Latshaw respectfully demands judgment against Defendant Quality Water Treatment and Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. for damages in the amount of$17,558.11 plus interest, costs,and any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. � : Ill J. rennessy, s• •"re Hennessy& talker COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF CHESTER : ss The undersigned verifies that the facts contained herein are true and correct. The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. If applicable, this affidavit is made on behalf of the Plaintiff(s);that the said Plaintiff(s) is/are unable and unavailable to make this verification on its/his/her own behalf within the time allotted for filing of this pleading,and the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of counsel's knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024 and is based on interviews, conferences, reports, records and other investigative material in the file r Dated: 2-z5 Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Hcnnessy & Walker 142 West Market Street West Chester, PA 19382 610-431-2727 Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney for Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell Latshaw : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania vs. : Civil Action Law REH Mechanical : No: 12-4518 AND Ronald Howard AND Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint upon the Defendants on February 25, 2013 by First Class United States mail, postage prepaid addressed as follows: Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin& Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8`� Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Quality Water"Treatment 15431 Wilkshire Court Houston, TX 77069 Paul J. nnessy, E • . re 1 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Emanuel A. Chryssos, Esquire a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. Attorney I.D. No.: 93661/311608 Assoc. 1171 Lancaster Avenue Suite 101 Berwyn,PA 19312 Telephone:(484)318-7225 Facsimile: (484) 318-7248 E-mail:mmatkov @saltzmatkov.com INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NEW YORK,as subrogee of Devonshire : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Square Condominium Association • 200 Madison Avenue • New York, NY 10016, • Plaintiff, : V. • � QUALITY WATER TREATMENT • NO.: IQ`')J Jy. rn rn 15431 Wilkshire Ct. • C1y t 0O Houston,TX 77069, • _46 • PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water,Inc. a/k/a • 3rn Fleck Co. • >z p 5500 Wayzata Blvd. "{� ca crt Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55416, RONALD HOWARD CIVIL ACTION- LAW 647 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle,PA 17015 & • R.E.H. MECHANICAL • 647 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle, PA 17015, Defendants. • NOTICE TO DEFEND "You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the d.) following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice ot 7spil avk a .-* INI a' *peg 330 2 4. are served, by entering a written appearance 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 the Court without further notice may enter Judgment against you for any money claimed in the Complaint of for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. "YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP." CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE,PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 AVISO "Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte(20) dias de plazo at partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace faits asentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las deanandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la cone tomara mediadas y peude continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo avios o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del detnandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisions de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes pars usted. "LLEVE ESTA DEMAND A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE, SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICO,VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME FOR TELEFONO A LA OFFICINA CUYA DIRECION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUER ASISTENCIA LEGAL." CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE,PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 2 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov,Esquire Company of Greater New York Emanuel A. Chryssos,Esquire a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. Attorney 1.D.No.: 93661/311608 Assoc. 1171 Lancaster Avenue Suite 101 Berwyn,PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 318-7225 Facsimile: (484)318-7248 E-mail:mmatkov@saltzmatkov.com INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NEW YORK,as subrogee of Devonshire CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PA Square Condominium Association 200 Madison Avenue New York,NY 10016, Plaintiff, • v. • QUALITY WATER TREATMENT NO.: 15431 Wilkshire Ct. Houston,TX 77069, • PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a • Fleck Co. 5500 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 800 • Minneapolis,MN 55416, • RONALD HOWARD CIVIL ACTION- LAW • 647 Alexander Spring Rd. • Carlisle,PA 17015 • • • & . • R.E.H. MECHANICAL • 647 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle,PA 17015, Defendants. • 3 COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Insurance Company of Greater New York,as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association,by its counsel Saltz Matkov P.C.,states in its Complaint against Defendant Quality Water Treatment,Defendant Pentair,Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc.a/k/a Fleck Co., Defendant Ronald Howard and Defendant R.E.H. Mechanical the following: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York("1NSCO"),as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York with its principal place of business located at 200 Madison Avenue,New York,New York 10016,which at all times material hereto regularly conducted its insurance business in and about this judicial district. 2. Defendant,Quality Water Treatment("QWT")is, under information and belief, a company which designs, assembles, constructs,produces and sells water softener systems with a business address of 15431 Wilkshire Court,Houston,Texas 77069,which at all times material hereto regularly conducted business in and about this judicial district. 3. Defendant, Pentair, Inc.d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co.