Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-7223 Supreme Cou_ A:5f Pennsylvania Cout O�f Commo Pleas For Prothonotary Use Only: Ci i1'Co er'S i. t j f J . Docket No: CUMBRER'LND' Count Y The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not supplement or replace the and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law or rules of court. Commencement of Action: S Complaint [E Writ of Summons - Petition Transfer from Another Jurisdiction 0 Declaration of Taking E C Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY KRANZEL'S HOBBIES T Dollar Amount Requested: Owithin arbitration limits I Are money damages requested? 'X: Yes ED No (check one) E]outside arbitration limits O N Is this a Class Action Suit? -! Yes El No Is this an MDJAppeal? 0 Yes [X. No A Name of Plaintiff /Appellant's Attorney: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire 0 Check here if you have no attorney (are a Self- Represented [Pro Sel 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 El Intentional 10 Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies 0 Malicious Prosecution 0 Debt Collection: Credit Card 0 Board of Assessment Motor Vehicle [7 Debt Collection: Other _ ! Board of Elections 0 Nuisance Dept. of Transportation _i Premises Liability Statutory Appeal: Other S n Product Liability (does not include mass tort) 0 Employment Dispute: E 0 Slander/Libel/ Defamation Discrimination i 1 C � Other: Employment Dispute: Other I_ � Zoning Board 0 Other: T I 0 Other: O MASS TORT n Asbestos N 0 Tobacco E] Toxic Tort - DES Toxic Tort - Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS 0 Toxic Waste 0 Ejectment 0 Common Law /Statutory Arbitration B Other: 0 Eminent Domain /Condemnation ! Declaratory Judgment 0 Ground Rent El Mandamus 0 Landlord /Tenant Dispute 0 Non- Domestic Relations Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY 0 Mortgage Foreclosure: Commercial Quo Warranto 0 Dental Partition El Replevin C� Legal M Quiet Title Other: n Medical f Other: Subrogation I© Other Professional: Updated 1/1/2011 COZEN O' CONNOR rid* TA ii y BY: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire DEC —6 AH 11 4 ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 E 1900 Market Street CUMBERLAND COUNT Philadelphia, PA 19103 PENNS YLVA NIA Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o James and Lori Malinish One State Farm Plaza, �(v(, Bloomington, Illinois 61710, CIVIL CASE NO Plaintiff, V. KRANZEL' S HOBBIES 2202A Gettysburg Road JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 and HOBBICO, INC. ; 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 ; and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road l Champaign, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, ; Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM187NS, : Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY /CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Attorney. Elizabeth J. Myers, E quire ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665 -2022 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company Date: WRIT OF SUMMONS I TO: HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE -NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Pro tary Clerk, Civil Division Date: 3 by Deputy c.. ILl: ) — OFF I L E COZEN O'CONNOR BY: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire 201: DEC - 6 014:41 ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street CU- BERLAND COUNTY Philadelphia, PA 19103 MSYLVANIA Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o James and Lori Malinish One State Farm Plaza, a Ul Bloomington, Illinois 61710, CIVIL CASE NO Plaintiff, V. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES 2202A Gettysburg Road JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ` Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 and - HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. : 4105 Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 : and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM187NS, Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY /CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Attorney. r �) 4 Elizabe J. Myers, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665 -2022 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company Date: [3 I WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM187NS YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE -NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Proth ary Clerk, C iv ision I Date: :� by Deputy COZEN O'CONNOR BY: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire D ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 4 1900 Market Street t�iR�,P�fl CtJUtdry Philadelphia, PA 19103 ' IVNSYLVAHEA Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o James and Lori Malinish One State Farm Plaza, � i Bloomington, Illinois 61710, CIVIL CASE NO Plaintiff, V. KRANZEL' S HOBBIES ; 1 2202A Gettysburg Road JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 i and HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 ; and I HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road : Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, ; Essex CM187NS, : Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY /CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Attorney. Elizabeth J. Myers, Es uire ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665 -2022 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company Date: 0000 • WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE -NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. >W CZ� Pro ar lerk, Civi ivision Date: by Deputy COZEN O'CONNOR l alt- BY: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. 4210269 DEC "'6 AM 11. 4 I 1900 Market Street CVIISERL Philadelphia, PA 19103 PENHS YLYANtA Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o James and Lori Malinish One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710, CIVIL CASE NO Plaintiff, V. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES 2202A Gettysburg Road JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Camp Hill, PA 17011 ; and TRAXXAS, L.P. : 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 ; and HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road ; Champagne, IL 61822 and ' HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road (Champaign, IL 61822 ; and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, ; Essex CM187NS, Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY /CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Attorney. Elizaba J. Myers Esquir ATTORNEY I.D. #21026 COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665 -2022 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company Date: 1 Z S 3 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: KRANZEL' S HOBBIES 2202A Gettysburg Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE -NAMED PLAINTIFFS) HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Pro Jerk, Civil ivision Date: (lL by Deputy COZEN O'CONNOR t PRO THOW TP BY: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire DEC ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 6 !� N"' 1900 Market Street CUMBERLAfM poij Philadelphia, PA 19103 PENNSYLVA . Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o James and Lori Malinish One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710, CIVIL CASE NO Plaintiff, V. : KRANZEL' S HOBBIES 2202A Gettysburg Road JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 and HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CMI87NS, Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY /CLERK OF SAID COURT: Issue summons in the above case Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Attorney. Eliza *h J. Myers, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665 -2022 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company Date: t'o� l.� WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE -NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Pro /Clerk, vil Division Date: by Deputy FILE D-tr FF,FICE COZEN O'CONNOR 01 THE I'hOTH0N0TAfjY BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE 2013 DEC 19 AM 10: 38 ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street CUMBERLAND COUNTY Philadelphia, PA 19103 PENNSYLVANIA Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Email: Lmyers @cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s/o James and Lori Malinish One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710, CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 Plaintiff V. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES 2202A Gettysburg Road JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 and HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CMI87NS, Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, as Subrogee of James and Lori Malinish, through its undersigned counsel, Cozen O'Connor, hereby demands judgment against defendants, and upon information and belief, in support thereof alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company ("State Farm"), is a corporation operating and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Illinois with a principal place of business at One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710, which at all relevant times was licensed to issue insurance policies in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2. James and Lori Malinish are citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who at all relevant times resided at 505 South Middlesex Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies ("Kranzel"), is a Pennsylvania company with a principal place of business at 2202 A Gettysburg Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011, and at all times material hereto was in the business of, inter alia, marketing and selling remote controlled vehicles and related products, including but not limited to Traxxas remote controlled cars, Horizon Hobby rechargeable batteries and Hobbico battery chargers. 4. Defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business at 1100 Klein Road, Plano, Texas 75074, and at all times material hereto was in the 2 f business of, inter alia, designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling remote controlled vehicles. 5. Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. "("Hobbico"), is an Illinois Corporation with a principal place of business at 2904 Research Road, Champaign, Illinois 61822 and at all times material hereto was in the business of, inter alia, the designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling battery chargers, including but not limited to those specifically designed and marketed for use with remote control vehicles. 6. Defendant, Horizon Hobby, Inc. ("Horizon"), is a Delaware Corporation with a principal place of business at 4105 Fieldstone Road, Champaign, Illinois 61822 and at all times material hereto was in the business of, inter alia, designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling batteries, including but not limited to those specifically designed and marketed for use with remote control vehicles. 7. Defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited ("Horizon Ltd."), is a British company and subsidiary of Horizon Hobby, Inc. with a principal place of business at Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road, Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM187NS and at all times material hereto was in the business of, inter alia, designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling batteries, including but not limited to those specifically designed and marketed for use with remote control vehicles. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. The matter in controversy exceeds $50,000.00, the cause of action arose in Cumberland County and the matter is otherwise within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. At all times material hereto, State Farm's insureds, James and Lori Malinish, owned and resided at the real property located at 505 South Middlesex Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10. At all times material hereto, State Farm provided insurance to James and Lori Malinish pursuant to policy number 38BJ68146. 11. In or before June 2011, James and Lori Malinish's son,Nathaniel, was given a Traxxas Remote Controlled Car("RC Car"). 12. In or before June 2011, the RC Car was purchased at Kranzel. 13. The RC Car operated through the use of rechargeable batteries, which were required to be charged by a battery charger. 14. On or about December 26, 2011,Nathaniel was given a new battery charger ("Battery Charger") and a new, rechargeable Lipo battery ("Battery") for use with his RC Car. 15. On or about December 16, 2011, the Battery Charger and Battery given to Nathaniel were purchased at Kranzel. 16. At the time of the purchase, the sales associate at Kranzel's was asked to recommend a battery and battery charger for use with the RC Car purchased earlier in 2011 from Kranzel. 17. At the time of purchase, the Kranzel sales associate recommended the Battery and Battery Charger but did not describe any changes that had to occur within the RC Car or Battery Charger to accommodate the Battery he recommended. 18. The Battery Charger that was purchased is designed, marketed, manufactured and/or distributed by Hobbico. 4 19. The Battery that was purchased is designed, marketed, manufactured and/or distributed by Horizon and Horizon Limited. 20. On or about December 28, 2011,Nathaniel used the Battery to power his RC Car. 21. On or about December 28, 2011,Nathaniel connected the Battery to the new Battery Charger in an appropriate manner to charge the Battery. 22. At approximately 5:45 p.m. on December 28, 2011,Nathaniel left the Battery charging in the Battery Charger on his desk in his bedroom within the Malinish home. 23. While the Battery was charging within the Battery Charger, the Battery Charger and Battery caught fire, and the fire quickly spread through the Malinish home. 24. Immediately preceding the fire and at all times relevant hereto,Nathaniel Malinish used the Products in a reasonably foreseeable way. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the fire, James and Lori Malinish suffered real and personal property damages in an amount in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. 26. Pursuant to the above referenced insurance policy, State Farm reimbursed its insureds, James and Lori Malinish, in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 for the damage to their property resulting from the fire. 27. Under and pursuant to the terms of the above referenced insurance policy and in accordance with common law principles of equitable subrogation, to the extent of the payments that State Farm made to its insureds, James and Lori Malinish, State Farm is duly subrogated to the respective rights, claims, and causes of action of James and Lori Malinish against the defendants. 5 COUNT I: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT KRANZEL STRICT LIABILITY 28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 29. Defendant Kranzel assembled, marketed, distributed, sold, supplied, delivered, and/or placed into the stream of commerce the RC Car, Battery, and Battery Charger, (collectively "Products") which were intended by Defendant Kranzel to be used by members of the general public, including persons such as Nathaniel Malinish. 30. The Products were unreasonably dangerous and unsafe for their intended use by reason of defects which existed when Defendant Kranzel placed them into the stream of commerce, prior to the time the defects caused damage to the Malinish home, as alleged herein. 31. Defendant Kranzel knew, or reasonably should have known,that the Products presented a substantial danger to users that ordinary consumers would not have recognized. 32. The Products lacked adequate warnings for dangers associated with the Products which existed when Defendant Kranzel placed them into the stream of commerce. 33. The fire and the resulting damage to the Malinish home were caused by the defective Products. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the dangers of the defective Products assembled, marketed, distributed, sold, supplied, delivered, and/or placed into the stream of commerce by Defendant Kranzel, plaintiff's insureds, James and Lori Malinish, suffered substantial damage to their property, for which plaintiff reimbursed them in an amount in excess of$50,000.00. 