Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-5622 Supreme Co Pennsylvania Cour ot cgmino leas For Prothonotary Use Only: J 1- Ct llyCSh_ et Docket No: (� County The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not supplement or replace the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court. Commencement of Action: S El Complaint 0 Writ of Summons 0 Petition El Transfer from Another Jurisdiction 0 Declaration of Taking E Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: C Erie Insurance Exchange a /s /o Sylvia R. Minick Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. T Dollar Amount Requested: 0 within arbitration limits I Are money damages requested? J Yes ® No (check one) El outside arbitration limits O N Is this a Class Action Suit? ® Yes 0 No Is this an MDJAppeal? El Yes El No A Name of Plaintiff /Appellant's Attorney: Jesse M. Cohen 0 Check here if you have no attorney (are a Self- Represented [Pro Se] Litigant) Nature of the Case Place an "X" to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that you consider most important. TORT (do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT (do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS 0 Intentional 0 Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies 0 Malicious Prosecution 0 Debt Collection: Credit Card 0 Board of Assessment 0 Motor Vehicle ® Debt Collection: Other 0 Board of Elections ® Nuisance Dept. of Transportation ® Premises Liability Statutory Appeal: Other S 0 Product Liability (does not include mass tort) �J Employment Dispute: E 0 lander/Libel/ Defamation Discrimination C Othe 0 Employment Dispute: Other 0 Zoning Board Other: T I [3 Other: O MASS TORT 0 Asbestos N 0 Tobacco E] Toxic Tort - DES 0 Toxic Tort - Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS 0 Toxic Waste 0 Ejectment 0 Common Law /Statutory Arbitration B 0 Other: 0 Eminent Domain /Condemnation 0 Declaratory Judgment 0 Ground Rent 0 Mandamus 0 Landlord/Tenant Dispute 0 Non - Domestic Relations 0 Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY 0 Mortgage Foreclosure: Commercial © Quo Warranto 0 Dental 0 Partition 0 Replevin ® Legal 0 Quiet Title 0 Other: 0 Medical 0 Other: Other Professional: Updated 1/1/2011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Erie Insurance Exchange a /s /o Sylvia R. Minnick Plaintiff c VS zr`T1 m ` F cn tv z /� ) y 0 -1 Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. et al. ✓ r" j z� CID Defendant n • --� cis �� NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH HIRING A LAWYER. 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 REDUECED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1- 800 - 990 -9108 717- 249 -3166 ai V p1 THIS IS NOT AN ARBITRATION MATTER. JURY TRIAL BY A JURY OF TWELVE IS DEMANDED. J.M. COHEN, LLC BY: Jesse M. Cohen, Esq. PA Bar No. 93020 1500 JFK Blvd. I Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 P: (215) 557 -4470 F: (215) 405 -3735 i essecohengjmcohenllc.com ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE a /s /o C UMB E ROLA D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SYLVIA R. MINICK CU 100 Erie Insurance Place Erie, PA 16530 and NO, ANDREA MINICK RUDOLPH, as attorney -in -fact for SYLVIA R. MINICK 2718 Columbia Ave. Camp Hill, PA 17011 Plaintiffs, VS. SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC. a /k/a d/b /a SUPERIOR PLUS CORPORATION a /k/a d/b /a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES 224 Valley Creek Blvd. Suite 320 Exton, PA 19341 Defendants. CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT The plaintiffs, Erie Insurance Exchange, as subrogee of, SYLVIA R. MINICK and ANDREA MINICK RUDOLPH, as attorney -in -fact for SYLVIA R. MINICK, by way of Complaint against the defendants, SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC. a/k/a d/b /a SUPERIOR PLUS CORPORATION a/k/a d/b /a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES hereby avers as follows: FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 1. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff's insured, Sylvia R. Minick, owned certain real and personal property located at 2718 Columbia Avenue, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (the "Property "). 2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Andrea Minick Rudolph, has served and continues to serve as the attorney -in -fact for Sylvia R. Minick, and is expressly authorized to take action on her behalf, including, but not limited to, the institution and prosecution of legal proceedings. 3. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, Erie Insurance Exchange ( "Erie "), did insure the above Property and its contents, against loss by fire, smoke, soot, and the like, pursuant to a policy of insurance ( "Policy ") issued to Sylvia R. Minick. 4. At all relevant times hereto, the defendant, SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC. a/k/a d/b /a SUPERIOR PLUS CORPORATION a/k/a d/b /a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, was and is a business corporation maintaining its principal place of business at 224 Valley Creek Blvd., Suite 320, Exton, PA 19341. 5. On or about 04/11/11, Superior installed an oil boiler at the Property, connecting it to the existing fuel tank, and using the existing fuel lines, pursuant to an "Installation/Repair Agreement' ' attached as Exhibit "A" hereto. 6. On or about 11/28/12, Sylvia R. Minick discovered smoke and soot throughout the basement of the Property. (The "Soot Loss "). 