("Pentair")is, under information and belief,a company which designs,assembles, constructs,produces and sells water softener valves with a business address of 5500 Wayzata Boulevard,Suite 800, Minneapolis,Minnesota 55416,which at all times material hereto regularly conducted business in and about this judicial district. 4. Defendant,Ronald Howard("Howard") is an adult individual,who upon information and belief,provides plumbing services and does business as R.E.H. Mechanical, with a business address 647 Alexander Spring Road,Carlisle,Pennsylvania 17015. 4 5. Defendant R.E.H. Mechanical("R.E.H.")is,upon information and belief,a company which provides plumbing services,organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business located at 647 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle,Pennsylvania 17015,which at all times material hereto conducted its business in and about this judicial district. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6. At all times material hereto,on or before December 24, 2010, Plaintiffs' subrogor owned the real property and improvements known as Devonshire Square Condominiums ("Devonshire") located at 13 Devonshire Square,Mechanicsburg,Pennsylvania 17050. 7. At all times material hereto,Defendant Howard was an individual hired and engaged through his business, Defendant R.E.H.,to install a water softener system("the water softener")at the condominium unit(the"Unit")at 13 Devonshire Square,Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 8. At all times material hereto,Defendant R.E.H. was the company engaged to install the water softener at the Unit. 9. At all times material hereto,Defendants Howard and R.E.H.acted by and through their employees,agents, servants,workers and subcontractors, each of whom was acting within the course and scope of his or her authority, subject to the control and direction,and for the benefit of his or her respective principal and employer,the Defendants herein,Howard and R.E.H. 10. The Unit's owner purchased the water softener from Defendant QWT. 11. The water softener was designed,constructed, assembled,produced and/or sold by Defendant QWT. 5 12. At all times material hereto,the water softener contained a control valve and a drain line to the control valve,both designed, constructed,assembled,produced and/or sold by Defendant Pentair. 13. On or about December 10,2010, Defendant Howard,on behalf of Defendant R.E.H.,installed the water softener at the Unit. 14. On or about December 24,2010,the water softener failed and discharged water, causing damage to the floors,walls,rugs and other property owned by Devonshire. 15. It was determined that the loss occurred due to the fact that the control valve designed, constructed,assembled,produced and/or sold by Defendant Pentair was or became damaged and/or faulty when it was assembled by Defendant Pentair. I6. The damaged and/or fault control valve was allowed to be incorporated into the water softener due to the poor quality control of Defendant QWT. 17. Additionally, the loss was caused by the fact that the drain line designed, constructed,assembled,produced and/or sold by Defendant Pentair was unreliable and/or faulty. 18. The unreliable and/or faulty drain line was allowed to be incorporated into the water softener due to the poor quality control of Defendant QWT. 19. Finally,the loss was jointly caused by Defendants Howard and R.E.H.due to the fact that they improperly installed the system by:(1) failing to install the water softener's retaining ring or failing to notice its absence and(2) failing to properly test the water softener, which would have detected the system's defects caused by Defendants Pentair and QWT. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' acts and/or omissions,the water damage caused significant property damage throughout Devonshire. 21. At the time of the incident, INSCO provided insurance to Devonshire. 6 1 • 22. Pursuant to the policy of insurance between INSCO and Devonshire,INSCO has made payments to Devonshire for the damage,destruction and lost business income caused by the water softener failure and subsequent water intrusion. 23. To the extent of the aforesaid payments by INSCO to Devonshire,INSCO is subrogated to Devonshire's rights against Defendants QWT,Pentair,Howard and R.E.H. COUNT I PLAINTIFF V.HOWARD AND R.E.H. NEGLIGENCE 24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraph 1 through 23 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 25. Defendants Howard and R.E.H.owed a duty of care to Devonshire to use reasonable care in installing the water softener and to not cause any damage to Devonshire. 26. The aforesaid damage to Devonshire was the direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants Howard and R.E.H.,including but not limited to: (a) Failing to install the water softener's retaining ring; (b) Failing to determine the water softener's retaining ring was absent; (c) Failing to properly test the water softener; (d) Causing and/or allowing the damage to Devonshire; (e) Failing to prevent the damage to Devonshire; (f) Failing to notice,observe, understand, discern and/or perceive the dangerous condition caused by the failure to install the water softener's retaining ring; (g) Failing to notice,observe, understand,discern and/or perceive the dangerous condition caused by the failure to properly test the water softener; 7 • (g) Failing to warn the Unit's owner or Devonshire of the dangerous condition caused by the failure to install the water softener's retaining ring; (h) Failing to warn the Unit's owner or Devonshire of the dangerous condition caused by the failure to properly test the water softener; (i) Failing to act in a reasonable prudent manner in disregard of the property; and (j) Failing to comply with the standard of care in the industry. 27. The aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants Howard and R.E.H.proximately caused and directly resulted in the water softener failure that caused significant water damage to Devonshire on December 24,2010. Due to their aforesaid acts and omissions, Defendants Howard and R.E.H. are liable to INSCO. 28. As a result of said negligence, INSCO suffered damages in an amount less than $50,000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff,Insurance Company of Greater New York, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association respectfully demands judgment against Defendant Ronald Howard and Defendant R.E.H.Mechanical for damages in an amount less than$50,000 plus interest,attorneys' fees,costs,and any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT II PLAINTIFF V.QWT AND PENTAIR PRODUCTS LIABILITY 29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 28 above as though more fully set forth herein at length. 8 30. At all times herein mentioned,Defendant QWT manufactured,designed, assembled,produced,advertised,promoted,marketed,sold and/or distributed water softener systems such as the water softener that caused the loss. 31. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant Pentair manufactured,designed, assembled,produced,advertised,promoted,marketed,sold and/or distributed water softener control valves and drain lines such as those incorporated into the water softener that caused the loss. 32. Defendant QWT's water softener systems and Defendant Pentair's control valves and drain lines incorporated into said water softener systems were expected to and did reach the usual consumers, handlers, and persons coming into contact with said products without substantial change in the condition in which they were designed,produced,manufactured, sold, installed and marketed by Defendants QWT and Pentair. 33. At all times,QWT's water softener, including its components provided by Defendant Pentair,were in an unsafe,defective and inherently dangerous condition,and as a result were dangerous to consumers,particularly Devonshire and its residents. 34. The water softener manufactured,designed,advertised,promoted,marketed, sold and/or distributed by Defendant QWT was defective in design or formulation in that, when installed the foreseeable risks exceeded the benefits associated with the design or formulation of the water softener. 35. The control valve and drain line manufactured,designed,advertised,promoted, marketed, sold and/or distributed by Defendant Pentair were defective in design or formulation in that,when installed the foreseeable risks exceeded the benefits associated with the design or formulation of the control valve and drain line. 9 • 36. At all times mentioned herein,QWT's water softener and its components provided by Defendant Pentair were in a defective condition and unsafe,and Defendants QWT and Pentair knew or had reason to know that said products were defective and unsafe, especially when used in the form and manner as provided by the Defendants. 37. The water softener manufactured,designed,advertised,promoted,marketed,sold and/or distributed by Defendant QWT was defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions as Defendant QWT knew or should have known that it was subject to failure and Defendant QWT had a duty to warn Devonshire of same. 38. The control valve and drain line manufactured,designed,advertised,promoted, marketed,sold and/or distributed by Defendant Pentair were defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions as Defendant Pentair knew or should have known that they was subject to failure and Defendant Pentair had a duty to warn Devonshire of same. 39. Defendant QWT knew,or should have known,that at all times herein mentioned the water softener they designed was defective, inherently dangerous and unsafe. 40. Defendant Pentair knew,or should have known,that at all times herein mentioned the control valve and drain line they designed were defective,inherently dangerous and unsafe. 41. At all times,the aforesaid products were being used for the purpose and in the manner normally intended. 42. Defendants QWT and Pentair manufactured,designed,advertised,promoted, marketed,sold and/or distributed a defective products which created an unreasonable risk to consumers and to Devonshire,in particular,and Defendants QWT and Pentair are therefore strictly liable for the loss. 43. Defendants QWT and Pentair had a duty to create a product that was not unreasonably dangerous for its normal,intended use. to 44. Neither Devonshire or the Unit's owner could,by the exercise of reasonable care, discover the defective nature of the water softener. 45. By reason of the foregoing,Defendants QWT and Pentair have become strictly liable in tort to the Plaintiff for the manufacture,design,advertisement,promotion,marketing, sale and/or distribution of defective products. 46. The Defendants' defective design,manufacturing defects and inadequate warnings relating to the water softener and its components were acts that amount to willful, wanton,and/or reckless conduct by Defendants. I 47. Defendants QWT and Pentair are strictly liable in tort for the loss and the Plaintiff cannot be held liable due to contributory negligence as the Unit's owner was a consumer purchasing products,not a party involved in the manufacturing,distribution,and sale of the defective products. 48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' defective design,manufacturing defects and inadequate warnings relating to the water softener and its components,GNY suffered damages in an amount not in excess of$50,000. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff,Insurance Company of Greater New York,as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association respectfully demands judgment against Defendant Quality Water Treatment and Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water,Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. for damages in an amount less than$50,000 plus interest,attorneys' fees,costs,and any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. AlYrt114----- M.Saltz,Esquire Matthew D.Matkov,Esquire Emanuel A.Chryssos,Esquire Attorney ID Nos.:51497/93661/311608 1i 1171 Lancaster Avenue;Suite 101 Berwyn,PA 19312 (484) 318-7225 Attorneys for Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York a/s/o Devonshire Square Condominium Association Dated: December 10,2012 32 VERIFICATION 1,Matthew D. Matkov,Esquire,hereby state and verify that I am the attorney for the Insurance Company of Greater New York,as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association;that I am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of the Insurance Company of Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association because the verification of a representative with sufficient knowledge or information cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing this pleading;and that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. to i 411 Matt'iew D.Matkov,Esquire Dated: December 10,2012 13 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell Latshaw : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania v. : Civil Action Law R.E.H. Mechanical : No. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD PENTAIR, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment Insurance Company of Greater New : In The Court of Common Pleas York, as subrogee of Devonshire : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Square Condominium Association : Civil Action Law v. : No. 12-7514 Quality Water Treatment Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard AND R.E.H Mechanical I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw's Motion to Consolidate and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof on November 21, 2013, by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid to all interested parties as follows: Mark F. Gebauer, Esquire Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Kyle .1. Meyer. Esquire Gary Bailey, Esquire Eckert Seasmans 1 171 Lancaster Avenue, Ste. 101 213 Market Street, 8`11 Floor Berwyn, PA 19312 Carlisle, PA 17101 REII Mechanical Quality Water Treatment Ronald Howard 15814 Champion Forest Drive 647 Alexander Spring Road Spring, TX 77379 Carlisle. PA 17015 F. Harry Spiess. Jr., Esquire PO BOX 191 130 W. Lancaster Avenue Wayne, PA 19087 h,--9 / UI , ' Pall J. HennFsy, Esquire/ a , • COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF CHESTER : ss 11 The undersigned verifies that the facts contained herein are true and correct. 1 The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the !i penalties of 19 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to I authorities. 11 If applicable, this affidavit is made on behalf of the Plaintiff(s); that the said Plaintiff(s) is/are unable and unavailable to make this verification on its/his/her own behalf within the time allotted for filing of this pleading, and the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of counsel's knowledge, information and belief. fhis verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024 and is based on interviews, conferences. reports. records and other investigative material in the file i _ e ' Dated: 1 j1 • , ap FILING OF DOCUMENTS HENNESSY • & WALKER GROUP, P.C. DA x1::11-21-2013 To: Office of the Prothonotary, Cumberland County Cc: Mark F. Gebauer, Esq., Matthew D. Matkov, Esq., F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esq., R.E.H Mechanical, Ronald Howard, and Quality Water Treatment Re: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw v. Quality Water Treatment, Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co., Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Docket No. 12-4518 and Insurance Company of Greater New York, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Assocation v. Quality Water Treatment, Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Docket NO. 12-7514 Our File No.: LIBE-3510 The following documents are enclosed for filing with your office: Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate ( X ) Please return file-marked copies to our office ( ) Please enter date of filing and return this form to us. Date Filed by ( ) A return envelope is enclosed for your convenience. ( ) Charge our account for fees. ( ) Check Enclosed to cover fee $ Hennessy& Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. MARKET ST., SUITE 2 WEST CHESTER, PA 19382 TELEPHONE 610-431-2727 FACSIMILE 610-429-3750 11 Paul J. Hennessy. Esquire �- PRO SETARY 1 Iennessy & Walker Group, P.C. 21113� , 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 Afl li` 2 West Chester, PA 19382 CUMBERLAND COUNTY 610-431-2727 PENNSYLVANIA Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney For Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o I,owel I I.atshaw Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell I atshaw : Cumberland County. Pennsylvania v. : Civil Action Law R.I:.l I. Mechanical : No. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD PFIN[AIR, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water. Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment Insurance Company of Greater New: In [he Court of Common Pleas York. as subrogee of Devonshire : Cumberland County. Pennsylvania Square Condominium Association : Civil Action Law- v. : No. 12-7514 Quality Water Treatment Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water. Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald I loward ANT) R.L.I I Mechanical ADDENDUM TO PLAINTIFF'S'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE E IINDFR RULE 213(a) IN ACCORDANCE WI'Fl I CUMBERLAND COUNTY I.00AL Rt1I.L 208.3(a)(2) and 208.3(a)(9) Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw by and through their attorney. Paul J. I Iennessy. Esquire, hereby moves this I lonorable Court, pursuant to Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure for an Order Joining the above-captioned actions for purposes of discovery and trial as fellows. 1 . Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Consolidate on November 25, 2013 in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas and served all interested parties with a true and correct copy of the Motion. 2. Preliminary Objections file b\ Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/h/a Pentair Water. Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. to Plaintiffs Complaints in both of the above captioned matters were heard before President Judge I less. Judge Masland, and Judge Placey, and an Order was entered concerning same was entered on July 26, 2013. 3. A Default Judgment was entered against Defendants Ronald Howard, R.F.H. Mechanical, and Quality Water treatment in favor of Plaintiff' Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell I,atshaw on February 21, 2013 in Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Docket No. 12-4518. 4. On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff's counsel contacted counsel for all interested parties by telephone in order to determine concurrence or opposition with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell I atshaw's Motion to Consolidate Actions in order to comply with Cumberland County Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Counsel for Plaintiffs Insurance Company of Greater New York. as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association concurred with the present Motion to Consolidate. 6. Counsel for Defendants Pentair. Inc. d/h/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a fleck Co. concurred with the present Motion to Consolidate. 7. On December 6. 2013. Plaintiffs counsel sent an electronic mail message seeking determination of Counsel for Quality Water Treatment's position concerning the present Motion to Consolidate, and subsequently spoke on the telephone. but was not able to obtain the position of Quality Water"treatment. 8. On December 11, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel again spoke on the telephone with counsel for Quality Water treatment seeking a determination of his client's position concerning the present Motion to Consolidate. but was not able to obtain the position of Quality Water Treatment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw respectfully requests that the above matters shall be consolidated for all discovery and trial. Paul .1. 