Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-7514SALTZ MATKOV P.C. By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Emanuel A. Chryssos, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 93661/311608 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 NEW YORK, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association 200 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT 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 647 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle, PA 17015 R.E.H. MECHANICAL 647 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle, PA 17015, Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. Assoc. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ~, -~' n ~,~, -- "' xa c r z° o ~ ~ za +~ r~ . ~~ ~ .~, .~.~ cn w CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendants. NOTICE TO DEFEND "You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the ~~ following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice v~ `~°~ 7s~ any Q Ctc-~ i i s y o ~~ a8u 33 aze served, by entering a written appeazance with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You aze 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 5ET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN (~ET 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 al partir de la fecha de la demands y la notification. Hate falta asentar una compazencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregaz a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomaza mediadas y peude continuaz la demands en contra suya sin previo avios o notification. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demands. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos important~s pars usted. "LLEVE ESTA DEMAND A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE, SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME FOR TELEFONO A LA OFFICINA CUYA DIRECION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL:' CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Emanuel A. Chryssos, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 93661/311608 1171 Lancaster Avenue Suite 101 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 318-7225 Facsimile: (484) 318-7248 E- mail: mmatkov@saltzmatkov.com Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. Assoc. 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 Howazd and Defendant R.E.H. Mechanical the following: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York ("INSCO"), as subrogee of Devonshire Squaze 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 regulazly 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. 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. 16. 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. 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. COUNTI 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; (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. 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. 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. 10 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. 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. Albert M. Saltz, Esquire Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Emanuel A. Chryssos, Esquire Attorney ID Nos.: 51497/93661/311608 11 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 12 VERIFICATION I, 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 Squaze 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 aze true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein aze made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Ma ew D. Matkov, Esquire Dated: December 10, 2012 13 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorneys 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. 998 Old Eagle School Road Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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 w ..i NO.: 2012-7514 15431 Wilkshire Ct. rr — -O�.- Houston, TX 77069, W V+ °®' PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a o-n 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. . PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the attached Complaint in the above-captioned matter for an additional thirty days. Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Dated: April 1, 2013 Attorney for Plaintiff 2 CP, 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 list this matter on the May 10, 2013 Argument List CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Insurance Company of Greater New York a/s/o Devonshire square Condomi vs. Quality Water Treatment, Pentair, Inc., RonF-la t6A A to %ekil"i(A © No. 12-7514 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 Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire, Saltz Matkov P.C. (Name and Address) 1171 Lancaster Avenue, Berwyn, PA 19312, 484-318-7225 (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 A 'M Signaprf M VVIP, Print ybur name Pentair, Inc. Date: 4/5/2013 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 now briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary)after the case is rellsted. OjWk COQ q RUCMVI r- ry CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 5`" 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: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Emanuel A. Chryssos, Esquire SALTZ MATKOV P.C. 1171 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 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. eb uer, Esq ire(PA ID #79646) Kyle J. eyer, Esquire (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 meebauer(a�eckertseamans com kmeverna eckertseamans com Date: April 5, 2013 Counsel for defendant, Pentair, Inc. {L0507371.1} i i i OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY CUMBERLAND COUNTY i DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY Matthew D. Matkov, Esq. 1171 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn,PA 19312 DATE: April 22"d, 2013 TO Mr. Matkov: THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT CASE NUMBER 2012-7514 Insurance Company of Greater New York VS. Quality Water Treatment, et al. HAS BEEN LISTED FOR ARGUMENT ON MAY 10TH, 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- %howina tha*imo-_°-• -- -- - 4 David D. Buell m-�', U.S.POSTAGE>>Pi+ Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, Ste.100 ~' r �'~ w Carlisle, PA 17013 CE ZIP 17013 $ of EyLED-OFF' OE THE PROTHONOTAR' r ��.{� 0 00 0 11"013&8848 APR 2013ih' S-' y CUMBERLAND >OOUN \j 2 _ 17 pENNSYLVAHIA Matthew D. Matkov, Esq. 1171 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, P w s ='� °W 1A UI 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) C-) Insurance Company of Greater New York a/s/o Devonshire Square Con cl :PW rT1 F vs. -VM Quality Water Treatment, Pentair, Inc., Rondd < HoLuoLd . PER Mechanical 0 No. 12-7514 Civil P�-gm C= 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer tK cz) complaint, etc.): Pentair,Inc.'s Preliminary Objections to Plainfift Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire, Saltz Matkov P.C. (Name and Address) 1171 Lancaster Avenue, Berwyn, PA 19312, 484-318-7225 (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 L w., Sig Lt e VIC- Print'your name Pentair, Inc. 5/7/2013 At#orney for Date: 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. 4R*)5 po Airt 04 453130 A ca& IA -1. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 7t' 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: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Emanuel A. Chryssos, Esquire SALTZ MATKOV P.C. 1171 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 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. Gibauer,'Esquire (PA ID #79646) Kyle J. yer, Esquire (PA ID #307743) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &MELLOTT, LLC 213 Market Street, 8t'Floor P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 Telephone: 717.23 7.6000 Facsimile: 717.23 7.6019 mgebauergeckertseamans.com kmeyergeckertseamans.com Date: May 7, 2013 Counsel for defendant, Pentair, Inc. (L0507371.11 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D. No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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 Plaintiff, V. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, NO.: 2012-7514 PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co., RONALpD HOWARD CIVIL ACTION - LAW Cz -oz R.E.H. MECHANICAL a " Defendants. f�„ ,a, d PROOF OF SERVICE c- C: FS I, Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire,hereby affirm that the Complaint was servecfgpoh„ Defendant Quality Water Treatment via certified mail in accordance with P.R.C.P. 404(2) and 424(3) on May 3, 2013, as indicated in the attached;proof of the above service is attached hereto as Exhibit"A." Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. Assoc. Dated: May 13, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Bryan Petre hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the Proof of Service 40 upon Defendant Quality Water Treatment to be served thist3day of May, 2013, by first class mail,postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin&Mellott, LLC P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 mgebauer@eckertseamans.com kmeyer@eckertseamans.com 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 Bryan Petre 2 Exhibit A �• -ice _ tr) i. • C� AL USE N co Postage $ C3 S 9 L TZ AIIA r]j' O�j ]/��f' C3 Certified Fee Postmark ,( �(f[� �►/ f(�(� Return Receipt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required) Here 0 Restricted Delivery Fee MATTHEW A MA TKO V (Endorsement Regmred) ATTORNEYATLAW E3 r q Total Postage&Fees $ J!, "1 fU s o stree ;(11�P -------------- et t - ---- ----- -------------------- April 30,2013 we W4 MIR Registered Mail Receipt Requested Craig Phillips President Quality Water Treatment, Inc. 2215-B Renaissance Drive Las Vegas,NV 89119 Re: Insurance Company of Greater New York v. Quality Water Treatment, Pentair, Ronald Howard & R.E.H Cumberland Co. CCP No. 2012-7514 Dear Mr. Phillips, Enclosed please find a copy of the Complaint issued against Quality Water Treatment Inc. in the above-captioned matter. As the registered President for Quality Water Treatment Inc., your acceptance of the enclosed Complaint constitutes proper service of Quality Water Treatment Inc. in accordance with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 404(2)and 424(3). Should you have any questions with regard to the above matter,please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Matthew D. Matkov MDM/bp Encl. WAYNE.PENNSYLVAMA •PHILADELPHIA,PENNSYLVANIA -SCRANTON.PENNSYLVANIA CHPRR Y HILL.NEW JERSEY• WILMINGTON.DPLA WARE WWW.SAL7ZMATKOV.COM SECTION DELIVERY SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. item 4 ifAestricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent li■ Rrint your name and address on the reverse Addressee so that we can return the card to you. Received by(Printed Name) D o -elivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 4 or on the front if space permits. & tai - D. Is delivery address different from item 1 ❑Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter'delivery address below: 11 No 3.':Seni1 rtifiem ' °�Certified Mail ''❑Express Mall t ( ❑Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ` j ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. y 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) a Yes G 12. Article Number{ ij t} 7GG&i2810 0000 60871,7165 1 (Transfer from service label). , 1; j r . . i , �S For'th 3811!Fetiriiary 2004 i 1 i r I Domestic'Retum Receipt 102595-02-M-1sao USPS.com®- Track& Confirm Page 1 of 1 English Customer Service USPS Mobile Register l Sign In us ,,,,i.c Sl;arch L!SPS.com or'l'ra;k Packages Quick Fools Ship a P30W ms"t your Kul 8ustnew solLrtkms Track & Confirm GET EMAIL UPDATES PRINT DETAILS YOUR LABEL NUMBER SERVICE STATUS OF YOUR ITEM DATE&TIME LOCATION FEATURES 70082810000060877165 Delivered May 3,2013,12:48 pm LAS VEGAS,NV 89119 Certified Mail' Arrival at Unit May 3,2013,9:11 am LAS VEGAS,NV 89119 Depart USPS Sort May 3,2013 LAS VEGAS,NV 89199 Facility Processed through May 3,2013,4:00 am LAS VEGAS.NV 89199 USPS Sort Facility Depart USPS Sort May 3,2013 LAS VEGAS.NV 89199 Facility Depart USPS Sort May 2,2013 :LAS VEGAS.NV 89199 Facility Processed through May 2,2013,4:39 pm LAS VEGAS,NV 89199 USPS Sort Facility Depart USPS Sort May 2,2013 PHILADELPHIA,PA 19176 Facility Processed through May 1,2013,11:39 pm PHILADELPHIA,PA 19176 USPS Sort Facility Check on Another Item What's your label(or receipt)number? Find LEGAL ON USPS.COM ON ABOUT.USPS.COM OTHER USPS SITES Privacy.Policy> Governm mt Services> Abo;:t US%IS Hcrtle+ Business Customer Gateway, Tarms of Use El.y Stamps&Shoe> Newsroom� Postal Inspectors; FOIA> Print a Label With Postage> Mai!Servica Updatas Inspector General> No FEAR Act EEO Data, Customer Service+ Forms&Publk-moron s> Postal Explorer) Delivering Solutions to the Last.Atilt,) Careers+ Site Index+ Copyright—'2013 USPS.All Rights Reserved. https://tools-usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction—input?qtc—tLabels 1=7008281000006087716... 