7. The smoke and soot originated from the oil boiler at the Property. 8. The smoke and soot were caused to escape the oil boiler due to a failed pump seal. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the above failure Sylvia R. Minick sustained smoke and soot damage to her real and personal property and equipment, as well as loss of use, emergency expenses, cleanup and other losses. 10. As a further direct and proximate result of the subject smoke and soot release and its damages, Plaintiff, Erie, has made certain payments to Sylvia R. Minick in the amount of $14,116.83, and may make certain additional payments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy with its insured. 11. Further, Silvia Minick incurred out of pocket expenses of $2,465.93. 12. Further, Andrea Minick Rudolph, as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia Minick, incurred out of pocket expenses of $1,950.00. 13. By virtue of the aforesaid obligations and payments, Erie is subrogated to the rights of its insured to the extent of the payments made or that will be made. 14. Thereafter, on or about 12/30/12, Superior modified the heating system at the Property by removing one of the supply lines from the oil tank to the boiler, making it a single line system. 15. Thereafter, on or about January 28, 2013, the boiler stopped operating due to air being trapped in the single supply line, which caused a "reset" condition. 16. As a result of the boiler not operating, pipes froze and burst and water flooded the Property. (The "Water Loss "). 17. As a direct and proximate result of the above failure Sylvia R. Minick sustained water damage to her real and personal property and equipment, as well as loss of use, emergency expenses, cleanup and other losses. 18. As a further direct and proximate result of the water leak and its damages, Plaintiff, Erie, has made certain payments to Sylvia R. Minick in the amount of $30,820.00, and may make certain additional payments in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Policy with its insured. 19. Further, Sylvia Minick incurred out of pocket expenses as more fully set forth above. 20. Further, Andrea Minick Rudolph, as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia Minick, incurred out of pocket expenses as more fully set forth above. 21. By virtue of the aforesaid obligations and payments, Erie is subrogated to the rights of its insured to the extent of the payments made or that will be made. COUNT NEGLIGENCE — SOOT LOSS 22. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates by reference each and every of the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length. 23. Upon knowledge, information and belief, Superior installed the oil boiler prior to the loss, as more fully described herein. 24. When undertaking this work, the defendant, Superior, owed a duty to Sylvia R. Minick and other foreseeable persons to exercise due care in the course of their work, and to protect 'the property of the plaintiff's insured, including from the risk of fire, smoke and soot. 25. The defendant, Superior, breached this duty by way of, inter alia; a) Failing to fully and properly examine and inspect the oil boiler for wear and tear, b) Failing to determine whether the seals of the oil boiler were in good repair and fit for use, c) Failing to follow the oil boiler manufacturer's instructions regarding the installation and inspection of the oil boiler, d) Failing to follow good and accepted practices in regards to installing and servicing oil boilers, in accordance with industry standards such as those set forth by National Oil Research Alliance, e) Installing a new oil boiler using the then existing oil tank and supply lines, f) Filling the oil tank one (1) day before the loss without first checking the tank to insure there was no sediment in the bottom, g) Filing the oil tank too fast, causing sediment in the tank to migrate into the supply lines, clogging the same, h) Failing to take other steps as would be taken by a reasonably prudent HVAC service technician in the same or similar circumstances, and, i) Such other acts and omission as will be proven by the evidence at the time of trial. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of defendant, the pump seal of the oil boiler failed and caused smoke and soot to damage the Property all as more fully set forth herein, which caused damage to plaintiffs' property, both real and personal, as described in the preceding paragraphs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Erie Insurance Exchange, as subrogee of Sylvia R. Minick, and Andrea Minick Rudolph as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia R. Minick, demands judgment in its favor and against defendant as follows: a. For actual damages in the amount of $14,116.83 to Erie; b. For actual damages in the amount of $2,465.93 to Sylvia Minick; c. For actual damages in the amount of $1,950.00 to Andrea Minick Rudolph, as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia Minick; d. Interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and for such other relief as this Court finds proper and just. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE — WATER LOSS 27. Plaintiffs hereby incorporates by reference each and every of the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were more fully set forth herein at length. 28. Upon knowledge, information and belief, Superior performed work on the oil boiler prior to the loss, as more fully described herein, converting it from a two line system to a "single line" system. 