35. Defendant Kranzel is strictly liable for the fire and resulting damages pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(a), et seq. 6 WHEREFORE, plaintiff State Farm demands judgment against defendant Kranzel, in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with interest, costs and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT II: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT KRANZEL NEGLIGENCE 36. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though each were set forth fully herein at length. 37. The fire and the resulting damage to the plaintiff's insureds' property was caused by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, gross negligencenegligent acts and/or omissions of defendant Kranzel, its agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency, in: (a) supplying defectively manufactured and/or designed products which they knew.or should have known subjected the intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (b) marketing defectively manufactured and/or designed products which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (c) failing to adequately, properly and safely assemble, inspect and/or test the Products; (d) failing to safely market the Products; (e) failing to instruct on the proper uses of the Products; (f) failing to warn of dangers associated with the Products; (g) failing to inspect the Products to ensure that they were free from any defects or damage; (h) failing to inspect the Products to ensure that the component parts were compatible; 7 (i) failing to recommend safe alternative RC cars, batteries or chargers for use in conjunction with the Products; (j) failing to recommend other components that would make the Products safe or otherwise decrease the risk of harm; and (k) such other and further negligent acts or omissions which may be revealed during discovery. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness, recklessness, gross negligence and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant Kranzel, the fire occurred and resulted in substantial damage to the Malinish property, for which plaintiff reimbursed its insureds in an amount in excess of$50,000.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiff State Farm demands judgment against defendant Kranzel, in an amount in excess of$50,000 together with interest, costs and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT III: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT KRANZEL BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES 39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 40. Defendant Kranzel, its agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency, were in the business of selling RC vehicles, battery chargers, batteries and related components at all times relevant hereto. 41. Defendant Kranzel, its agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency represented that the RC Car, Battery, and Battery Charger were safe to use in conjunction with each other. 8 42. Defendant Kranzel, its agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency specifically recommended the Battery and Battery Charger for use together to power the RC Car. 43. Defendant Kranzel, its agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency did not warn that the Products would be dangerous if used together or that additional products were needed to make the Products safe for their expressly communicated intended use, to continuously power the RC Car. 44. The fire and the resulting damage to the Malinish home were caused by the defective Products that Defendant Kranzel recommended and sold for the purpose for which they were used by Nathaniel Malinish. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the dangers of the defective Products assembled, marketed, distributed, sold, supplied, delivered, and/or placed into the stream of commerce by defendant Kranzel, plaintiff's insureds, James and Lori Malinish, suffered substantial damage to their property, for which plaintiff reimbursed them in an amount in excess of$50,000.00. , 46. Defendant Kranzel is liable for the fire and resulting damages pursuant to 13 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2313, 2314, 2315. WHEREFORE, plaintiff State Farm demands judgment against defendant Kranzel, in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with interest, costs and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT IV: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT TRAXXAS STRICT LIABILITY 47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 9 48. Defendant Traxxas designed, fabricated, manufactured, produced, assembled, distributed, sold, supplied, delivered, and/or placed into the stream of commerce the RC Car, which was intended by the defendant to be used by members of the general public, including persons such Nathaniel Malinish. 49. The RC Car was unreasonably dangerous and unsafe for its intended use by reason of defects which existed when Defendant Traxxas placed it into the stream of commerce, as alleged herein. 50. Defendant Traxxas knew, or reasonably should have known,that the RC Car presented a substantial danger to users that ordinary consumers would not have recognized. 51. The RC Car lacked adequate warnings for dangers associated with the RC Car which existed when Defendant Traxxas placed it into the stream of commerce. 52. The fire and the resulting damage to plaintiff s insureds' property were caused by the defectively designed and/or manufactured RC Car. 53. As a direct and proximate result of the dangers of the defective product engineered, designed, marketed, distributed, manufactured, supplied and/or sold by Defendant Traxxas, plaintiff s insureds, James and Lori Malinish, suffered substantial damage to their property, for which plaintiff reimbursed them in an amount in excess of$50,000.00. 54. Defendant Traxxas is strictly liable for the fire and resulting damages pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(a), et seq. WHEREFORE, plaintiff State Farm demands judgment against defendant Traxxas, in an amount in excess of$50,000 together with interest, costs and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. 10 COUNT V: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT TRAXXAS NEGLIGENCE 55. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though each were set forth fully herein at length. 56. The fire and the resulting damage to the plaintiff's insureds' property was caused by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, gross negligence and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant Traxxas, its agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency, in: (a) supplying a defectively manufactured and/or designed product which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (b) designing an RC Car that created a danger which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (c) failing to adequately, properly and safely assemble, inspect and/or test the RC Car; (d) marketing defectively manufactured and/or designed products which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (e) failing to adequately, properly and safely assemble, inspect and/or test the RC Car; (f) failing to properly warn of dangers associated with the RC Car; (g) failing to inspect the RC Car to ensure that it was free from any defects or damage; (h) failing to inspect the RC Car to ensure that the component parts were free from any defects or damage; and 11 (i) such other and further negligent acts or omissions which may be revealed during discovery. 57. As a direct and proximate result of the dangers of the defective product engineered, designed, marketed, distributed, manufactured, supplied and/or sold by Defendant Traxxas, plaintiff's insureds, James and Lori Malinish, suffered substantial damage to their property, for which plaintiff reimbursed them in an amount in excess of$50,000.