5/9/2013 a 1 DAVIS BENNETT SPIESS & LIVINGOOD By: F. HARRY SPIESS, JR., ESQUIRE Attorney ID No. 08859 Attorney for Defendant 130 West Lancaster Avenue P.O. Box 191 Quality Water Treatment Wayne, PA 19087-0191 telephone: 610-688-6200 telefax: 610-688-3887 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER CIVIL ACTION - LAW NEW YORK, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association N0.12-7514 200 Madison Avenue New York,NY 10016 Plaintiff, V. 1 QUALITY WATER TREATMENT,INC. m rn 15431 Wilkshire Court ' Houston, TX 77069, -tT PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a/Fleck Co. 5500 Wayzata Blvd. •< Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55416, RONALD HOWARD 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 R.E.H. MECHANICAL 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants. PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE To the Prothonotary: Please enter my appearance for Quality Water Treatment, Defendant in the above captioned matter. Dated: June 3, 2013 F. Harry Spiess, Esq ire Attorney for Quality Water Treatment 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 email: hspiessgdavisbennett.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER CIVIL ACTION - LAW NEW YORK, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association NO.12-7514 200 Madison Avenue New York,NY 10016 Plaintiff, V. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT 15431 Wilkshire Court Houston, TX 77069, PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a/Fleck Co. 5500 Wayzata Blvd. =M Suite 800 =r-- :2- i . Minneapolis, MN 55416, = RONALD HOWARD 647 Alexander Spring Road " i Carlisle, PA 17015 - =< R.E.H. MECHANICAL 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT COMES NOW,the Defendant, QUALITY WATER TREATMENT,by and through its attorney, F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire who files this Answer to the Complaint filed herein and as captioned above: PARTIES 1. Admitted 2. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant, Quality Water Treatment hereinafter designated as ("QWT") designs, assembles, constructs, and produces water softener systems. To the contrary, Defendant, QWT sells such water softener systems that are manufactured by others. Defendant's business address is 125 Heaaula Street, Haiku,Hawaii 96708. At all times relevant hereto QWT sold the water softener system in question having purchased it from a broker, Nelsen Corporation,2350 Barber Road,Norton, Ohio 44203 which shipped said unit directly to the Purchaser, Lowell Latshaw, 6318 Stephen Crossing,Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. A true and correct copy of the Order acknowledging such sale is attached hereto and made a part hereof. By way of further answer, QWT is a Seller of water softeners from it's website as a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Company. Defendant, QWT does not design, assemble, construct or produce water softener equipment or control valves or drain lines. The water softener unit in question was shipped by QWT from its supplier/broker,Nelsen Corporation directly to Mechanicsburg, PA, where it was purchased by Lowell Latshaw. QWT is not responsible for installation of any products sold as set forth above; its products are sold as a do-it yourself Company via internet. It is the responsibility of the customer purchasing said unit to properly install or arrange for the installation and maintain any products purchased from QWT.-QWT is not responsible for any manufacturer's defects or damage caused by products of the purchaser in connection with the use of products purchased from Defendant, QWT. Terms and conditions of the sale by QWT to purchaser; contain a disclaimer Attached herein. 3 - 5. Admitted FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 6 - 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, QWT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations pertaining to this plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Therefore, said allegations are denied. 10. It is admitted that the water softener unit in question was purchased by Lowell Latshaw of 'Mechanicsburg, PA, from Defendant, QWT which brokered such sale through Nelsen Corporation. 11. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, QWT designed, constructed, assembled, produced the water softener system in question. To the contrary, said unit was designed, constructed, assembled,produced and manufactured by Defendant, Pentair, Inc. 12. It is admitted that the water softener unit contained a control valve; however as to the remaining averments contained in Paragraph 12, Defendant after reasonable investigation is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations pertaining to this plaintiffs' injuries and damages. 13 - 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, QWT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations pertaining to this plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Therefore, said allegations are denied. 18. Denied. As set forth above in Paragraph 2, QWT is merely a seller of the water softener system to purchaser and the same was shipped by Nelsen Corporation. QWT had nothing whatsoever to do with installation of the unit or a drain line. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, QWT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations pertaining to this plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Therefore, said allegations are denied. By way of further answer, purchaser, Lowell Latshaw contacted QWT about a damaged valve internal slip ring but declined QWT's offer to have Nelsen Corporation ship a replacement valve. However,Nelsen Corporation did ship to Latshaw replacement parts. See Exhibit: A-1, A-emails, A-2 20. Defendant is without knowledge or information to be able to confirm or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 and same or therefore deemed denied. 21 - 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, QWT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations pertaining to this plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Therefore, said allegations are denied. Count I — Plaintiff v. Howard and R.E.H. Ne li_ence 24. - 28. - These averments do not apply to Defendant, QWT and the same need not be answered nor responded to. Count II — Plaintiff v. QWT and Pentair Products Liability 29. Incorporation by reference is admitted. 30. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, QWT manufactured, designed,produced, and assembled the water softener system allegedly causing loss. To the contrary, Defendant, QWT sold said system via internet,the manufacturer being been Pentair, Inc. 31. Admitted 32. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, QWT manufactured the water softener system in question or expected to come into contact with consumers without changing condition in which they were designed. To the contrary,the Defendant QWT acted solely as a seller of the unit, manufactured by others with terms and conditions in its sale exonerating it from subsequent liability. 33. Denied. It is denied that the water softener system sold by Defendant, QWT was inherently unsafe, defective and dangerous. To the contrary, said unit was safe,not defective and in a condition to be utilized, when properly installed 34. Denied. It is denied that the water softener system distributed by Defendant, QWT was defective in design or formulation and when installed exceeded the foreseeable risks of benefits associated with said softener. To the contrary, when properly installed said water softener system would be inherently safe. 35. Denied. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the averment that the control valve and drain line were manufactured, designed, advertised, promoted, sold in a defective fashion. Therefore, said allegations are deemed denied. Proper installation would have prevented damage. 36. Denied. It is denied that water softener system sold by Defendant, QWT was in a defective condition and unsafe. To the contrary, it was safe and non-defective at all times relevant hereto but improperly installed. 37. Denied that the Defendant. QWT manufactured or designed the water softener system in question, nor did the Defendant, QWT knew or should have known that it was subject to failure. Defendant, QWT had no relationship with Devonshire and no duty to warn Devonshire and had a relationship solely with the purchaser of the unit, Lowell Latshaw, of Mechanicsburg, PA. Further, there were no defects with the unit sold. 39. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, QWT knew or should have known that the water softener system sold by it(not designed nor manufactured) was defective, dangerous or unsafe. To the contrary, it was not defective. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, QWT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations pertaining to this plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Therefore, said allegations are denied. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, QWT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations pertaining to this plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Therefore, said allegations are denied. 42. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, QWT manufactured, designed defective products which created an unreasonable risk to consumers. As to Devonshire it is denied that Defendant, QWT is liable for any alleged loss. 43. Denied as stated. It is denied that Defendant, QWT created a product that was unreasonably dangerous and it is averred that at all times relevant here to Defendant, QWT sold safe and non- defective products to consumers when properly installed. 44. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, QWT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations pertaining to this plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Therefore, said allegations are denied. 45. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, QWT is strictly liable in tort to the Plaintiff for any reason whatsoever including but not limited to the manufacture, design, sale or distribution of defective products. To the contrary,the Defendant QWT sold the product to Lowell Latshaw in accordance with the invoice set forth attached hereto. 46. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, QWT had anything to do with manufacture of the unit. To the contrary,proper warnings were given to the purchaser of said unit, and actions of QWT did not amount to willful, wanton and/or reckless conduct. 47. Denied that Defendant, QWT is strictly liable in tort for any alleged loss and further denied that unit owner can not be held liable due to contributory negligence. The aforesaid statement constitutes a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, QWT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations pertaining to this plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Therefore, said allegations are de WHEREFORE, Defendant, Quality Water Treatment, Inc., respectfully requests that Plaintiff s Complaint be dismissed and that relief be granted, against judgment from Plaintiff, Insurance Company of Greater New York, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association. F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire Date: / 3 13 Attorney for Defendant, Quality Water Treatment (Q Attorney ID# 8859 EXHIBIT: A-1 Order#8822 Inbox xLowell Latshaw<lowlat @verizon.net> 9/8/10 to me set of pictures. L. Latshaw 3 attachments — Download all attachments View all images Share all images 71, g z .. r Exhibit: A-2 ORDER f °^ 3250 Barber Rd.-Norton,ON 44203 --- Order Number Phonec 800-362-9686 Fax:888-544-8780 1317244 10115 W.Van Buren St.#6-Tolleson,AZ 85353 Order Date Page Phone:866-4454299 Fax:602442-0447 91101201010:17:54 1-oi 1 5120 E.Adamo Dr.