1 n► essy. Es ° re COMMONWLAI."fl I OF PI,NNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF CIi1;S l'F,R : ss The undersigned verities that the facts contained herein are true and correct. The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. If applicable, this affidavit is made on behalf of the Plaintiff(s), that the said Plaintiff(s) is/are unable and unavailable to make this verification on its/his/her MAT behalf ithin the time allotted for filing of this pleading, and the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of counsel's knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024 and is based on interviews, conferences. reports. records and other investigative material in the file GZ�/l 1 Dated: /2/13 J Paul J. Hennessy. Esquire Hennessy S. Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 West Chester. PA 19382 610-431-2727 Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney For Plaintiffs Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell Latshaw : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania v. : Civil Action Law R.[.11. Mechanical : No. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD PENTAIR, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment Insurance Company of Greater New : In The Court of Common Pleas York. as subrogee of Devonshire : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Square Condominium Association : Civil Action Law v. : No. 12-7514 Quality Water"Treatment Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water. Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard AND R.E.I I Mechanical CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the Addendum to Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate upon all listed partes on December 13. 2013, by First Class United States mail. postage prepaid addressed as follows: Mark J. Gebauer, Esquire Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Eckert Seamans Gary Bailey, Esquire 213 Market Street, 8'h Floor 1 171 Lancaster Avenue, Ste. 101 Carlisle. PA 17101 Berwyn, PA 19312 R[II Mechanical Quality Water Treatment Ronald I Toward 15814 Champion Forest Drive 647 Alexander Spring Road Spring,TX 77379 Carlisle, PA 17015 F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire PO BOX 191 130 W. Lancaster Avenue Wayne, PA 19087 I aul J. H ne sy, Esquire I lennessy& W• -er Liberty Mutual Insurance Company: In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell Latshaw : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania v. : Civil Action Law R.E.H. Mechanical : No. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD PENTAIR, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. • AND Quality Water Treatment Insurance Company of Greater New: In The Court of Common Pleas York, as subrogee of Devonshire : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Square Condominium Association : Civil Action Law v. : No. 12-7514 Quality Water Treatment Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard rn s-r-1 —.. AND R.E.H Mechanical mo=w c-ar- Cf) — o , kma ORDER AND NOW, This /g day 2013, upon the consideration of Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw's, Motion to Consolidate, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned actions will be consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial. BY THE COURT: • 0 J. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ,1. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA @ r LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. als/o • LOWELL LATSHAW, : =, cs s -�, Plaintiff, • • CIVIL ACTION - LAW • R.E.H. MECHANICAL, RONALD • CASE NO. 12-4518 HOWARD, PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a PENTAIR • WATER, INC. a/k/a FLECK CO. and • QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, • Defendants. • CONSENT TO AMEND ANSWER Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a/s/o Lowell Latshaw, by its undersigned counsel consents to permit defendant to amend its Answer in the manner set forth in the Amended Answer attached hereto as Exhibit A, correcting the answering defendant's name to be: Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC, (incorrectly designated in the caption as "Pentair, Inc."). Res.- fully`: itt ., ''*.ul J. Hfessy, ' squire Attorne r.D. 65396 Hennessy & Walker Group 142 West Market Street West Chester, PA 19382 Telephone: 610-431-2727 Facsimile: 610-429-3750 E-mail: phennessy @subrogation.net Date: December.0, 2013 Attorneys for Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a/s/o Lowell Latshaw {L0538112.11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 30' day of December, 2013, a copy of the foregoing CONSENT TO AMEND ANSWER was served via United States, First-Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire R.E.H. Mechanical Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 647 Alexander Spring Road 213 Market Street, 8th Floor Carlisle, PA 17015 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorneys for Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC Ronald Howard Quality Water Treatment 647 Alexander Spring Road 15814 Champion Forest Drive Carlisle, PA 17015 Spring, TX 77379-7141 J aul J.��Henn y, Esquire Attorneys for Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a/s/o Lowell Latshaw 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA • LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE • COMPANY a/s/o LOWELL LATSHAW, • Plaintiff, • CIVIL ACTION - LAW • v. • R.E.H. MECHANICAL, • CASE NO. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD, • PENTAIR, INC., d/b/a PENTAIR • WATER, INC. a/k/a FLECK CO., • QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, • Defendants. DEFENDANT PENTAIR RESIDENTIAL FILTRATION,LLC, (INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED IN THE CAPTION AS "PENTAIR, INC.") AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT For its Amended Answer to plaintiffs Amended Complaint, defendant Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC, (incorrectly designated in the caption as "Pentair, Inc.") ("PRF, LLC"), states: ANSWER TO "PARTIES" 1. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1. 2. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 2. {L0526045.1) 3. It is admitted that PRF, LLC, Inc. is a Minnesota company with a business location at 5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 800, Golden Valley, Minnesota, 55416. PRF, LLC denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 3. 4. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 4. 5. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5. ANSWER TO "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS" 6. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 6. 7. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7. 8. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8. 9. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 9. 10. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 10. 11. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 11. 12. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 12. 2 13. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13. 14. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14. 15. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 15. 16. PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 16. By way of further response,the language "[i]t was determined" is vague and ambiguous, and PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this allegation in paragraph 16. 17. PRF, LLC denies the allegation in paragraph 17 that the control valve was "damaged and/or fault [sic]." By way of further response, PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 17 relating to the quality control of co-defendant QWT. The remaining allegations in paragraph 17 are denied. 18. PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 18. 19. PRF, LLC denies the allegation in paragraph 19 that the drain line was "unreliable and/or faulty." By way of further response, PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 19 relating to the quality control of co-defendant QWT. The remaining allegations in paragraph 19 are denied. 20. PRF, LLC denies the allegation in paragraph 20 that the water softener contained defects caused by PRF, LLC. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 20. 21. PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 21. 3 22. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 22. 23. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 23. 24. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 24. ANSWER TO COUNT I 25. PRF, LLC incorporates herein its answers to paragraphs 1 through 24, above. 26. The allegations in paragraph 26 are directed at a defendant other than PRF, LLC and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 26. 27. The allegations in paragraph 27(a)-(k) are directed at a defendant other than PRF, LLC and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 27(a)-(k). 28. The allegations in paragraph 28 are directed at a defendant other than PRF, LLC and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 28. 29. The allegations in paragraph 29 are directed at a defendant other than PRF, LLC and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 29. ANSWER TO COUNT II 30. PRF, LLC incorporates herein its answers to paragraphs 1 through 29, above. 4 31. The allegations in paragraph 31 are directed at a defendant other than PRF, LLC and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 31. 32. PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 32, incorporates its answer to paragraph 3, above, and is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the identity of the control valve and drain line alleged in the Amended Complaint. 33. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 33. By way of further response, PRF, LLC is not responsible for alterations to its products after manufacture. 34. The allegations in paragraph 34 are directed at a defendant other than PRF, LLC and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 34. 35. The allegations in paragraph 35 are directed at a defendant other than PRF, LLC and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 35. 36. PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 36. 37. PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 37. 38. The allegations in paragraph 38 are directed at a defendant other than PRF, LLC and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 38. 39. PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 39. 5 40. The allegations in paragraph 40 are directed at a defendant other than PRF, LLC and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 40. 41. PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 41. 42. PRF, LLC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 42. 43. The allegations in paragraph 43 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 43. 44. The allegations in paragraph 44 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 44. 45. The allegations in paragraph 45 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 45. 46. The allegations in paragraph 46 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 46. 47. This paragraph was stricken by the Court's July 26, 2013 Order, which sustained in part and overruled in part the Preliminary Objections to the Amended Complaint. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 47. 48. The allegations in paragraph 48 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 48. 49. PRF, LLC denies the allegations in paragraph 49, and denies that it is liable for any damages. 6 NEW MATTER To the extent supported by the facts and the law, PRF, LLC may rely upon the following defenses and affirmative defenses. 50. PRF, LLC incorporates the averments and denials of the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein. 51. PRF, LLC denies each and every allegation contained in the Amended Complaint that was not specifically admitted by PRF, LLC. 52. By order dated July 26, 2013, the Court sustained the Preliminary Objection to plaintiff's purported negligence claim in paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint. 53. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 54. Some or all of plaintiff's claims may be barred by the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitations and/or repose for such actions. 55. Plaintiff's demands for pre judgment interest and for imposing joint and several liability have no basis in law and should be dismissed. 56. There exists no proximate cause between any of plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages and any alleged act or omission on the part of PRF, LLC. 57. Any alleged act or omission on the part of PRF, LLC was not a proximate cause of plaintiffs alleged damages as plaintiff's damages were solely the result of acts, omissions, or conduct of persons or entities over which PRF, LLC exercised no control. 58. The acts and/or omissions of other individuals or entities, over which PRF, LLC exercised no control, constitute intervening or superseding causes for the damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff. 7 59. The damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff were solely or partly the result of acts or omissions on the part of persons or entities other than PRF, LLC, who were not under the control or right of PRF, LLC, and for whom PRF, LLC is not liable. 60. To the extent plaintiff failed to reduce and/or mitigate any and all damages referred to in the Amended Complaint, plaintiff may have no recovery against PRF, LLC. 61. The product in question was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A. 62. Plaintiffs claims are barred because the product was materially altered. 