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiff State Farm demands judgment against defendant Traxxas, in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with interest, costs and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT VI: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT HOBBICO STRICT LIABILITY 58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 59. Defendant Hobbico designed, fabricated, manufactured, produced, assembled, distributed, sold, supplied, delivered, and/or placed into the stream of commerce the Battery Charger, which was intended by the defendant to be used by members of the general public, including persons such Nathaniel Malinish. 60. The Battery Charger was unreasonably dangerous and unsafe for its intended use by reason of defects which existed when Defendant Hobbico placed it into the stream of commerce, as alleged herein. 61. Defendant Hobbico knew, or reasonably should have known,that the Battery Charger presented a substantial danger to users that ordinary consumers would not have recognized. 12 62. The Battery Charger lacked adequate warnings for dangers associated with the Battery Charger which existed when Defendant Hobbico placed it into the stream of commerce. 63. The fire and the resulting damage to plaintiff's insureds' property were caused by the defectively designed and/or manufactured Battery Charger. 64. As a direct and proximate result of the dangers of the defective product engineered, designed, marketed, distributed, manufactured, supplied and/or sold by defendant Hobbico, plaintiff s insureds, James and Lori Malinish, suffered substantial damage to their property, for which plaintiff reimbursed them in an amount in excess of$50,000.00. 65. Defendant Hobbico is strictly liable for the fire and resulting damages pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(a), et seq. WHEREFORE, plaintiff State Farm demands judgment against defendant Hobbico, in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with interest, costs and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT VII: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT HOBBICO NEGLIGENCE 66. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though each were set forth fully herein at length. 67. The fire and the resulting damage to the plaintiff s insureds' property was caused by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, gross negligence and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendant Hobbico, its agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency, in: (a) supplying a defectively manufactured and/or designed product which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; 13 (b) designing a product that created a danger which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (c) failing to adequately,properly and safely assemble, inspect and/or test the Battery Charger; (d) marketing a defectively manufactured and/or designed Battery Charger which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (e) failing to adequately, properly and safely assemble, inspect and/or test the Battery Charger; (f) failing to properly warn of dangers associated with the Battery Charger; (g) failing to inspect the Battery Charger to ensure that it was free from any defects or damage; (h) failing to inspect the Battery Charger to ensure that the component parts were free from any defects or damage; (i) failing to supply any and all components necessary to safely charge batteries within the Battery Charger; and (j) such other and further negligent acts or omissions which may be revealed during discovery. 68. As a direct and proximate result of the dangers of the defective product engineered, designed, marketed, distributed, manufactured, supplied and/or sold by defendant Hobbico, plaintiff's insureds, James and Lori Malinish, suffered substantial damage to their property, for which plaintiff reimbursed them in an amount in excess of$50,000.00. 14 WHEREFORE, plaintiff State Farm demands judgment against defendant Hobbico, in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with interest, costs and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT VIII: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS HORIZON AND HORIZON LTD. STRICT LIABILITY 69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 70. Defendants Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd. designed, fabricated, manufactured, produced, assembled, distributed, sold, supplied, delivered, and/or placed into the stream of commerce the Battery, which was intended by the defendant to be used by members of the general public, including persons such Nathaniel Malinish. 71. The Battery was unreasonably dangerous and unsafe for its intended use by reason of defects which existed when Defendants Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd. placed it into the stream of commerce, as alleged herein. 72. Defendant Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd. knew, or reasonably should have known, that the Battery presented a substantial danger to users that ordinary.consumers would not have recognized. 73. The Battery lacked adequate warnings for dangers associated with the Battery which existed when Defendants Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd. placed it into the stream of commerce. 74. The fire and the resulting damage to plaintiff's insureds' property were caused by the defectively designed and/or manufactured Battery. 15 75. As a direct and proximate result of the dangers of the defective product engineered, designed, marketed, distributed, manufactured, supplied and/or sold by Defendants Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd., plaintiff's insureds, James and Lori Malinish, suffered substantial damage to their property, for which plaintiff reimbursed them in an amount in excess of$50,000.00. 76. Defendants Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd. are strictly liable for the fire and resulting damages pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(a), et seq. WHEREFORE, plaintiff State Farm demands judgment against defendants Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd., in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with interest, costs and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. COUNT IX: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS HORIZON AND HORIZON LTD. NEGLIGENCE 77. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though each were set forth fully herein at length. 78. The fire and the resulting damage to the plaintiff's insureds' property was caused by the negligence, carelessness, recklessness, gross negligence and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of defendant Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd., its agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency, in: (a) supplying a defectively manufactured and/or designed product which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (b) designing a product that created a danger which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; 16 (c) failing to adequately, properly and safely assemble, inspect and/or test the Battery; (d) marketing defectively manufactured and/or designed products which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; (e) failing to adequately, properly and safely assemble, inspect and/or test the Battery; (f) failing to properly warn of dangers associated with the Battery; (g) failing to inspect the Battery to ensure that it was free from any defects or damage; (h) failing to inspect the Battery to ensure that the component parts were free from any defects or damage; (i) failing to supply any and all components necessary to safely charge the Battery in battery chargers; and 0) such other and further negligent acts or omissions which may be revealed during discovery. 79. As a direct and proximate result of the dangers of the defective product engineered, designed, marketed, distributed, manufactured, supplied and/or sold by defendant Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd., plaintiff's insureds, James and Lori Malinish, suffered substantial damage to their property, for which plaintiff reimbursed them in an amount in excess of$50,000.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiff State Farm demands judgment against defendants Horizon and/or its subsidiary Horizon Ltd., in an amount in excess of$50,000.00 together with interest, costs and other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. 