#F- Tampa,FL 336119 Ew Phase:866.712-6796 Fa)c•813-712-2274 Norm Robinson CORPORATION QUALITY WATER TRMT,INC. LOWELL LATSHAW 125 HEA"AULA ST. 6318 STEPHEN CROSSING HAIKU,HI96708 MECHANICSBURG,PA 17050 USA USA 866-2784130 Customer 1D: PO Number Ship Route Taker 13545 L LATSHAW NROBINSON Quantities It to unit Extended ti0itf n ttem tJescripflon Price Puce Ordered Affecateaf Remaining Unit She `r Customer Nate: `—EMAIL INVOICES TO CUSTOMER- Defivv y Instructions:PLEASE INCLUDE O_W.T.WARRANTY FORM WITH COMPLETE UNITS.. Mm 0000 0:000 1.0 FL19322 0.0000 0.00 EA Fmk Adplr Bare,2510 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.0 FL19197 0.0000 0.00 EA Fledt Sip Rby IA00 am OA00 1.0 FL18303 0:0000 0.00 EA Halt Tank O-Ring 1.000 0.000 ohm 1-0 FL13304 0:00(10 0.00 EA Fk ck 0-R:g,5600 X121 1.000 0.000 0.000 1.0 FL13030 0.0000 0.00 EA Ped DkHmor Reamer,l Total Lines:5 SUB-TOTAL: 0.00 TAX: 0.00 SKIPPING AND HANDLING: 0.00 AMOUNT TENDERED: 0.00 AMOUNT DUE: 0-00 Dispostion Key-S-Backorder-C-Cwcef-04)+rect Sho-P-Pmdtrction Order- S-Special Order Re: Damaged UPS Shipment-Order#8822-#1 Craig Phillips<waterman824 @gmail.com> 9/14/10 to Lowell THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE On Tue,Sep 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Lowell Latshaw<lowlat @verizon.net>wrote: Thanks for sending the new parts-they came yesterday. L. Latshaw On 9/9/2010 4:23 PM, Craig Phillips wrote: > Got it taken care of, please use the call tag to send damaged valve back when you get the new one, you are going to use the valve cover, bypass valve and backwash elbow with backwash button in it on the new valve. > On Thu,Sep 9, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Lowell Latshaw<lowlat @verizon.net>wrote: > I would prefer a new part if that small subsection can't be replaced. > Thanks, > L. Latshaw > On 9/9/2010 4:08 PM, Craig Phillips wrote: >> we will have to send you a new control valve then. I will make it happen if thats what you want. >> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Lowell Latshaw<lowlat @verizon.net>wrote: >> I would prefer to have the part replaced if possible . >> Thanks, >> L. Latshaw >> On 9/9/2010 2:05 PM, Craig Phillips wrote: >>> Thank you for the picture.That is not going to affect anything at all.You can use it as is unless you don't want to. Please let me know. >>> Thanks, >>> Craig >>> On Thu, Sep 9,2010 at 8:58 AM, Lowell Latshaw<lowlat @verizon.net>wrote: >>> I am sending another picture..The threads seem to be OK where the valve screws into the resin tank.You can see that the inside plastic cylinder that extends out >>> has a portion broken off around the edge. Does this affect anything ?? >>> Any other questions, I can be contacted on my cell phone-717-756-4566. Thanks.. >>> L. Latshaw >>> On 9/8/2010 6:15 PM, Craig Phillips wrote: »» Is the center pice on the valve in picture four the damaged part? If so then that is just where the distributor slides into the valve which will not effect the performance of the system. Please let me know. »» Thanks, »» Craig »» On Wed,Sep 8, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Lowell Latshaw<lowlat @verizon.net>wrote: »» Relative to our conversation earlier today-attached are some pictures which hopefully shows you what »» was damaged. The hole in the top of the box clearly shows that there was probable damage. The smaller »» cylindrical outermost piece had a piece chipped off of it about 1/3 of the circumference. I can take more »» pictures if required. »» I will send the pictures in 2 Emails. »» Lowell Latshaw »» Order#8822 VERIFICATION I,Craig Phillips, President of Quality Water Treatment,hereby state and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. In understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: / ► 9 Craig Phillips e President, Qua ity Water Treatment CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 3'day of June 2013, a copy of the foregoing QUALITY WATER TREATMENT , ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT was served via United States, First-Class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Emanuel A. Chryssos, Esquire SALTZ MATKOV P.C. 1171 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Mark E. Gebauer,Esquire Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN &MELLOTT, LLC 213 Market Street 8'Floor, P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire Counsel for Defendant, Water Quality Treatment OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY CUMBERLAND COUNTY DAVID D. BUELL PROTHONOTARY Quality Water Treatment, Pro Se P.O. Box 1188 Alta, CA 95701-1188 DATE: June 3rd 2013 vid D. Buell U.S.POSTAGE>>PITNE umberland County Courthouse • • - ne Courthouse Square, Ste.100 arlisle, PA 17013 *F.; . ZIP 17013 $ 00C • " 0001368848 JUN 0 Li C3. cj z < Z CD-77; CI.. /(,:& Quality Water Treatment, Pro Se P.O. Box 1188 zez cz Alta, CA 95701-1188 '6 tvi ESSEi) UNABLE 1ci O A D .1 7 0 i 3 33. -Z3Z:-2 L 3- 0.48 5 7 - - 1 7 nil Vial 7) 2 Di.... kIllh;d0,;;;; ;II,;;!1'eldLdh4;h!l;N:Uri:!';H:H:1',! IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK, as subrogree of Devonshire : Square Condominium Association, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, C b + V. CASE NO. 12-7514 --a= r QUALITY WATER TREATMENT can r r— r'` .<> rZ r- PENTAIR., INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a *C-) =C> Fleck Co. y, ca ro RONALD HOWARD R.E.H. MECHANICAL Defendants. : PENTAIR INC.'S PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF COMMISSION OR LETTER ROGATORY DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OUTSIDE PENNSYLVANIA Defendant, Pentair, Inc. ("Pentair"), by and through its attorneys, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott; LLC, hereby petitions this Court pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 5325 and Pa. R.C.P. 4015 for the issuance of a Commission or Letter Rogatory, and states: 1. Pentair seeks production of documents pursuant to a subpoena from Nelsen Corporation("Nelsen"), an Ohio corporation located at 3250 Barber Road,Norton, Ohio 44203. 2. A Commission or Letter Rogatory must be issued to the appropriate authority in Ohio for purposes of issuing subpoenas for the production of documents in order for Pentair to secure the desired documents. {10521506.1} 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the proposed subpoena directed to Nelsen, along with a description of the documents to be produced. 4. All parties of record.in this matter have waived the notice requirements of Pa. R.C.P. 4009.2 1, and concur in this Petition. 5• A proposed Order and a proposed Commission and Letter Rogatory are attached. WHEREFORE, Pentair, Inc. respectfully requests that this Court authorize the issuance of a Commission or Letter Rogatory to the appropriate authority in Ohio to compel the production of documents from Nelsen Corporation in the above-captioned action. Respectfully submitted, Mark E. e auer, squire (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: 717.23 7.6019 m ebauergeckertseamans coo kmeyergeckertseamans com Date: July 12, 2013 Attorneys for defendant, Pentair, Inc. (L0521506.1) 2 EXHIBIT A SUBPOENA SUMMIT COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT CIV.RULE 45 Insurance Company of Greater New York a/s/o Devonshire Square Condominium Association PLAINTIFF CASE NO. VS. SUBPOENA IN CIVIL CASE Quality Water Treatment, Pentair, Inc., Ronald Howard, and R.E.H. Mechanical ATTORNEY: DEFENDANT ADDRESS: PHONE: SUPREME CT.NO. TO: Nelsen Corporation 3250 Barber Road (NAME) (ADDRESS) Norton, Ohio 44203 (CITY,STATE,ZIP) YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO ATTEND AND GIVE TESTIMONY AT A(TRIAL)(HEARING)(DEPOSITION)ON THE DATE TIME: PLACE: PRODUCE DOCUMENTS,ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION,OR TANGIBLE THINGS AT TRIAL,HEARING OR DESPOSITION. X PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING OF ANY DESIGNATED DOCUMENTS OR ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION THAT ARE IN YOUR POSSESSION,CUSTODY,OR CONTROL. PRODUCE AND PERMIT INSPECTION AND COPYING,TESTING,OR SAMPLING OF ANY TANGIBLE THING THAT ARE IN YOUR POSSESSION,CUSTODY,OR CONTROL. PERMIT ENTRY UPON DESIGNATED LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY THAT IS IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF YOU FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN CIV.R.34(A)(3). DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS TO BE PRODUCED: See Attachments A and B HEREOF FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF THE LAW WITNESS MY SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF SAID COURT,THIS DAY OF 20 Clerk,Attorney,Notary RETURN OF SERVICE Deputy Clerk Received this Subpoena on the day of 20_at _M.and on the day of 20_,at _M.,I served the same upon by delivering to Personally or Residential a true copy of this subpoena. Mileage: miles@ :TOTAL$ Sheriff-Attomey-Process Server-Notary PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS: 1. A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. 2.(a)A person commanded to produce under divisions(A)(I)(b)(ii),(iii),(iv)or(v)of this rule need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to attend and give testimony at a deposition,hearing or trial. (b)Subject to division(D)(2)of this rule,a person commanded to produce under divisions(A)(l)(b)(ii),(iii),(iv),or(v) of this rule may,within fourteen days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than fourteen days after service,serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objections to production. If objection is made,the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to production except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made,the party serving the subpoena,upon notice to the person commanded to produce may move at any time for an order to compel the production. An order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the production commanded. 3 O timely motion,the court from which the subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena,or order appearance or production only under specified conditions,if the subpoena does any of the following—Fails to allow reasonable time to comply;requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected matter and no exception or waiver applies;requires disclosure of a fact known or opinion held by an expert not retained or specially employed by any party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial as described by CN R.26(B)(4),if the fact or opinion does not describe specific events or occurrences in dispute and results from study by the expert that was not made at request of any party; subjects a person to undue burden. 4.13efore filing a motion pursuant to division(C)(3)(d)of this rule,a person resisting discovery under this rule shall attempt to resolve any claim of undue burden through discussions with the issuing attorney. A motion filed pursuant to division(C)(3)(d)of this rule shall be supported by an affidavit of the subpoenaed person or a certificate of that person's attorney of the efforts made to resolve any claim of undue burden. 5.If a motion is made under division(C)(3)(c)or(C)(3xd)of this rule,the court shall quash or modify the subpoena unless the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated. DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENAS: 1. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall,at the person's option,produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the subpoena. A person producing documents or electronically stored information pursuant to a subpoena for them shall permit their inspection and copying by all parties present at the time and place set in the subpoena for inspection and copying. 2. V a request does not specify the form or forms for producing electronically stored information,a person responding to a subpoena may produce the information in a form or forms in which the information responding is ordinarily maintained if that form is reasonable useable,or in any form that is reasonably useable. Unless ordered by the court or agreed to by the person subpoenaed,a person responding to a subpoena need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. 3. A person need not provide discovery of electronically stored information when the production imposes undue burden or expense. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order,the person from whom electronically stored information is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense. If a showing of undue burden or expense is made,the court may nonetheless order production of electronically stored information if the requesting parry shows good cause. The court shall consider the factors in Civ.R.25(B)(4)when determining if good cause exists. In ordering production of electronically stored information, the court may specify the format,extent,timing,allocation of expenses and other conditions for discovery of the electronically stored information. 