29. When undertaking this work, the defendant, Superior, owed a duty to Sylvia R. Minick and other foreseeable persons to exercise due care in the course of their work, and to protect the property of the plaintiff's insured, including from the risk of fire, smoke and soot. 30. The defendant, Superior, breached this duty by way of, inter alia; a) Changing from a "two line" to a "one line" system, b) Failing to install a "tiger loop" to prevent air from getting into the system, c) Failing to properly design/modify the system for an underground fuel tank, d) Failing to modify the tank and supply lines upon installation of the oil boiler, e) Failing to warn plaintiff of the dangers posed by not installing a "tiger loop" f) Failing to provide Plaintiff with sufficient information about the need for a "tiger loop" to prevent air from getting into the supply lines, g) Failing to advise Plaintiff that a single line system could become blocked and cause the system to malfunction, h) Failing to advise Plaintiff that air could become trapped in a single line system and cause the same to malfunction, i) Failing to service the system in accordance with accepted standards and practices, j) Failing to follow the boiler manufacturer's instructions regarding the installation and maintenance of the boiler, k) Failing to follow good and accepted practices in regards to servicing oil boilers, in accordance with industry standards such as those set forth by National Oil Research Alliance, 1) Failing to take other steps as would be taken by a reasonably prudent HVAC service technician in the same or similar circumstances, and, m) Such other acts and omission as will be proven by the evidence at the time of trial. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of defendant, an air pocket developed in the single supply line, which caused a "reset" condition of the boiler, which caused several pipes to freeze and burst and to damage the Property all as more fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Erie Insurance Exchange, as subrogee of Sylvia R. Minick, and Andrea Minick Rudolph, as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia R. Minick, demand judgment in their favor and against defendants, individually, jointly and severally, as follows: a. For actual damages in the amount of $30,820.00 to Erie; e. For actual damages in the amount of $2,465.93 to Sylvia Minick; f. For actual damages in the amount of $1,950.00 to Andrea Minick Rudolph, as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia Minick; g. Interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and for such other relief as this Court finds proper and just. COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT — SOOT LOSS 32. The plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each and every of the above paragraphs to the same and full extent as if set forth herein at length. 33. The defendants entered into certain agreements with plaintiffs pursuant to which the defendants agreed to perform certain services at the Property, all as more fully set forth herein. 34. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendants undertook to "furnish and install" an "Andersen oil powered hydronic boiler" using the "existing" oil tank. See Exhibit A. 35. Further, in order to induce plaintiffs to enter into the agreements, defendants represented that they had the necessary knowledge, training and skill to properly perform the work. 36. The agreements between the plaintiff and the defendants also included certain implied warranties that the work would be performed in a workmanlike manner, with the necessary knowledge, skill, care and ability. 37. The agreements between the plaintiff and the defendants also included certain express warranties that all work would comply with industry standards and model codes. 38. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs were ready, willing and able, and in fact performed, all conditions precedent and all obligations under its agreements with defendants, including issuing payment of $4,966.00. 39. The defendants breached their agreements with plaintiffs and the warranties described above, by failing to properly install, maintain, and service the heating system at the Property, all as more fully set forth at length in Counts I and II of Plaintiffs Complaint. 40. As a natural and foreseeable consequence of the breach described above, the Soot Loss of 11/28/12 occurred and the plaintiff sustained damages to property, both real and personal, and other losses as described in the preceding paragraphs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Erie Insurance Exchange, as subrogee of Sylvia R. Minick, and Andrea Minick Rudolph as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia R. Minick, demands judgment in its favor and against defendant as follows: a. For actual damages in the amount of $14,116.83 to Erie; b. For actual damages in the amount of $2,465.93 to Sylvia Minick; c. For actual damages in the amount of $1,950.00 to Andrea Minick Rudolph, as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia Minick; d. Interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and for such other relief as this Court finds proper and just. COUNT IV BREACH OF CONTRACT — WATER LOSS 41. The plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in each and every of the above paragraphs to the same and full extent as if set forth herein at length. 