17 Respectfully submitted, COZEN O'CONNOR • BY: ELIZABE J. MYERS, ATTORNEY I.D. #210 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Email: Lmyers @cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company 18 VERIFICATION David A. Mendum, an authorized representative of State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,hereby verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. / G DAVID A. MENDUM DATED: I COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 . Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 email: Lmyers @cozen.com k Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s/o James and Lori Malinish One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington; Illinois 61710, CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 Plaintiff V. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES 2202A Gettysburg Road JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 and HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM187NS, 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 are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. LAWYER REFERENCE SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Email: Lmyers @cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s/o James and Lori Malinish One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710, CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 Plaintiff V. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES 2202A Gettysburg Road JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Camp Hill, PA 17011 and TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 and HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM187NS, Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that on this 18th day of December, 2013, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint to be served by personal service and first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: KRANZEL'S HOBBIES 2202A Gettysburg Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road, Plano, TX 75074 HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units I to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM187NS w By: Elizabe J. Myers 'F.\FILES\Clients\3050 Donegal\3050 Current\3050.678\3050.678.pra3 wpd Revised: I/6/14 9 41AM George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire i MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES "'t t ;;&p g� : r r I.D. 49813 „ i 10 East High Street rL Carlisle, PA 17013 e' _fiNSyLVAN1:, (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF COMPANY, a/s/o James and Lori : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Malinish • Plaintiff v. : NO. 13-7223 KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, TRAXXAS, L.P., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOBBICO, INC., • HORIZON HOBBY, INC., and • HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Enter the appearance of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER on behalf of Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies in the above matter. Defendant hereby demands a twelve juror jury trial in the above captioned action. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By i, George B. Faller, Jr., E;qu' e I.D. No. 49813 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies Dated: 1/6/14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Nichole L. Myers, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller,hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 TRAXXAS, L.P. 1100 Klein Road Plano, TX 75074 HOBBICO, INC. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 HORIZON HOBBY, INC. 4105 Fieldstone Road Champagne, IL 61822 HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM187NS MARTSON LAW OFFICES By J64(1\ Nichole L. Myers Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 1/6/14 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff ttPratar,�f E',,, Jody S Smith 4` Chief Deputy , !„' -2 fill j0. y Richard W Stewart Solicitor PENNSYLVANIA Statem Farm and Fire Casalty Company Case Number vs. Kranzel's Hobbies 2013-7223 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 12/26/2013 04:12 PM - Deputy Dennis Fry, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint& Summons by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be David Kranzel, manager, who accepted as"Adult Person in Charge”for Kranzel's Hobbies at 2202A Gettysburg Road, Lower Allen, Camp Hill, PA 17011. DEN IS FRY, D U SHERIFF COST: $45.41 SO ANSWERS, December 27, 2013 RONNYR ANDERSON, SHERIFF .. r Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. �,��� f/ t�`1?T t l Attorney I.D. #40685 ✓�4t1 in t; CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. CUja� P E' 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 3005 Alto PO Box 5016 ph-1.-/AL N$YL qW ST U }° Mount Laurel,N.J. 08054-5016 IA (856)234-6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas,LP IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company : a/s/o James and Lori Malinish, : : CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 Plaintiff, . . CIVIL ACTION vs. • Kranzel's Hobbies,Traxxas, LP, : Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and : Horizon Hobby Limited. Defendants. : ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of undersigned as counsel on behalf of Defendant, Traxxas,LP in the above-captioned case. CAPEHART & SCATCHARD,P.A. By: Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney for Defendant, Traxxas, LP Dated: January 8, 2014 / 2956803 Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney I.D. #40685 CAPEHART& SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel,N.J. 08054-5016 (856)234-6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas,LP IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company als/o : James and Lori Malinish, : CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 Plaintiff, • CIVIL ACTION vs. Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, LP, Hobbico, : Inc., Horizon Hobby,Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited. • Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kurt E. Kramer,hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance on behalf of Defendant, Traxxas, LP via U.S. regular mail on the following this 8 day of January, 2014. Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas 1 Courthouse Square Suite 100 Carlisle, PA 17013 2957107 Elizabeth J. Meyers, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Kranzel's Hobbies 2202A Gettysburg Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Hobbico,Inc. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 Horizon Hobby,Inc. 4105 Fieldstone Road Champaign, IL 61822 Horizon Hobby Limited Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM187NS urt E. Kramer sq. Date: 1/8/2014 2957107 McCORMICK& PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Attorney for Defendants, Four Penn Center, Suite 800 Horizon Hobby, Inc. and 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Horizon Hobby Limited Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COMPANY a/s/o JAMES AND LORI CUMBERLAND COUNTY MALINISH • c� • v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and _:.: TRAXXAS, L.P. and : CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223r�'- HOBBICO INC. and -tom r\) HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED • CO ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in the above-captioned matter. McCORMICK& PRIORE, P.C. BY: i`\'"tj Philip . Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited Dated: January 16, 2014 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW + r ur iPilz r i o t feu ;0 U f 1!L.{ ?t P1 L_ .I L1 C0 J�1 i 1 PENNSYLVANIA Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney I.D. #40685 CAPEHART& SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel,N.J. 08054-5016 (856) 234-6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s/o James and Lori Malinish, CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION vs. Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, LP, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited, Defendants. ANSWER,NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIMS OF TRAXXAS, LP Defendant, Traxxas, LP ("Traxxas"or"Answering Defendant"), files the following response to Plaintiff's Complaint and avers as follows: ALLEGED PARTIES 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 2980012 . r 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. ALLEGED JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Based on investigation it is believed, and therefore admitted,the fire related to Plaintiff s claim occurred in Cumberland County. The remaining averments in this paragraph,unless otherwise specifically admitted, are denied. 2 2980012 r , ALLEGED GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 13. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted Traxxas remote controlled cars may be operated through the use of rechargeable batteries. The remaining averments in this paragraph, including the inference that a Traxxas remote controlled car was given by James and Lori Malinish to their son Nathaniel, are denied. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 3 2980012 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Complaint and they are therefore denied. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs Complaint and they are therefore denied. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 21 of Plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 4 2980012 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 23 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 24. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual,they are denied. 25. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual,they are denied. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 26 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 27 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual,they are denied. 5 2980012 COUNT I: PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT KRANZEL ALLEGED STRICT LIABILITY 28. Traxxas incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 29. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 29 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 29 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 29 of Plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 30. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 30 of Plaintiff s Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 30 of Plaintiff s Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 30 of Plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 31. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 31 of Plaintiff s Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 31 of Plaintiff s Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable 6 2980012 investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 31 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 32. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 32 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 33. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 33 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 33 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation,Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 33 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 34. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 34 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 34 of Plaintiff s Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 34 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 7 2980012 35. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 35 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP and that Traxxas,LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. COUNT II: PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT KRANZEL ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE 36. Traxxas incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 37. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 37 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 37 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 37 of Plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 38. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 38 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable 8 2980012 investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 38 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE,Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP and that Traxxas, LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. COUNT III: PLAINTIFF v.DEFENDANT KRANZEL ALLEGED BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES 39. Traxxas incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 40. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 40 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 40 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 40 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 41. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 41 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 41 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 41 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 9 2980012 42. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 42 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 42 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 42 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 43. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 43 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 43 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 43 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 44. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 44 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 44 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 44 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 45. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response 10 2980012 is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remaining averments in paragraph 45 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 46. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 46 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required,the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP and that Traxxas, LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. COUNT IV: PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT TRAXXAS PURPORTED STRICT LIABILITY 47. Traxxas incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 48. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted Traxxas designed, fabricated, manufactured,produced, assembled, distributed, sold, supplied, delivered, and/or placed into the stream of commerce RC cars, which were intended to be used by members of the general public. After reasonable investigation Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remaining averments in this paragraph, including the inference that a Traxxas remote controlled car was given to, or in the possession of,Nathaniel Malinish. 49. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 49 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. 11 2980012 By way of further response, it is specifically denied any RC car of Traxxas was unreasonably dangerous and/or unsafe for its intended use by reason of defects which existed when Traxxas placed it into the stream of commerce. 50. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 50 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any RC car of Traxxas was unreasonably dangerous and/or unsafe for its intended use or presented a substantial danger to users. 51. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 51 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any RC car of Traxxas lacked adequate warnings. 52. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 52 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any RC car of Traxxas was defectively designed and/or manufactured or caused damage to Plaintiff s insureds'property. 53. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 53 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any RC car of Traxxas defectively designed and/or manufactured or caused damage to Plaintiff s insureds'property. 54. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 54 of Plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. 12 2980012 WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP and that Traxxas, LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. COUNT V: PLAINTIFF v.DEFENDANT TRAXXAS ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE 55. Traxxas incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 56. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 56 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied Traxxas was negligent,careless, reckless, or grossly negligence and/or its conduct was a cause of Plaintiff's insureds' loss. 57. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 57 of Plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any RC car of Traxxas caused damage to Plaintiff s insureds'property. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny any remaining factual averments in this paragraph. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP and that Traxxas, LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. COUNT VI: PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT HOBBICO ALLEGED STRICT LIABILITY 58. Traxxas incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 13 2980012 59. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 59 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 59 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 59 of Plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 60. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 60 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 60 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 60 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 61. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 61 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 61 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 61 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 62. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 62 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response 14 2980012 is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 62 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 62 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 63. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 63 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response,to the extent the averments in paragraph 63 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 63 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 64. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 64 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 64 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 64 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 65. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 65 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. 15 2980012 WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP and that Traxxas, LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. COUNT VII: PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT HOBBICO ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE 66. Traxxas incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 67. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 67 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 67 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 67 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 68. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 68 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 68 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 68 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP and that Traxxas, LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. 2980012 16 COUNT VIII: PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS HORIZON AND HORIZON LTD. PURPORTED STRICT LIABILITY 69. Traxxas incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 70. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 70 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 70 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 70 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 71. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 71 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 71 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 71 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 72. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 72 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 72 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable 2980012 17 investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 72 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 73. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 73 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 73 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 73 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 74. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 74 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 74 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 74 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 75. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 75 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 75 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 75 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 2980012 18 76. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 76 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP and that Traxxas, LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. COUNT IX: PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANTS HORIZON AND HORIZON LTD. PURPORTED NEGLIGENCE 77. Traxxas incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 78. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 78 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 78 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 78 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 79. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 79 of Plaintiff's Complaint are asserted against a party other than Traxxas and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 79 of Plaintiff's Complaint are deemed factual, after reasonable 19 2980012 investigation, Traxxas is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 79 of Plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP and that Traxxas, LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. NEW MATTER 80. Plaintiffs complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Traxxas. 81. Plaintiff's claims against Traxxas are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 82. Plaintiff's claims against Traxxas are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff s contributory negligence. 83. Plaintiffs claims against Traxxas are barred or limited by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §7102 et seq. 84. Plaintiff s insureds acted in a highly reckless manner and, as such, Plaintiff s claims are barred. 85. Plaintiff-s insureds knew or should have known of the high degree of risk of the danger associated with their actions. 86. Plaintiffs insureds' conduct was highly reckless and the sole or intervening cause of Plaintiffs injury. 87. Plaintiff-s insureds' fail to follow product warnings associated with the products associated with the alleged loss at issue in this litigation. 20 2980012 88. Traxxas was not the final distributor of the products that caused Plaintiff's loss and the final distributor of any such product was responsible for communicating the risks associated with the products to Plaintiff's insureds. 89. Traxxas had no control over the communication of any required warnings to Plaintiff's insureds associated with the product(s) or conduct that caused Plaintiff's loss. 90. The claims of Plaintiff are barred, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff's assumption of the risk. 91. To the extent sought, Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of counsel fees. 92. To the extent sought, Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of punitive damages. 93. The named Plaintiff lacks standing. 