4. When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials,the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents,communications,or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim. 5. If information is produced in response to a subpoena that is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trial- preparation material,the person making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified,a receiving parry must promptly return,sequester,or destroy the specified information and any copies within the parry's possession,custody or control. A party may not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved. A receiving party may promptly present the information to the court under seal for determination of the claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material. If the receiving party disclosed the information before being notified,it must take reasonable steps to retrieve it. The person who produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved. SANCTIONS: 1.Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued. A subpoenaed person or that person's attorney who frivolously resists discovery under this rule may be required by the court to pay the reasonable expenses,including reasonable attorney's fees of the parry seeking discovery. The court from which a subpoena was issued may impose upon a party or attorney in breach of the duty imposed by division(C)(1)of this rule an appropriate sanction,which may include,but is not limited to,lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees. ATTACHMENT A DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 1. Within thirty(30)days after service of this Subpoena,please produce the following documents in your possession to: Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin &Mellott, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 2. "Nelsen," "you,"or"your"refers�to Nelsen Corporation and includes its agents, employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on its behalf. 3. "Lowell Latshaw"refers to Lowell Latshaw and includes his agents, employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on his behalf. 4. "Quality Water Treatment"refers to Quality Water Treatment and includes its agents, employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on its behalf. 5. "Documents" and"Records" are defined to the broadest extent possible under the applicable discovery rules, including without limitation, any written,recorded or graphic matter, computer reports,tapes, discs, computer cards, e-mails, electronic documents or information, data bases, photographs, videotapes, or pictures, wherever produced or reproduced, and covers all materials within the possession, custody or control of you, your agent(s),your employee(s), your attorney(s), your accountant(s), your investigators, or anyone else acting on your behalf. 6. The Nelsen Order Acknowledgment attached hereto as "Attachment B"identifies Lowell Latshaw as Customer ID# 13545, with a street address of 6318 Stephen Crossing, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050, and further identifies Quality Water Treatment as having a street address of 125 Heaaula Street, Haiku, HI 96708. Attachment B serves merely as a reference to assist you in identifying the individual and entity to which this Subpoena for Production of {LO520750.1} Documents applies, and is in no way intended to limit the scope of your production to only those documents related to the individual transaction represented therein. Unless stated otherwise, the following Requests apply to all transactions involving Lowell Latshaw, whether under Customer ID# 13545 or a different Customer ID #, and to all interactions between Quality Water Treatment and Nelsen. 7. These definitions and instructions shall be considered part of each of the following Requests as if they were set forth fully therein. REQUEST 1. The customer file for Lowell Latshaw. 2. All invoices,purchase orders, order acknowledgements, bills of sale, and receipts related to any and all transactions involving Lowell Latshaw. 3. All communications, evidence of communications, correspondence, and notes related to any and all transactions involving Lowell Latshaw. 4. All product literature, design and/or assembly drawings,warranties, and specifications for any and all products (including parts and components)purchased or otherwise acquired by Lowell Latshaw. 5., All contracts and agreements related to transactions involving Lowell Latshaw. 6. The customer file for Quality Water Treatment. 7. All communications, evidence of communications, correspondence, and notes to and/or from Quality Water Treatment evidencing the nature and extent of the relationship between Quality Water Treatment and Nelsen. 8. All contracts and agreements between Quality Water Treatment and Nelsen. 2 (LO520750.1) 9. All invoices,purchase orders, order acknowledgements,bills of sale, and receipts related to transactions between Quality Water Treatment and Nelsen involving or related in any way to Lowell Latshaw. 10. All product literature, design and/or assembly drawings, warranties, and specifications for any and all products (including parts and components)related to transactions between Quality Water Treatment and Nelsen involving or related to Lowell Latshaw. 11. Any and all documents related to or evidencing the nature and extent of the relationship between Quality Water Treatment and Nelsen. 12. Any and all documents related to or evidencing the nature and extent of the relationship between Lowell Latshaw and Nelsen. 13. Any and all documents related to or evidencing the nature and extent of the relationship between Quality Water Treatment and Lowell Latshaw. 3 {LO520750.1) ATTACHMENT B Exhibit:A-2 ORDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3260 9arber Rd.-Norton,OH 44203 Order Number Phone 800-362-%% Fax:888.544-8780 1317244 10116 W.Van Suren St.#6-Tolleson,AZ 85363 Order Dam Page Phone:866-445-4299 Fax:602-442-0447 9110!2010 10:17:54 1 of 1 NELSENpions:A 712-6796 yFax 813.712-22T49 Norm Robinson CORPORATION QUALITY WATER TRMT,INC. LOWELL LATSHAW 125 HEA"AULA ST. 6318 STEPHEN CROSSING HAIKU,Hi 96708 MECHANICSBURG,PA 17050 USA USA 866-278.4130 Customer 10: PO Number Ship Route Taker 13545 L LATSHAW NROBINSON quallavis - rdrn 10 unit Evaded Ordered A/bcetod Rorttainhtg tlOdi hon)Description Price Prlco unit Sn Customer Note: "EMAIL INVOICES TO CUSTOMER— Delilrery instructions: PLEASE INCLUDE O.W.T.WARRANTY FORM WITH COMPLETE.UNITS. 1.000 omo 0.000 1.0 FL19322 0.0000 0.00 EA Fleck Ado e"e,2510 1.000 0.000 0.004 1.0 FLisi97 0.0000 0.00 EA Fack SFp Ring 1.000 1000 0.000 1.0 FL18303 0.0000 0.00 EA Fleck Talc 0-Ring 1.000 000 0000 1.0 FL13304 0.0000 0.00 EA Fleck O-Ring,56M 8121 1.000 0.000 0.000 IA FL13030 0.0000 0.00 EA Fleck D M ulm Reamer,I Total Lines.,5 SUB-TOTAL: 0.00 TAX: 0.00 SHIPPING AND HANDLING: 0.00 AMOUNT TENDERED: 0.00 AMOUNT DUE: 0.08 Dispostion Key-848ackorder- C-Cancel-0.OGect Ship- P-Production Order- S-Swial Order CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 12th day of July, 2013, a copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF COMMISSION OR L g ng PENTAIR INC.,S LETTER ROGATORY DIRECTING ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OCUMENTS OUTSIDE PENNSYLVANIA was served via United States, First-Class mail,postage re aid P P , addressed to: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Kevin Demko, Esquire SALTZ MATKOV P.C. 1171 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, pA 19312 F. Harry Spiess, Jr. DAVIS BENNETT SPIESS & LIVINGOOD LLC 130 West Lancaster Avenue P.O. Box 191 Wayne, PA 19087-0191 R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Kyle J. er, Es ire Attorney for defendant, Pentair, Inc. {1,0521506.1} IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK, as subrogree of Devonshire Square Condominium Association, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, V. CASE NO. 12-7514 UALITY WATER TREATMENT CID --M = f PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. :Z Cj RONALD HOWARD rv ] R.E.H. MECHANICAL Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2013, upon consideration of Pentair, Inc.'s Petition for Issuance of Commission or Letter Rogatory Directing Issuance of Subpoena for Production of Documents Outside Pennsylvania, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Petition is GRANTED. A Commission or Letter Rogatory shall issue out of and under the seal of this Court directed to any Judge or Officer authorized by the laws of the State of Ohio to issue a subpoena for the production of documents to Nelsen Corporation, of Norton, Ohio. BY T COURT: . �� J. o`� fL0521518.i INSURANCE COMPANY OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GREATER NEW YORK, a/s/o OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, DEVONSHIRE SQUARE PENNSYLVANIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION—LAW V. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, PENTAIR INC. d/b/a PENTAIR WATER, INC. a/k/a FLECK CO., No. 12-7514 Civil Term RONALD HOWARD, and R.E.H. MECHANICAL, Defendants. IN RE: PENTAIR, INC.'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J. MASLAND, J. and PLACEY, J. ORDER AND NOW,this 3 6day of July,2013,upon consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff s Complaint, and after oral argument, heard June 21, 20135 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 11 strict products liability claim, are hereby OVERRULED. AND FURTHER, Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's averment of "willful,wanton, and/or reckless conduct"in paragraph 46 and to Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs in Count II, are hereby SUSTAINED and paragraph 46 and Count II's request for attorney's fees and costs are stricken without prejudice. BY THE COURT, Kevin . Hess, P.J. V"'Vlathew D. Matkov, Esquire 998 Old Eagle School Road Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 For Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York ,,/Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire 213 Market Street, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1248 r~~ Cnf- Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 C:) ..�.�� � For Defendant Pentair, Inc. ' 0 INSURANCE COMPANY OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GREATER NEW YORK, a/s/o OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, DEVONSHIRE SQUARE PENNSYLVANIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION—LAW V. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, PENTAIR INC. d/b/a PENTAIR WATER, INC. a/k/a FLECK CO., No. 12-7514 Civil Term RONALD HOWARD, and R.E.H. MECHANICAL, Defendants. IN RE: PENTAIR, INC.'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J., MASLAND, J. and PLACEY, J. OPINION and ORDER Before the court are preliminary objections of Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. (hereinafter"Pentair")to a complaint filed by Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York(hereinafter"Greater New York") as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association. (Prelim. ObJ s. to Pl.'s Compl., filed Feb. 13, 2013). Plaintiff s Complaint contains two counts: at Count 1, a negligence claim against Defendant R.E.H. Mechanical (hereinafter"R.E.H.") and Ronald Howard and at Count 11, a products liability claim against Quality Water Treatment(hereinafter"QWT") and Pentair. (Pl.'s Compl., filed Dec. 14,2012). Pentair objects to Count IFS strict products liability claim as factually and legally insufficient; to allegations of"willful, wanton, and/or reckless conduct" as factually and legally insufficient; and to Plaintiff s request for attorney's fees and cost as legally insufficient. (Prelim. Objs. to Pl.'s Compl., filed Feb 13, 2013). Plaintiff's Complaint may be summarized as follows: Greater New York is an insurance company with its principal place of business at 200 Madison Avenue,New York,New York 10016 and is subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominiums (hereinafter"Devonshire") located at 13 Devonshire Square, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. (Compl.,TT 1, 6). At all relevant times, Greater New York provided insurance to Devonshire. (Compl.,T 21). Ronald Howard provides plumbing services and does business as R.E.H. Mechanical, with a business address of 647 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015. (Compl.,T 4). Ronald Howard was hired,through R.E.H. M.,to install a water softener system at unit 13 of the Devonshire Square Condominiums. (Compl. ¶7). The owner of unit 13 purchased the water softener from QWT, located at 15431 Wilkshire Court, Houston, Texas 77069. (Compl. TT 2, f0). The water softener contained a control valve and drain line"both designed, constructed, assembled,produced and/or sold by Defendant Pentair," located at 5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 800, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416. (Compl. TT 3, 12). Ronald Howard installed the water softener in unit 13 on December 10, 2010. (Compl.,T 13). On December 24, 2010,the water softener failed and discharged water, causing damage to floors, walls, rugs and other property. (Compl.,T 14). It is alleged the loss occurred due to the fact that the control valve"was or became damaged and/or faulty when it was assembled" by Pentair. (Compl.,T 15). Additionally, it is alleged that the loss was caused due to the drain line being"unreliable and/or faulty." (Compl.,T 17). Plaintiff further contends that the control valve and drain line were allowed to be incorporated into the water softener due to poor quality control by QWT. (Compl., TT 16, 18). Finally, it is alleged that Ronald Howard and R.E.H.jointly caused the loss by 2 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. (Compl., x( 19). 