42. The defendants entered into an agreement with plaintiffs pursuant to which the defendants agreed to perform certain services at the Property, in consideration for certain payments made by the plaintiff. See Exhibit "B ". 43. Pursuant to the agreement, the defendants undertook to repair the system as a result of the 11/28/12 oil pump failure. 44. In order to induce plaintiffs to enter into the agreements, defendants represented that they had the necessary knowledge, training and skill to properly perform the work. 45. The agreements between the plaintiff and the defendants also included certain implied warranties that the work would be performed in a workmanlike manner, with the necessary knowledge, skill, care and ability. 46. The agreements between the plaintiff and the defendants also included certain express warranties that all work would comply with industry standards and model codes, 47. At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs were ready, willing and able, and in fact performed, all conditions precedent and all obligations under its agreements with defendants. 48. The defendants breached their agreements with plaintiffs and the warranties described above, by failing to properly install, maintain, and service the heating system at the Property, all as more fully set forth at length in Counts I and II of Plaintiff's Complaint. 49. As a natural and foreseeable consequence of the breach described above, the Soot Loss of 1/28/13 occurred and the plaintiff sustained damages to property, both real and personal, and other losses as described in the preceding paragraphs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Erie Insurance Exchange, as subrogee of Sylvia R. Minick, and Andrea Minick Rudolph, as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia R. Minick, demand judgment in their favor and against defendants, individually, jointly and severally, as follows: a. For actual damages in the amount of $30,820.00 to Erie; b. For actual damages in the amount of $2,465.93 to Sylvia Minick; c. For actual damages in the amount of $1,950.00 to Andrea Minick Rudolph, as attorney -in -fact for Sylvia Minick; d. Interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and for such other relief as this Court finds proper and just. Respectfully submitted, J.M. COHEN, LLC Jesse M. Cohen, Esq. / Attorney for Plaintiffs PA Bar No. 93020 1500 JFK Blvd. I Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 P: (215) 557 -4470 F: (215) 405 -3735 j essecohen(a��j mcohenllc. com VERIFICATION The undersigned, verifies that he /she has read the enclosed pleading and that it is true and correct to the best of signers knowledge, information, and belief. This verification is made with the knowledge that the signer is subject to punishment for any statements contained herein which are willfully false. r Dated: SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY FILED-OF `ICr Ronny R Anderson Sheriff U" THE PROTHONOTARY akxi#r ct cturrtot Jody S Smith k. 7#13 NOV -4 PM 3. 54 Chief Deputy WStewart C1!MBERLANO COUNTY Solicitor OrFICE Tr.SS ERirr PENNSYLVANIA Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o Sylvia R. Minnick Case Number vs. 2013-5622 Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 10/15/2013 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus, but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick.The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Chester, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint& Notice according to law. 10/21/2013 12:55 PM-The requested Complaint& Notice served by the Sheriff of Chester County upon John Rice, who accepted for Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus, at 224 Valley Creek Boulevard, Suite 320, Exton, PA 19340. Carolyn Welsh, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. SHERIFF COST: $37.00 SO ANSWERS, October 31, 2013 RONNY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (<:t OGur,(;vuii©Sherif`.To€osoft.I!'.. SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Qi 1101,tIt, )(367S Sheriff Jody S Smith Richard W Stewart Chief Deputy OFF,ZE OF TAE Solicitor Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o Sylvia R. Minnick Case Number vs. 2013-5622 Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus "' SERVICE COVER SHEET p12/ N_ SeBrice De t .. .. :... '. <� � �mt. ° Category: Civil Action -Complaint& Notice Zone: X Manner: Deputize Expires: 10/25/2013 Warrant: w ». a Notes: z 0 i- x w a�s �,to ' . Name: Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a dl. Served: Personally • du t In C rge • Posted • Other Primary 224 Valley Creek Boulevard Adult In —I 0 6. Address: Suite 320 Charge: „„,,y6 n n K(C-e Q Exton, PA 19340 • Phone: DOB: Relation: .l /C co Alternate Date: /p-2/-l3 1 Time: /.2 'SSA, ce Phone: Deputy: 9� .