63. Plaintiffs claims are barred because the accident in question and plaintiff s alleged damages were caused by the misuse or unintended use of the product, and/or plaintiff s actions were contrary to instructions and warnings. 64. Any alleged risks associated with the product were open, obvious, and known. 65. The subject product was designed and manufactured and/or distributed in conformity with the applicable state of the art, industry standards and/or consumer expectations. 66. The utility of the subject product outweighs the alleged risk, the product is not unreasonably dangerous and strict liability does not apply. 67. Plaintiffs claims are barred due to the express or implied assumption of the risk. 68. Plaintiffs claims are barred or reduced by plaintiffs contributory negligence and/or comparative fault. 69. PRF, LLC reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses which may be disclosed during the investigation of this case or throughout the discovery process. 8 WHEREFORE, having fully answered plaintiff's Amended Complaint, PRF, LLC respectfully requests this Court to enter its Order: a) Dismissing plaintiffs Amended Complaint with prejudice; b) Entering judgment in favor of PRF, LLC; c) Awarding PRF, LLC her costs of defense; and d) Awarding such further relief as the Court deems just. CROSS-CLAIMS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 1. PRF, LLC denies the material allegations of the Amended Complaint and denies any liability to plaintiff, but pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, PRF, LLC asserts cross- claims against each of the co-defendants, based upon their sole liability on the underlying causes of action and/or the liability to or with PRF, LLC under contractual or common law indemnity and/or contribution. WHEREFORE, PRF, LLC respectfully requests judgment be entered in its favor on its cross-claims, with costs and such further relief as the Court deems just. Respectfully su. • Mr'Mr7 auer, Es•uire (PA ID #79646) RT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC / 213 Market Street, 8th Floor P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 Telephone: 717.237.6052 Facsimile: 717.237.6019 mgebauer@eckertseamans.com Date: January 3, 2014 Attorneys for Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC 9 VERIFICATION i. e r-r-y R . Vr-e_ ,am authorized to execute this Verification on behalf of Pentair Residential Filtration,LLC;the facts set forth in the foregoing Amended Answer to plaintiff's Amended Complaint are not within the personal knowledge of any one person,but were gathered from a variety of sources with the assistance of counsel,and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I make this Verification subject to the penalties relating to unsworn falsification of information set forth in 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904. Date: I 7-- 2-- 3 Signature: 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 3rd day of January 2014, a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT PENTAIR RESIDENTIAL FILTRATION, LLC'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT was served via United States, First-Class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Quality Water Treatment Hennessy & Walker Group, P.C. 125 Heaaula Street 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 Haiku, Hawaii 96708 West Chester, PA 19382 Ronald Howard R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Carlisle, PA 17015 E 'ebauer, Esquire Co . •sel for Pentair Residential Filtration, LLC 11 DAVIS BENNETT SPIESS &LIVINGOOD By: F. HARRY SPIESS, JR., ESQUIRE Attorney ID No. 08859 Attorney for Defendant 130 West Lancaster Avenue Quality Water Treatment P.O. Box 191 15431 Wilkshire Ct. Wayne. PA 19087-0191 Houston, TX 77069 telephone: 610-688-6200 telefax: 610-688-3887 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. r PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO.12-4518 ;-n r �`' =rrt n coo ca; ' Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw < ; 3:„C) V. C7 .M,:cr. R.E.H.Mechanical ;;rl RONALD Howard Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment Insurance Company of Greater New York, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association v. Quality Water Treatment Pentair. Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard AND R.E.H. Mechanical AFFIDAVIT OF NON-SERVICE Craig Phillips being duly sworn according to law swears and deposes that he is the President and Principal of Quality Water Treatment("QWT") and at no time was QWT served with process in the above captioned matter,and further that QWT vacated its location in Spring, Texas in or about 2008 so that it had not operations in Texas, nor office there, in August 2012 when a certified letter was sent to 15814 Champion Forest Drive, further that the individual signing for said certified mail,Lyndon Davis is unknown to QWT and the Writ of Summons so mailed was never delivered or turned over to QWT and QWT first became aware of such Writ of Summons in December 2013 when Plaintiff's attorney said he had secured a default judgment. This was news to your deponent, and deponent further saith not. Cra hilli s P 1 HAWAII ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT H.R.S 502.41 ate.✓ate a�a✓a4 TWT■y.Rre.R .!7.:e47..Q.T■s..ViZr[� - . ..r,5,1r� rTr!•Rrl•TsZPZ•R./. v �V•T■.�a6TN\.�aiAr..,�a, 6!�V,R,e^..e.R, rer-A .iic',v�. 2 State of Haw ii County of ss. (2,0,0Y1 Judicial Circuit On this 111549-day of DO-A/W ,20 Date Month Year In �a before me personally appeared Document Description: ` JI YI,� liU bat,1 nn U cYYY\ ?v,itc m(oYLnd f 4 ) Name off Signer Document Date:Pi " 0No. Pages: and (2) Name of Signer pNMt�ttt to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn or ``p•RENg4i���4 affirmed, did say that such person(s) executed the foregoing 0p (i0��� instrument as the free act and deed of such person(s), and if �•�' % applicable i the capacity • 'W n, having been duly *i t10T �' * = authorized $ ec- .0711n nt in such capacity. r. 06-117 v'■AUSIA • 41,0,.11r• ' / t(1.-04)13 �i ••,•«•. _ `� Notary's Signatu - Date OF tkr � IDA RENAUD Notary's Pryp�ed me Place Notary Seal or Stamp Above My commission expires: J/ 1 L �.'-✓b d �h°�'b d' �s�b� ''ti 3Kgd'er W2°er8cg -Dti YW'ti 4WAQ tWri∎e .�4�' b' .'s 'i:✓,:clO d.✓:W.:W-14W.W:`✓ L• .2'4'T� ©2008 National Notary Association•9350 De Soto Ave.,P.O.Box 2402•Chatsworth,CA 91313-2402•www.NationalNotary.org Item#5921 Reorder:Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 • • • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,' PENNSYLVANIA SYL`v'ANIA I.:IBERTY MUTUAL INSU.RANC.E CO. a /s /o LOWELL LATSHAW, Plaintiff • v. R.E.H. MECHANICAL, RONALD HOWARD, PENTAIR, INC. d /b /a PENTAIR WATER, INC. aik /a FLECK CO. and. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, Defendants Civil Action Law Docket No. 12-4518 Stipulation to Open Default judgment Entered Against Defendant utility Water Treatment It is hereby stipulated between the counsel for the Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a /s /o Lowell Latshaw and counsel for Defendant Quality Water Treatment that the Default Judgment entered against Defendant Quality Water Treatment on Febniary 21., 2013, is opened. The entry of,jud gment by way of default against Defendants R..E.11. Mechanical and Ronald Howard will remain as docketed on February 21. 2013. It is further agreed between the undersigned that the Defendant Quality Water Treatment accepts service of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint., and will be filing an Answer only to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint within twenty days from the entry of this stipulation. 'aul J. Hessy, Esquire Attorney for Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. a/s /o Lowell Latshaw F. Harry Spiess, J Attorney for Quality Water Treatment -D Dated: April 17, 2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I caused a copy of Plaintiff's Stipulation to Open Default Judgment Entered Against Defendant Quality Water Treatment to be served this 17th day of April, 2014, by regular mail, addressed as follows: Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108 -1248 Ronald Howard R.E.H. Mechanical 1004 N. West Street Apartment 1 Carlisle, PA 17013 -1401 Gary L. Bailey Saltz Matkov P. C. 998 Old Eagle School Road Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 Andrew J. Hennessy, Esquire Hennessy & Walker Group, LLC 142 W. Market St. West Chester, PA 19382 F. Harry Spiess, r Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Hennessy Sc Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 West Chester, PA 19382 610- 431 -2727 Attorney I.D. 65396 Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a /s /o Lowell Latshaw v. R.E.H. Mechanical Ronald Howard Pentair, Inc. d'h /tit Pentair Water, Inc. a :F a Fleck Co. AN1) Quality Water Treatment Insurance Company of Greater. New York. as subrogee of Devonshire Squ::ir4.' Condominium .- \ssociation v. Quality Water Treatment Pentair. Inc. (t'h'a Pentair Water. Inc. a /k /a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard AN I) R.I .I 1. Mechanical 1. tl i0 Attorney for Plaintiff -2 p.'' 1. :t S LVA N 1A : In The Court of Common Pleas : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania : Civil Action Law : No. 12 -4518 : In The Court of Common Pleas : Cumberland County. Pennsylvania : Civil Action Law : No, 12 -7514 liIF PE"UITION FOR .A,I'POlN I ML \T OF ARBITRATORS TO TIIL HONG >RABLE, TIIE Jt1DGFS OF SAID ('Ot'RT: Paul J. Iennessy. Fsquire, counsel for the plaintiff liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s%o Lowell I atshav, in the above action ,es pecttully repiv seats that: 1. The above - captioned act ous 2, The claim of Plainti the action intiated by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a /sio Lowell Latshav, i:, $1 7.55;x,1 1. 3. The claim of the Plaintiff in the action Mitiated h) Insurance Company of Greater New York as subrogce of Devonshire Square Condominium Association is $18,234.00. . e.5O c #Ilog4 The following attorneys are ink -sted in the as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Paul J. Hennessy. Esq.. Mark E. Gebauer, Esq., F. Harry Spiess. Jr.. Esq., Gary L. Bailey, Esq.. Matthew Matkov, Esq. WFIEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, Paull. lie messy. Esc iire COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF CHESTER .ss The undersigned verifies that the facts contained herein are true and correct. The undersigned understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. If applicable. this affidavit is made on behalf of the Plaintiff(s); that the said Plaintiff(s) is /are unable and unavailable to make this verification on its /his /her own behalf within the time allotted for filing of this pleading, and the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of counsel's knowledge, information and belief. This verification is made pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024 and is based on interviews. conferences, reports, records and other investigative material in the file Dated: Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire Hennessy & Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street, Suite 2 West Chester. PA 19382 610- 431 -2727 Attorney I.D. 65396 Attorney for Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a /s /o Lowell Latshaw v. R.E.H. Mechanical Ronald Howard Pentair, Inc. d /b /a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k /a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment : In The Court of Common Pleas : Cumberland County,Pennsylvania : Civil Action Law : No. 12 -4518 Insurance Company of Greater New York. as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association v. Quality Water Treatment Pentair, Inc. d /b /a Pentair Water, Inc. a /k /a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard AND R.E.H. Mechanical : In The Court of Common Pleas : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania : Civil Action Law : No. 12 -7514 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators in the above matter upon all interested parties on May 30, 2014, by First Class United States mail, addressed as follows: Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherins & Mellot, LLC PO BOX 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108 F. Harry Spiess, Jr. 130 W. Lancaster Avenue PO BOX 191 Wayne, PA 19087 Gary L. Bailey, Esquire Saltz Matkov P.C. 998 Old Eagle School Road Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 Ronald Howard R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 / .4..h/ aul J. H • nnessy, Es.. ire Hennessy & alker Liberty Mutual Insurance Company : In The Court of Common Pleas a/s/o Lowell Latshaw : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania V. : Civil Action Law R.E.H. Mechanical : No. 12-4518 Ronald Howard Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. AND Quality Water Treatment Insurance Company of Greater : In The Court of Common Pleas New York, as subrogee of : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Devonshire Square Condominium : Civil Action Law Association : No. 12-7514 . V. Quality Water Treatment Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard cZ c f =; AND R.E.H. Mechanical cO O M C— Cz ` ' { ORDER OF COURT (D C°' > AND NOW, �� , 20�, in consideration of the foregoing petition, Esq., and Esq., and Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned actions as prayed for. By the Court,