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). 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 mell-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 11's products liability claim based on two grounds: (i)insufficient specificity, and(ii) legal insufficiency(demurrer). 3 Pennsylvania is a fact pleading jurisdiction. Foster v. UPMC South Side Hosp., 2 A.3d 655, 666 (Pa. Super. 2010) (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 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. 1.977). 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). 4 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. 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. 5 The Superior Court has provided direction on preliminary objections regarding products liability claims in DAntona v. Hampton Grinding and Wheel Company, Inc., et al., 310 A.2d 307 (Pa. Super. 1973). In DAntona,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. . , ." MacDougal, at 680. Furthermore, courts have been consistent in 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 6 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. We turn to the remaining preliminary objections. Pentair preliminary objects to the charge of"willful, wanton, and or reckless conduct" in paragraph 46 of the Plaintiff's Complaint and to Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and cost in Count II. In the Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Preliminary Objections of Defendant Pentair, Inc., and during oral argument held on June 21, 2013, Plaintiff has agreed to strike the language that is the subject of these two preliminary objections. As such, we sustain Pentair's remaining preliminary objections and strike paragraph 46 and Count lI's request for attorney's fees and costs without prejudice. 7 ORDER AND NOW, this day of July, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's 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 11 strict products liability claim, are hereby OVERRULED. - AND FURTHER, Defendant's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's averment of "willful, wanton, and/or reckless conduct" in paragraph 46 and to Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs in Count II, are hereby SUSTAINED and paragraph 46 and Count 11's request for attorney's fees and costs are stricken without prejudice. BY THE COURT, Kevin Hess, P.J. Mathew D. Matkov, Esquire 998 Old Eagle School Road Suite 1206 Wayne,PA 19087 For Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire 213 Market Street, 8h Floor P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 For Defendant Pentair, Inc. 8 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK, as subrogree of Devonshire Square Condominium Association, CIVIL ACTION - LAW c Plaintiff, V. - -O r' CASE NO.-12-7514 ` QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, �, = X- PENTAIR, INC., d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. , a/k/a Fleck Co., RONALD HOWARD, R.E.H. MECHANICAL, Defendants. NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Ins. Co. of Greater New York a/s/o of Devonshire Square Condominium Assoc. c/o Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Kevin Demko, Esquire Saltz Matkov, P.C. 1171 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the New Matter set forth in Pentair, Inc.'s Answer to plaintiffs Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. f L0526407.1) i Respectfully submitted, 4�Mark E. G baue , Esquire (PA ID #79646) Kyle J. yer, Esquire (PA ID #307743) ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN&MELLOTT, LLC 213 Market Street, 8th Floor P. O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 Telephone: 717.237.6000 Facsimile: 717.23 7.6019 mizebauer@eckertseamans.com kmeyer@eckertseamans.com Date: August 19, 2013 Counsel for Pentair, Inc. {L0526407.1} a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK, as subrogree of Devonshire Square Condominium Association, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, V. CASE NO. 12-7514 QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, PENTAIR, INC., d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co., RONALD HOWARD, R.E.H. MECHANICAL, Defendants. DEFENDANT PENTAIR, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT For its Answer to Plaintiff's 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. {L0526039.11 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. 2 14. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 14. 15. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 15. 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 15. 16. Pentair denies the allegation in paragraph 16 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 16 relating to the quality control of co-defendant QWT. The remaining allegations in paragraph 16 are denied. 17. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 17. 18. Pentair denies the allegation in paragraph 18 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 18 relating to the quality control of co-defendant QWT. The remaining allegations in paragraph 18 are denied. 19. Pentair denies the allegation in paragraph 19 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 19. 20. The allegations in paragraph 20 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 20. 21. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 21. 3 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. ANSWER TO COUNT I 24. Pentair incorporates herein its answers to paragraphs 1 through 23, above. 25. The allegations in paragraph 25 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 25. 26. The allegations in paragraph 26(a)-O) 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(a)-O).1 27. The allegations in paragraph 27 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. 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. ANSWER TO COUNT II 29. Pentair incorporates herein its answers to paragraphs 1 through 28, above. 'Paragraph 26 of the Complaint is followed by subparagraphs(a)through 0);however,this range mistakenly contains two subparagraph(g)'s. Pentair's answer to paragraph 26 is responsive to both subparagraph (g)'s,in addition to the remaining subparagraphs in paragraph 26. 4 30. The allegations in paragraph 30 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 30. 31. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 31, 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. 32. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 32. By way of further response, Pentair is not responsible for alterations to its products after manufacture. 33. The allegations in paragraph 33 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 33. 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. , Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 35. 36. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 36. 37. The allegations in paragraph 37 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 37. 38. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 38. 39. The allegations in paragraph 39 are directed at a defendant other than Pentair and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 39. 40. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 40. 5 41. Pentair is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 41. 42. The allegations in paragraph 42 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies 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. 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. This paragraph was stricken by the Court's July 30, 2013 Order, which sustained in part and overruled in part Pentair's Preliminary Objections to the Complaint. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 46. 47. The allegations in paragraph 47 are conclusions of law and require no response. If a response is required, Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 47. 48. Pentair denies the allegations in paragraph 48, 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. 49. Pentair incorporates the averments and denials of the foregoing paragraphs as though more fully set forth herein. ' 6 50. Pentair denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint that was not specifically admitted by Pentair. 51. By order dated July 30, 2013, the Court sustained in part Pentair's Preliminary Objections, striking paragraph 46 and Count Il's request for attorneys' fees and costs from the Complaint. 52. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 53. 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. 54. Plaintiff's demands for pre judgment interest and for imposing joint and several liability have no basis in law and should be dismissed. 55. 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. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. 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. 7 59. To the extent plaintiff failed to reduce and/or mitigate any and all damages referred to in the Complaint, plaintiff may have no recovery against Pentair. 60. The product in question was neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous pursuant to Restatement(Second) of Torts § 402A. 61. Plaintiff s claims are barred because the product was materially altered. 62. 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. 63. Any alleged risks associated with the product were open, obvious, and known. 64. 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. 65. The utility of the subject product outweighs the alleged risk, the product is not unreasonably dangerous and strict liability does not apply. 66. Plaintiff s claims are barred due to the express or implied assumption of the risk. 67. Plaintiffs claims are barred or reduced by plaintiff s contributory negligence and/or comparative fault. 68. 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 Complaint, Pentair respectfully requests this Court to enter its Order: a) Dismissing plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice; b) Entering judgment in favor of Pentair; 8 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 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. 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 Mark Eleyer,a auer, quire (PA ID #79646) Kyle J. Esquire (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: 717.237.6019 mgebaiier@eckertseamans.com kmeyer@eckertseamans.com Date: August 19, 2013 Counsel 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. e er, Esq ire 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 . J PENTAIR, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT was served via United States, First-Class mail,postage prepaid, upon the following: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire Kevin Demko, Esquire Davis Bennett Spiess & Livingood LLC Saltz Matkov P.C. 130 West Lancaster Avenue 1171 Lancaster Avenue P.O. Box 191 Berwyn, PA 19312 Wayne, PA 19087-0191 Ronald Howard R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Carlisle,PA 17015 Kyle J. e er, Esq ire Counse for Pentair, Inc. 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 1:91-: 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, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER CIVIL ACTION - LAW NEW YORK, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association NO.12-7514 . 