- Mileage: W Atto O In... ® °` .... Name: J.M. Cohen LLC Phone: 215-557-4470 N Service Attempts: _° t. Date: N Time: `4 Mileage: IIIIIIIIIII MIN N Deputy: W Z W y a Now, October 15, 2013 I, Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Chester County to o: execute service of the documents herewith and make return thereof according to law. 0 w Return To: a Cumberland County Sheriffs Office vi One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Ronny R Anderson, Sheriff FOX LAW, P.C. JOHN F. FOX,JR.,ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, I.D.No. 31854 Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., Two Logan Square, Suite 2030 a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation 100 North 18th Street a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services Philadelphia,PA 1903 215-568-6868 ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a/s/o • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SYLVIA R. MINICK : CUMBERLAND COUNTY • CIVIL ACTION and • ANDREA MINICK RUDOLPH, attorney-in-fact for SYLVIA R. • MINICK • —` ' ' r. V. : r -"j • ' - —ra SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, : L INC. a/k/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS : :- ENERGY CORPORATION a/k/a d/b/a • NO. 13-5622 - Civil SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services in the above-captioned matter. FOX LAW, P.C. By: 4, r- J► ` F. FOX, JR., E IRE orney for Defendant, Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services Dated: j 1.-I 1 FOX LAW,P.C. JOHN F. FOX,JR.,ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, I.D.No. 31854 Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., Two Logan Square, Suite 2030 a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation 100 North 18th Street a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services Philadelphia,PA 1903 215-568-6868 ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a/s/o : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SYLVIA R. MINICK : CUMBERLAND COUNTY • CIVIL ACTION and • ANDREA MINICK RUDOLPH, • attorney-in-fact for SYLVIA R. MINICK • v. SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, : INC. a/k/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY CORPORATION a/k/a d/b/a : NO. 13-5622 - Civil SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO THE PLAINTIFFS: Erie Insurance Exchange, a/s/o Sylvia R. Minick and Andrea Minick Rudoph, attorney-in-fact for Sylvia R. Minick You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. FOX LAW, P.C. By: .J JO F. FOX, JR., E QUIRE Attorney for Defendant, Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services Dated: 1 2 FOX LAW,P.C. JOHN F. FOX,JR., ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendant, I.D.No. 31854 Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., Two Logan Square, Suite 2030 a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation 100 North 18th Street a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services Philadelphia,PA 1903 215-568-6868 ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a/s/o : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SYLVIA R. MINICK : CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION • and ANDREA MINICK RUDOLPH, • attorney-in-fact for SYLVIA R. • MINICK • v. SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, : INC. a/k/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY CORPORATION a/k/a cl/b/a : NO. 13-5622 -Civil SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC., a/k/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY CORPORATION a/k/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services, hereinafter referred to as ("Defendant"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby answers Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter as follows: 1 —3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of the averments set forth in paragraphs one through 3 inclusive of plaintiffs' complaint and accordingly, the said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Superior Plus Energy Services, 3 Inc. has a place of business in Exton, Pennsylvania. Defendant denies that it is a Pennsylvania Corporation. On the contrary, Defendant is a New York Corporation. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 5. Paragraph five of plaintiffs' complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself and accordingly, no response is required. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 6 of plaintiffs' complaint and accordingly,the said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 7—8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 inclusive of plaintiffs' complaint and accordingly, the said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 9— 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraphs 9 through 12 inclusive of plaintiffs' complaint and accordingly, the said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 13. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 13 of plaintiffs' complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 14. Admitted. 15. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiffs' complaint are 4 deemed denied and are at issue pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 16 of plaintiffs' complaint and accordingly, the said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 17. Denied. Defendant denies that plaintiffs damages, if any, were caused as a direct and proximate result of defendant's negligence. By way of further answer and after reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 17 of plaintiffs' complaint and accordingly, the said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material is demanded at the trial of this cause. 18 —20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraphs 18 through 20 inclusive of plaintiffs' complaint and accordingly,the said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 21. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 21 of plaintiffs' complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Strict proof thereof, if material is demanded at the trial of this cause. COUNT ONE NEGLIGENCE—SOOT LOSS 22. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs one through 21 inclusive of plaintiffs' complaint as if fully set forth herein at length. 5 23. Admitted. 24. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 24 of plaintiffs' complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 25 (a-i). Denied. The allegations contained in paragraphs 25 (a through i) of plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and are at issue pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, defendant denies each and every subpart of paragraph 25 of plaintiffs' complaint. By way of further answer, defendant denies that it breached any duty to the plaintiffs. On the contrary, plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused solely by plaintiffs' own negligence and carelessness and/or that of third parties over whom defendant had no control. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and are at issue pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, defendant denies that plaintiffs' damages, if any, were a direct and proximate result of defendant's negligence. On the contrary, plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused solely by plaintiffs' own negligence and carelessness and or that of third parties over whom defendant had no control. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. WHEREFORE, Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services requests that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and that all costs, attorney's fees and all other appropriate relief be assessed against plaintiffs Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o of Sylvia R. Minick and Andrea Minick Rudolph, attorney-in-fact for Sylvia R. Minick and in favor of Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services. 6 • COUNT TWO NEGLIGENCE—WATER LOSS 27. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs one through 26 inclusive of plaintiffs' complaint as if fully set forth herein at length. 28. Admitted. Superior admits that it performed work on the oil boiler on November 28, 2012 to repair an oil pump on the heater unit that was defective due to a blocked return line. The return line ran under the slab between the foundation and the underground oil tank. Because the return line could not be repaired,the only temporary solution was to place the oil pump on a single pipe system rather than a two pipe system. Defendants notified the homeowner that the return line and the fill line needed to be dug up and replaced. The homeowner advised defendants that they were not interested in defendants digging up the fill line and return line. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 29. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs' complaint are conclusions of law to which no response is required. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 30 (a-k). The allegations contained in paragraph 30 (a-k) of plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and are at issue pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, defendant denies each and every subpart of paragraph 30 inclusive of plaintiffs' complaint. On the contrary, defendant at all times relevant hereto, followed good and accepted practices in regard to service on oil boilers in accordance with industry standards. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 31. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 31 of plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and are at issue pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict 7 proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. WHEREFORE, Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a dlb/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services requests that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and that all costs, attorney's fees and all other appropriate relief be assessed against plaintiffs Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o of Sylvia R. Minick and Andrea Minick Rudolph, attorney-in-fact for Sylvia R. Minick and in favor of Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a dlbla Superior Plus Energy Services. COUNT THREE BREACH OF CONTRACT—SOOT LOSS 32. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs one through 31 inclusive of plaintiffs' complaint as if fully set forth herein at length. 33. Paragraph 33 of plaintiffs' complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself and accordingly, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, defendant denies that it breached any of the terms of the agreement. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 34. Paragraph 34 of plaintiffs' complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself and accordingly, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, defendant denies that it breached any of the terms of the agreement. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 35. Defendants admit that it has the necessary knowledge,training and skill to properly perform the work as described in the Agreement. After reasonable investigation, defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth as to whether defendants "induced"plaintiffs to enter into the Agreement. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 8 36. Paragraph 36 of plaintiffs' complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself and accordingly,no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, defendant denies that it breached any of the terms of the agreement. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 37. Paragraph 37 of plaintiffs' complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself and accordingly,no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, defendant denies that it breached any of the terms of the agreement. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 38. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant admits that plaintiffs issued payment in the amount of$4,966. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 38 of plaintiffs' complaint and according,the said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 39. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 39 of plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and are at issue pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, defendant denies that it failed to properly install, maintain and service the heating system at the property. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, defendant followed good and accepted practices in regard to the servicing the oil boiler in accordance with accepted standards and practices. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 40. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 40 of plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and are at issue pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, defendant denies that it breached any Agreement entered into with the plaintiffs. By way of further answer, and after reasonable investigation, defendant is without 9 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph 40 of plaintiffs' complaint and according, said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. WHEREFORE,Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services requests that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and that all costs, attorney's fees and all other appropriate relief be assessed against plaintiffs Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o of Sylvia R. Minick and"Andrea Minick Rudolph, attorney-in-fact for Sylvia R. Minick and in favor of Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services. COUNT FOUR BREACH OF CONTRACT—WATER LOSS 41. Defendant incorporates by reference its answers to paragraph one through 40 inclusive of plaintiffs' complaint as if fully set forth herein at length. 42. Paragraph 42 of plaintiffs' complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself, and accordingly, no response is required. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 43. Paragraph 43 of plaintiffs' complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself, and accordingly, no response is required. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 44. Defendants admit that it has the necessary knowledge, training and skill to properly perform the work as described in the Agreement. After reasonable investigation, defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth as to whether defendants"induced"plaintiffs to enter into the Agreement. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 10 45. Paragraph 45 of plaintiffs' complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself and accordingly,no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, defendant denies that it breached any of the terms of the agreement. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 46. Paragraph 46 of plaintiffs' complaint refers to a writing which speaks for itself and accordingly, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, defendant denies that it breached any of the terms of the agreement. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 47 of plaintiffs' complaint and accordingly, said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 48. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 48 of plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and are at issue pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, defendant denies that it failed to properly install, maintain and service the heating system at the property. On the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, defendant followed good and accepted practices in regard to the servicing the oil boiler in accordance with accepted standards and practices. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. 49. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 49 of plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and are at issue pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, defendant denies that it breached any Agreement entered into with the plaintiffs. By way of further answer, and after reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments 11 contained in paragraph 49 of plaintiffs' complaint and according, said averments are deemed denied. Strict proof thereof, if material, is demanded at the trial of this cause. WHEREFORE, Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services requests that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and that all costs, attorney's fees and all other appropriate relief be assessed against plaintiffs Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o of Sylvia R. Minick and"Andrea Minick Rudolph, attorney-in-fact for Sylvia R. Minick and in favor of Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc., a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services. NEW MATTER 50. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 51. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 52. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and limited by the provisions of the comparative negligence statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §7102, the provisions of which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein at lengh. 53. Plaintiffs' alleged damages, if any, were caused solely by plaintiffs own negligence and carelessness. 54. Plaintiffs' damages, if any, were caused by conditions over which defendant had no control. WHEREFORE, Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. requests that plaintiffs' 12 Complaint be dismissed and all costs, attorney's fees and all other appropriate relief be assessed against plaintiffs and in favor of defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. FOX LAW, P.C. 2T/5, JO F. FOX, JR., ES IRE Attorney for Defendant Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services 13 VERIFICATION Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1024(c), JOHN F. FOX, JR., ESQUIRE states that he is the attorney for the Defendants; that he makes this verification as an attorney because the parties he represents are outside the jurisdiction of this Court and that verification cannot be obtained within the time limit allowed for the filing of this pleading; that he has sufficient knowledge and information based upon his investigation of the matter averred or denied in the foregoing pleading and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. By: f ,,:1-, JOB' F. FOX, JR., ESQUIRE A wormy for Defendants Superior Plus Energy Services, Inc. a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Corporation a/k/a d/b/a Superior Plus Energy Services Date:"1-'//u3 13 ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE,a/s/o • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SYLVIA R. MINICK • CUMBERLAND COUNTY • CIVIL ACTION • and • ANDREA MINICK RUDOLPH, • attorney-in-fact for SYLVIA R. • MINICK • v. • SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, : INC. a/k/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY CORPORATION a/k/a d/b/a : NO. 13-5622 -Civil SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE John F. Fox, Jr., Esquire,hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within Entry of Appearance on behalf of Defendants and Defendants' Answer to Complaint and New Matter was forwarded to the below name counsel on this 13 f4 day of December, 2013, by the United States Post Office, First Class Mail,Postage Pre-Paid. J. M. Cohen, Esquire J.M. Cohen, LLC 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 BSI JOB' F. FOX, JR.,AQUIRE F• LAW, P.C. I.D.NO. 31854 TWO LOGAN SQUARE, SUITE 2030 100 NORTH 18th STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-568-6868 Date: 12-13 13 15 r ,. • (11_CO-OF CE J.M. COHEN,LLC t)r. i t)' HE P R O T HH O H 0 ,A R By: Jesse M. Cohen, Esq. 7 3 PM : PA I.D. 93020 1500 JFK Blvd. I Suite 200 CUMBERLAND COUNTY Philadelphia, PA 19102 PENNSYLVANIA (215) 557-4470 iessecohen@jmcohenllc.com Attorney for Plaintiffs ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a/s/o CUMBERLAND COUNTY SYLVIA R. MINICK COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and CIVIL DIVISION ANDREA MINICK RUDOLPH, attorney-in-fact for SYLVIA R. MINICK NO. 13-5622 Plaintiffs vs. SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC. a/lc/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY CORPORATION a/k/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES Defendant PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 50. Denied. 51. Denied. Plaintiff is not obligated to mitigate damages under a commercial lease. 52. Denied. 53. Denied. 54. Denied. J s • WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants as more fully set forth in their Complaint. Respectfully submitted, J COHE , LLC Dated: se M. Cohen, Esq. A torney for Plaintiff PA Bar No. 93020 1500 JFK Blvd. I Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 557-4470 i essecohen @jmcohenllc.com . ' VERIFICATION I, Jesse M. Cohen, Esquire, certify that I am the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs, Erie Insurance Exchange, a/s/o Sylvia R. Minick and Andrea Minick Rudolph, attorney-in-fact for Sylvia R. Minick, in this matter. I further certify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained in this complaint are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 4'esse M. Cohen, Esquire Dated: (2_ tZo 12-0 (.3 f J.M. COHEN, LLC By: Jesse M. Cohen, Esq. PA I.D. 93020 1500 JFK Blvd. Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 557-4470 jessecohen@jrncohenlic.com Attorney for Plaintiff 1518 Associates, L.P. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, a/s/o CUMBERLAND COUNTY SYLVIA R. MINICK COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and CIVIL DIVISION ANDREA MINICK RUDOLPH, attorney-in-fact for SYLVIA R. MINICK NO. 13-5622 Plaintiffs vs. SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC. a/k/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY CORPORATION a/k/a d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Gail Redman, hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the Reply to New Matter, was served upon the following on this day, via United States First Class Mail,Postage Prepaid, as follows: John F. Fox,Jr. Esquire Fox Law,P.C. Two Logan Square Suite 2030 100 North 18th Street Philadelphia Pa 19103 4„, Dated: - ��'�' an Redman Paralegal for Jesse M. Cohen, Esquire