200 Madison Avenue New York,NY 10016 Plaintiff, v. . QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, INC. 1.5,431-Wilkshire Court Houston,;TX:_77069, PENTAIR,-INC..d/b/a Pentair.Water;Jnc. a/k/a/Fleck Co. 5500 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55416, RONALD HOWARD 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 & CD y�_CZ R.E.H. MECHANICAL -� 647 Alexander Spring Road = Carlisle, PA 17015 Defendants. u ANSWERTO CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS Quality Water Treatment hereby Answers Defendant Pentair Inc.'s Cross -Claims against all Defendants as follows: COMES NOW, the Defendant, QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, INC., by and through its attorney, F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire who files this Answer to the Cross -Claim against Defendants: 1. Defendant, Quality Water Treatment denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph l.of the Defendant, Pentair, Inc., Cross-Claims against all Defendants and denies that it is solely or partially liable on the underlying cause of action and/or as any liability to Pentair under contractual or common law indemnity or contribution. Any damages allegedly sustained by Defendant, Pentair or solely or partly the result of acts or omissions on the part of persons or entities, other than Quality Water Treatment, which was not under the control or right of Quality Water Treatment and for whom Quality Water Treatment is not liable. WHEREFORE, having answered Defendant Pentair's Cross-Claim, Quality Water Treatment respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order, dismissing Defendant Pentair's Cross-Claims with prejudice and entering Judgment in favor of Quality Water Treatment together with costs of defense, attorneys' fees and any other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate. F. Harry Spie , Jr., Esquire Date: y?) j 3 Attorney for efendant VERIFICATION I, F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire, do hereby verify that any facts set forth in the foregoing Quality Water Treatment, Inc.'s Answer to Defendant's Cross-Claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I am the attorney representing Quality Water Treatment, Inc. in this matter, and am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. Quality Water Treatment, Inc. is outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and verification from Quality Water Treatment, Inc. cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing this pleading. A Verification has been provided to Quality Water Treatment, 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. A4114Utl r\ Date: 8 Z `� F. Larry Spiess Jr. Counsel for Quality Water Treatment, Inc. SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D.No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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 Plaintiff, V. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, NO.: 2012-7514 PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. aWa m� C") r Fleck Co., rn M -z3 -- RONALD HOWARD CIVIL ACTION - LAV< , ZX and N u CD R.E.H. MECHANICALc Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Please enter a judgment by default in favor of Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York, a/s/o Devonshire Square Condominium Association ("Plaintiff'), and against Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical ("Defendants"), in the above-captioned matter. Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical were served by personal service on January 10, 2013, as noted on Exhibit"A." Defendants' Answer was due twenty days thereafter on January 30, 2013. To date, Defendants have yet to file a responsive pleading. / �16.SD d P C� M/7 ,eft V'ygaZ .� ,. yon./,o,/ Attached as Exhibit "B" is Plaintiff s Ten Day Notice of Intention to File Praecipe for Entry of Default Judgment ("Ten Day Notice") under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 237.1 which was transmitted on May 28, 2013 to Defendants, via first class mail, postage prepaid, and certified mail, and addressed to Defendants at their most recent known address. The Defendants failed to respond to the Ten Day Notice in the allotted time. More than ten (10) days have passed since service of the Ten Day Notice and Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical have still not filed a responsive pleading to the complaint. Please assess damages jointly and severally against Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical in the amount of$18,234.26 plus interest and costs, as set forth in the Affidavit in Support of Default Judgment and Proof of Loss. As the Defendants have failed to respond to the Plaintiffs pleadings upon proper notice and more than ten (10) days have passed since service of the Ten Day Notice, Plaintiff requests a contemporaneous entry of Default Judgment. I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IS FOR A SPECIFIED AMOUNT ALLEGED TO BE DUE IN THE COMPLAINT AND IS CALCULABLE AS A SUM CERTAIN FROM THE COMPLAINT. SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: September 18, 2013 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D. No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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 Plaintiff, V. : QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, NO.: 2012-7514 PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co., RONALD HOWARD CIVIL ACTION - LAW and R.E.H. MECHANICAL Defendants. AND NOW, this day of 2013, JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE SAID PLAINTIFF, Insurance Company of Greater New York, a/s/o Devonshire Square Condominium Association, and against Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical jointly and severally by default for want of an Answer, and damages are. assessed in the amount of$18,234.26 as per the above-certific 'on. Rr otft nod SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D. No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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 Plaintiff, V. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, NO.: 2012-7514 PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co., RONALD HOWARD CIVIL ACTION - LAW and : R.E.H. MECHANICAL Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT OF AMOUNT DUE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 1, Matthew D. Matkov, being duly sworn, and under the penalty of perjury, depose and state: 1. I am a member of the law firm of Saltz Matkov P.C., attorney for Insurance Company of Greater New York, a/s/o Devonshire Square Condominium Association, and as such am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances herein. 2. This Affidavit is submitted in support of Plaintiff's Request that the Prothonotary for this Honorable Court enter Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York and against Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical. 3. Upon examination of my client's books and records, I have ascertained that there is now due by Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical to Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York the sum of$18,234.26. 4. The amounts asserted above to be due are based on a fully executed Proof of Loss which represents the damages sustained in this action and are delineated as follows: A. Proof of Loss (Building Damage) dated 3/4/2011..............$ 13,234.26 B. Deductible in the amount of.... $5,000.00 TOTAL: $18,234.26 A true and correct copy of the above-referenced Proof of Loss is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 5. Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical have been defaulted for failure to appear in this action. 6. Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical are not infants or incompetent people and are not in the military service. 7. 1 verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. WHEREORE, it is respectfully requested that Plaintiff s Application for Default Judgment be granted and that the Prothonotary for this Honorable Court enter a Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York, a/s/o Devonshire Square Condominium Association and against Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical,jointly and severally, in the amount of$18,264.26. Respectfully submitted, 'Amh�-- Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Attorney ID No.: 93661 Saltz Matkov P.C. 998 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 (484)-318-7225 Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York a/s/o Devonshire Square Condominium Association Dated: September 18, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Bryan Petre, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Default Judgment, Affidavit of Amount Due, Affidavit of Non-Miltary Service /Last Known Address and proposed Order was served via first class mail and electronic filing on this 18th day of September, 2013 upon the following: Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17105 R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17105 Bryan Petre SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D. No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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 Plaintiff, V. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, NO.: 2012-7514 PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co., RONALD HOWARD CIVIL ACTION - LAW and R.E.H. MECHANICAL Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF NON-MILITARY SERVICE AND LAST KNOWN ADDRESS I, Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire, of full age, being duly sworn according to law, upon my oath, depose and say that I am the attorney for Plaintiff, that I am authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiff; that the last known local address of Defendants Ronald Howard and R.E.H. Mechanical is 647 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, PA 17105; that said Defendants are not in the military service of the United States, nor any other State or Territory thereof or its allies as defined in the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act of 1940, and the Amendments thereto. SALTZ�pM�jAKTTOV—P.C. By: Sworn to and Subscribed before me Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire this 196%''i day of-5w{�rM 2013. Attorney for Plaintiff FO:N BRYA pETRE,Not V P Ridleyn pelanvM�+ Exhibit "A" SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff r Jody S Smith Chief Deputy _ Richard W Stewart Solicitor OFF!CE OF Ft�E Si-ERIFF Insurance Company Of Greater New York Case Number vs. Quality Water Treatment(et al.) 2012-07514 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE _.._. 01/09/2013 06:06 PM -Deputy Noah Cline, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint& Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Ronald Howard, Owner, who accepted as"Adult Person in Charge"for R.E..H Mechanical at 647 Alexander Spring Rd., Dickinson Twp., Carlisle, PA 17105. NOAH CLINE, DEPUTY 01/09/2013 06:06 PM-Deputy Noah Cline, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint& Notice by"personally"handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be the Defendant, to wit: Ronald Howard at 647 Alexander Spring Road, Dickinson Township, Carlisle, PA 17013. NOAH CLINE, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $56.00 SO ANSWERS, January 10, 2013 RbNW R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (C)CcunlySulte Sherff,7eleogcft,Inc. Exhibit ` B " SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D.No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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.: 2012-7514 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. TO: Defendant Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle, PA 17015 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER,THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED RATE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 Matthew D. Matkov,Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: May 28, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Rule 237.1 Ten Day Notice of Default was served on the below date via certified, return-receipt and regular mail,postage prepaid, upon the following: Defendant Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle, PA 17015 Matthew D. Matkov,Esquire Dated: May 28, 2013 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D. No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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.: 2012-7514 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. TO: Defendant R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle, PA 17015 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN 10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED RATE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE,PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: May 28, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire,hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Rule 237.1 Ten Day Notice of Default was served on the below date via certified, return-receipt and regular mail, postage prepaid,upon the following: Defendant R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle, PA 17015 OaWPew . Ma tkov quire Dated: May 28,2013 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D. No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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 Plaintiff, V. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, NO.: 2012-7514 PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co., RONALD HOWARD CIVIL ACTION - LAW and R.E.H. MECHANICAL Defendants. NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE 236 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT JUDGMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED AGAINST YOU IN THE ABOVE PROCEEDING AS INDICATED BELOW. PROTHONOTARY X Judgment by Default Money Judgment Judgment in Replevin Judgment for Possession Judgment on Award of Arbitration Judgment on Verdict Judgment on Court Findings IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, PLEASE CALL: ATTORNEY: MATTHEW MATKOV, ESQUIRE AT THIS TELEPHONE NUMBER: (484 318-7225 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D.No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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, M M #_.. _:..: -ter, V. ,, car QUALITY WATER TREATMENT NO.: 2012-7514 x Q 15431 Wilkshire Ct. ' N fir,,, Houston, TX 77069, cre 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. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York in the above-captioned matter. G r Baile , Esquire At orney for Plaintiff Dated: September 19, 2013 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Bryan Petre, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the Entry of Appearance to be filed this 19th day of September, 2013, by first class 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 mgebauer @eckertseamans.com kmeyer@eckertseamans.com R.E.H. Mechanical 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 Ronald Howard 647 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17015 F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire Davis Bennett Spiess& Livingood LLC P.O. Box 191 130 W. Lancaster Avenue Wayne, PA 19087 Bryan Petre 3 SALTZ MATKOV P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff Insurance By: Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Company of Greater New York Attorney I.D. No.: 93661 a/s/o Devonshire Square Condo. 998 Old Eagle School Road Assoc. Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 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, Plaintiff, V. --u a -� rri Ca ca �- QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, M -Mv �7`:,;� NO.: 12-7514 �� N CG PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a r= c'' Fleck Co., S c- � o :r D , RONALD HOWARD R.E.H. MECHANICAL, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants. PLAINTIFF, INSURANCE COMPANY OF GREATER NEW YORK, AS SUBROGEE OF DEVONSHIRE SQUARE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION'S, REPLY TO DEFENDANT, PENTAIR INC.'S, NEW MATTER Plaintiff, Insurance Company of Greater New York, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiff'), by their counsel Saltz Matkov P.C., hereby files the within response to Defendant Pentair, Inc.'s (hereinafter "Answering Defendant"),New Matter and in support thereof the Plaintiff avers as follows: 49. Denied. The contents of this paragraph require no response. 50. Denied. The contents of this paragraph require no response. 51. Admitted as stated. It is admitted only that the Court's Order dated July 30, 2013 is a legal document that speaks for itself. By way of further answer, any characterizations of the Court's Order and/or any inferences drawn from the Answering Defendant's interpretation of the Court's Order are strictly denied. Said averments are therefore denied. 52. Denied. All averments of paragraph 52 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 53. Denied. As the averments of paragraph 53 of the New Matter of Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. By way of further answer, Plaintiff instituted this action by filing a Civil Action Complaint on December 14, 2012 in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. No. 106 54. Denied. All averments of paragraph 54 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 55. Denied. All averments of paragraph 55 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 56. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs damages were caused by the acts of other persons or entities over whom the Answering Defendant had no control or right of control. By way of further answer, the averments of paragraph 56, of the New Matter of the 2 Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 57. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs damages were caused by the acts of other parties or entities over whom the Answering Defendant had no control or right of control. By way of further answer, the averments of paragraph 57, of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 58. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs damages were caused by the acts of other parties or entities over whom the Answering Defendant had no control or right of control. By way of further answer, the averments of paragraph 58, of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 59. Denied. All averments of paragraph 59 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 60. Denied. All averments of paragraph 60 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 3 61. Denied. All averments of paragraph 61 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 62. Denied. All averments of paragraph 62 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 63. Denied. All averments of paragraph 63 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 64. Denied. All averments of paragraph 64 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 65. Denied. All averments of paragraph 65 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 66. Denied. All averments of paragraph 66 of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 4 67. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff acted in a negligent or careless manner; it is specifically averred that, at all times relevant to this civil action, the Plaintiff acted in a lawful and prudent manner, and the damages to the Plaintiff were caused jointly and severally by the negligence and/or carelessness of the Answering Defendant. Further, as the averments of paragraph 67, of the New Matter of the Answering Defendant constitute conclusions of law, no further response is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and strict proof of said averments is demanded at time of trial, if relevant. 68. Denied. The contents of this paragraph require no response. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Insurance Company of Greater New York, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant Pentair, Inc. NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 1. This paragraph is not addressed to Plaintiff and as such requires no further response. To the extent that any part of this paragraph is deemed to address Plaintiff, same is denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Insurance Company of Greater New York, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant Pentair, Inc. Respectfully submitted, — =%1777-- P hew D. Matkov, Esquire Kevin M. Demko, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 93661 Saltz Matkov P.C. 998 Old Eagle School Road 5 r � ' Suite 1206 Wayne, PA 19087 (484)318-7225 Attorney for Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York, as subrogee of Devonshire Square Condominium Association. Dated: 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Matthew Matkov, hereby certify that on September 18, 2013, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Defendant Pentair, Inc.'s New Matter was served via first-class mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Mark E. Gebauer, Esquire Kyle J. Meyer, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin& Mellott, LLC P.O. Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1248 mgebauer@eckertseamans.com kmeyer@eckertseamans.com 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 kki *A-- Matthew Matkov 7 i ii nn ji 5 { v l25 F 2. t6 LAND GU" Paul J. Hennessy. Esquire t ENN5yE.VAN' j 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 y 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.N. 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 Nev‘ : 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 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE UNDER RULE 213(a) Plaintiff. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw by and H through their attorney. Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire, hereby moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 213(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order n�T ni oi J the above- captioned actions for purposes of discovery and trial as follows: 1 1. The above-captioned captioned actions arise from a December 24, 2010 water 11 loss caused by a failure of a water softner system installed at Devonshire Square Condominiums of which Plaintiff insured Lowell Latshaw owned a unit. I 2. On July 20, 2012. Plaintiffs liberty, 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 Plaintiffs 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 F 1 filed in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhbit "B." 4. These litigations involve the same witnessess and substantially the same 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: By: Ad Paul J. HT nessy, Esquire 3 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.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 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 Plaintiffs 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 Courts 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. • aul J. j'ennessy, Esquire V11‘)0811 B11 Paul J. 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 AND Pentair, Inc. d/bla Pentair Water, Inc. ''c 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 a s/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/kla Fleck Co.. Defendant Ronald Howard individually and d/b/a Defendant R.E.I I. Mechanical the following: PARTIES 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 AIlentown, 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.1l. Po rov P P g 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 Y P P P 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 a condominium located at Devonshire Square Condominiums, 13 Devonshire Square, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 7. At all times relevant Plaintiff s 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.FI., to install a water softener system("the water softener") at the condominium unit (the"Unit") at 13 Devonshire Square, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. 1! 9. At all times material hereto, Defendant R.E.H. 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. The Unit's owner purchased the water softener from Defendant QWT. ji If ii 12. The water softener was designed,constructed, assembled, produced and/or sold by Defendant QWT. I ! { 13. 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. 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 { I 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. 1 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 water 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.I I. 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.II., 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. arc 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. Plaintiff 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 QWI'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. AO! 'Y.ul J. Tennessy, s••ire 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 -Of Dated: �L� Paul J. 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 : Cumberland County, Pennsylvania vs. : Civil Action Law REH Mechanical : No: 12-4518 AND Ronald Howard AND Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. alk/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`h 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 E Houston, TX 77069 i Paul J. nnessy, Es. . re pLp1NT1FF'S 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. • (--> 4,4 ° • c � X",x QUALITY WATER TREATMENT • NO.: j n:)5 ,4 r„ r.,� 15431 Wilkshire Ct. : Cry+/ z r' Houston,TX 77069, • X• 4-* °c • cC3 ro =c PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water,Inc. a/k/a • z Qm Fleck Co. • 5500 Wayzata Blvd. • -{{ om,, 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 ti l o� 75e41 Q fit_,' 1141 gu 33° 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 CET 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 al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta 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 demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara mediadas y peude continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo avios o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisioner de este demanda. Usted puede perder dinem o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes pare 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 CONSEGUIR 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,FA 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.dlb/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 I. Plaintiff Insurance Company of Greater New York("INSCO"), 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. 16. 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 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 6) 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 appropri ate. 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. S 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. 10 • 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. 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. Al M.Saltz,Esquire Matthew D.Matkov,Esquire Emanuel A.Chryssos,Esquire Attorney ID Nos.:51497/93661/311608 tt 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 12 VERIFICATION I,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. Ma ew 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 E. Gebauer. Esquire Matthew D. Matkov, Esquire Kyle J. Meyer. Esquire Gary Bailey, Esquire Eckert Seasmans 1 171 Lancaster Avenue. Ste. 101 213 Market Street. 8`i Floor Berwyn, PA 19312 Carlisle, PA 17101 REH 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 hi) Pa!l J. HennVsy, Esquire/ i 1 i ? I I 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, 1 conferences. reports, records and other investigative material in the file / 4,0 1 ! Dated: { .'Y • FILING OF DOCUMENTS HENNESSY WALKER GROUP, P.C. I)A I I.:I 1-21-2013 To: Office of the Prothonotary. Cumberland County Cc: Mark E. 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: Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate ( X ) Please return file-marked copies to our office ( ) Please enter date of tiling 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 Paul J. Hennessy. Esquire 4 lit PROTHONOTARY 4 Ilennessv & Walker Group, P.C. Ij ` 11 142 W. Market Street. Suite 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 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.H. Mechanical : No. 12-4518 RONALD HOWARD PENTAIR. Inc. d/h/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 Laws v. : No. 12-7514 Quality Water Treatment Pentair. Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water. Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald I Toward AND R.E.II Mechanical ADDENDUM '10 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE UNDER RULE 213(a) IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY I.00AL. RULE 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 .1. Hennessy. Esquire, hereby moves this Honorahle 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 follows. 1. Plaintiff's tiled 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 by Defendant Pentair, Inc. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Fleck Co. to Plaintiffs Complaints in both of the above captioned matters were heard before President Judge Hess, 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.E.H. Mechanical, and Quality Water Treatment in favor of Plaintiff's Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw on February 21, 2013 in Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Docket No. 12-4518. 4. On December 6, 2013, Plaintiffs 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 Latshaw'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/b/a Pentair Water. Inc. a/k/a Heck 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 I I 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 J. 1I n► essv. Ls •re COMMONWEALTH OF PFNNSYLVANIA : COUNTY OF CHESTER : 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 Plaintiffs) is/are unable and unavailable to make this verification on its/his/her own behalf:vithin the time allotted for tiling 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 !rC-./e t`` Dated: /2 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.I-I. Mechanical : No. 17-4518 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 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the Addendum to Plaintiff's 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°' Floor 1 171 Lancaster Avenue. Ste. 101 Carlisle, PA 17101 Berwyn, PA 19312 REH 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 aul J. H nessy, Esquire Hennessy& W= er • a Liberty Mutual Insurance Company: In The Court of Common Pleas a/sic) 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. —T,--:, a/k/a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard 7; rRi AND R.E.I( Mechanical zt �' ',f_,' s fir. ORDER AND NOW. This /9 ' day of ,.,,W. 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: a / O J. N By: F. HARRY SPIESS, JR., ESQUIRE DAVIS BENNETT SPIESS & LIVINGb Attorney ID No. 08859 "�' �' ' r �f o � }�[ j : ttorney for Defendant 130 West Lancaster Avenue Clip;�{L n Quality Water Treatment P.O. Box 191 Wayne, PA 19087-0191 telephone: 610-688-6200 telefax: 610-688-3887 email: hspiess@davisbennett.com Liberty Mutual Insurance Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS a/s/o Lowell Latshaw CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA 5050 West Tilghman Street, Suite 200 Allentown, PA 18014 Plaintiffs vs. QUALITY WATER TREATMENT, PENTAIR, INC. d/b/a Pentair Water, Inc. a/k/a Pentair Co., RONALD HOWARD and R.E.H. MECHANICAL, Defendants. NO.: 12-7514 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANT QUALITY WATER TREATMENT Defendant, Quality Water Treatment by and through their counsel, Davis Bennett Spiess & Livingood, LLC hereby produce Answers to the following Amended Complaint by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company a/s/o Lowell Latshaw by and through their counsel, Hennessy & Walker. Parties 1. Admitted. 2. Denied.. Quality Water Treatment (QWT) is not the manufacturer nor responsible for quality control, shipping or assembly on any equipment that is in question in this matter. There is no equipment that bears the name of QWT. To the contrary, QWT sells equipment manufactured by Nelsen Corporation which assembles, ships and markets the Nelsen water softener that is in question in this matter designated as the Fleck 2510 SXT Digital Metered Water Softener. It is denied that QWT regularly conducts business in and about this judicial district. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packaging, distributor of the Water Softener. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. Factual Allegations 6. Admitted. 7. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 8. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 9. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 10. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 11. Denied. The unit's owner purchased the water softener through the website, a product that was manufactured and shipped by Nelsen Corporation. 12. Denied. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener, rather Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 16. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 17. Denied. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 18. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 19. Denied. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 20. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 21. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 22. Admitted 23. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied 24. Subrogation admitted. Liability of QWT denied. Count I — Plaintiff V. Howard and R.E.H - Negligence 25. — 29. These averments pertain to Defendant Howard and R.E.H. and thus will not be answered by QWT. Count II — Plaintiff V. QWT and Pentair — Product Liability 30. Admitted. 31. Denied. It is denied that Quality Water Treatment contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 32. Admitted. 33. Denied. It is denied that Quality Water Treatment contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 34. Denied. It is denied that Quality Water Treatment contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 35. Denied. It is denied that Quality Water Treatment contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. No foreseeable risk exceeded benefits. 36. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 37. Denied. It is denied that Quality Water Treatment contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 38. Denied. It is denied that Quality Water Treatment contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 39. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 40. Denied. Denied. It is denied that QWT knew or should have known the water softener was defective, dangerous and unsafe. It is denied that Quality Water Treatment contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 41. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 42. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 43. Denied. It is denied that Quality Water Treatment manufactured, designed, advertised or contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. Strict liability is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and same is denied. 44. Denied. It is denied the product was unreasonably dangerous or that Quality Water Treatment contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 45. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. 46. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 46 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and the same are therefore deemed denied. 47. Denied. It is denied that Quality Water Treatment was negligent or contributed to any system defect. QWT did not design, assemble, construct or produce the water softener. Nelsen Corporation, located at 3250 Barber Rd, .Norton, OH 44203 is the original equipment manufacturer, packager and distributor of the Water Softener. 48. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 48 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and the same are therefore deemed denied. 49. Defendant, QWT is without information sufficient to formulate a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment and the same is therefore deemed denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Quality Water System is not liable for any damages to Plaintiff, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of Lowell Latshaw and requests Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. F. Harry Spies , Jr., Esquire Davis Bennett Spiess & Livingood COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CHESTER :ss VERIFICATION 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 Defendant(s); that the said Defendant(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 interview, conferences, reports, records and other investigative material in the file. Dated: • Quality Water Treatment Dated: May 2, 2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, F. Harry Spiess, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I caused a copy of Defendant, Quality Water Treatment's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint Addressed to Quality Water Treatment to be served this 2nd day of May , 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, J 1 Paul J. Hennessy, Esquire I lennessy & Walker Group, P.C. 142 W. Market Street. Suite 2 West Chester. PA 19387 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 /hitit Pentair Water. Inc, a Fleck Co. �'ND Quality Water 11;,watnrent 1nsnr,incc Company o f Greater New \"ol \. a; subrog,ec of Devonshire Square Condominium s iilc,iatlon v. Quaiity Water Treatment Pentair. Inc. d%b'a Pentair Water. Inc. a /k/a Fleck Co. Ronald Howard ANI R.i :.11. Mechanical Attorney for Plaintiff : 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 [111 Pt "I ITION FOR A iI'O1N'I NI1 \ I' OF ARBITRATORS 1O 1 I11 1 IOr ORAill I.. 1111 Jit1)(1'S O1 S\I1) ('O1 HRT: Paul J. Hennessy. F;squire. counsel for the plaintiff 1 ihertv Mutual Insurance Company. ais'0 owell itshav in the ahoi action x.:,;riecifuily repi-cscnts that: 1, The ahl.lye-captioned actictri, air.` at is.,nL 2. The claim of Pluinti'1 in the action intiated by Liberty \lutual Insurance Company ais'o I,owe11 Latshaw is $ i 7..558.11. 3. The claim of the Plaintiff iu the aciijn initiated b■ Insurance Company of Greater New York as suhrogcc of Devonshire Square Coiidominium :'association is $18,234.00. Pa A-'T' e aeIo 5o q� The following attorneys are 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. Bade). . Flsq.. Matthew Matkov. Esq. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your 1 Ionorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be subnUttedl. Respectfully submitted, Paul.1.Ite( messy. 1 -:s ►ire 1. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : COUN"I'Y 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 linable and unavailable to make this verification on its /his /her owp 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 aul J. H nnessy, Es Hennessy & ire 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,