94. Any payments by the named Plaintiff were gratuitous and therefore Plaintiff has no right of recovery of any amounts paid. 95. To the extend that any loss was sustained by Plaintiff, it was caused by solely by the negligence of one or more of the co-defendants. 96. To the extend that any loss was sustained by Plaintiff, it was caused by solely by the negligence of one or more parties not named as defendants in this litigation. 97. Answering Defendant's products associated with this litigation contained adequate warnings. 98. There is no evidence that any modified warning on Answering Defendant's product would have been followed or would have prevented the damage alleged by Plaintiff. 99. Answering Defendant's manufacturing, labeling, and/or marketing was in conformity with the state of the art at the time 2980012 21 100. Plaintiff's claims against Traxxas are barred, in whole or in part, by estoppel, waiver and/or]aches. 101. The damages of Plaintiff, if any, were caused by persons over whom Traxxas had no control or right of control. 102. The damages of Plaintiff, if any, were caused, in whole or in part, by superseding, intervening causes. g 103. Plaintiff's claims against Traxxas are barred, in whole or in part, due to the failure of Plaintiff or its insureds to mitigate his/their damages. 104. Plaintiff suffered no compensable injuries, damages or losses for which Traxxas can be liable. 105. Traxxas owed no duty to Plaintiff. 106. No acts or omissions of Traxxas were the cause,proximate or otherwise, of the loss of Plaintiff, if any. 107. Traxxas did not breach any legal, contractual or other existing duty or obligation which it may have owed to Plaintiff or its insureds. 108. To the extent that Traxxas owed any duty to Plaintiff or its insureds, Traxxas was in no way negligent under the circumstances, and used all due care required by the circumstances. 109. The damages of Plaintiff, if any, were not caused by any negligence on the part of Traxxas. 110. The claims against Traxxas may be barred or limited by a release. 111. Plaintiff's claims or barred or reduced by such other defenses as may be uncovered during the course of discovery or trial. 2980012 22 112. Traxxas denies each and every other allegation in all causes of action not heretofore denied. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Traxxas, LP . and that Traxxas, LP be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Court deems proper. CROSSCLAIMS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1031.1 COMMON LAW CONTRIBUTION AND/OR INDEMNITY OF TRAXXAS LP. Traxxas, LP hereby crossclaims pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1031.1 against Kranzel's Hobbies, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited. and any additional defendant(s)hereafter joined (collectively the "the non-Traxxas Defendants") , and avers that the non-Traxxas Defendants, either one or all of them, are liable to Plaintiff, or are liable over to Traxxas, and in support thereof, avers as follows COUNT SOLE LIABILITY 113. The admissions, denials, averments, and affirmative defenses set forth above are incorporated by reference as though set forth at length. 114. Traxxas denies all liability to Plaintiff and/or the non-Traxxas Defendants. 115. Upon information and belief, the non-Traxxas Defendants are directly,jointly and/or severally liable for any injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP demands judgment in its favor and Kranzel's Hobbies, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited. and/or any additional defendant(s)hereafter joined, for all damages, costs, attorneys' fees, or interest that may be awarded to Plaintiff, and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. 2980012 23 COUNT II COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION 116. The admissions, denials, averments and affirmative defenses set forth above are incorporated by reference as though set forth at length. 117• Without admitting the truth thereof, and having no personal knowledge of most of the factual averments, Traxxas incorporates herein all well-pleaded allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint that are made against, or as otherwise relate to, the non-Traxxas Defendants. 118. Traxxas denies all liability to Plaintiff and the non-Traxxas Defendants. 119. If Plaintiff's claims are proven, and there is legal responsibility for any of the damages alleged by same, such liability being specifically denied as to Traxxas , then it is averred that the acts and omissions of the non-Traxxas Defendants caused Plaintiff's loss and they are liable to indemnify Traxxas for any amount which Plaintiff may recover against Traxxas, as well as for costs, legal expenses, and fees incurred by Traxxas. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP demands judgment in its favor and Kranzel's Hobbies, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited. and/or any additional defendant(s)hereafter joined, for all damages, costs, attorneys' fees, or interest that may be awarded to Plaintiffs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT III CONTRIBUTION 120. The admissions, denials, averments and affirmative defenses set forth above are incorporated by reference as though set forth at length. 121. Traxxas denies all liability to Plaintiff and/or the non-Traxxas Defendants. 2980012 24 r ' 122. If Plaintiff's claims are proven, and there is legal responsibility for any of the damages alleged by same, which liability is specifically denied, then it is averred that the acts and omissions of the non-Traxxas Defendants make it/him/them jointly and severally liable to Traxxas for contribution for any amounts which Plaintiffs may recover against them. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP demands judgment in its favor and against Kranzel's Hobbies, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited and/or any additional defendant(s)hereafter joined for all damages, costs, attorneys' fees and expert fees that ma be Y awarded to Plaintiff, and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. CAPEHART SC ARD, P.A. A Professio 1 r on By: Kurt E. Co Kramer, sq. Attorney for De endant, Dated: January 31, 2014 Traxxas, LP 2980012 25 VERIFICATION Milo Mattorano says, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, that he is a representative of Traxxas,LP,he is authorized to make this Verification on its behalf, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer,New Matter and Crossclaim of Traxxas, LP are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. Date: E E.A. Milo iVlattorano 2980012 Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney I.D. #40685 CAPEHART& SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 3005 PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054-5016 (856)234-6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire& Casualty Company a/s/o James and Lori Malinish, Plaintiff, CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 vs. CIVIL ACTION Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, LP, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kurt E. Kramer, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer,New Matter and Crossclaims on behalf of Defendant, Traxxas, LP via U.S. regular mail on the following this 4t'' day of February 2014 Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas 1 Courthouse Square Suite 100 Carlisle, PA 17013 2957107 Elizabeth J. Meyers, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 George B. Faller, Jr., Esq. Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle,PA 17013 Philip D. Priore, Esq. McCormick& Priore, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Hobbico, Inc. 2904 Research Road Champagne, IL 61822 r /Kurt E. Kra m , Esq. Date: 2/4/2014 2957107 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Michael T. Traxler Identification No.: 90961 Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street, 9`I' Floor Attorney for Defendants, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Hobbico, Inc. (717) 234-7700 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s/o James and Lori Malinish • vs. : Civil Case No. 13-7223 Kranzel's Hobbies • and • .•� �� Traxxas, L.P. • and • = cra Hobbico, Inc. • vii V' - and I� o (.1)' Horizon Hobby, Inc. • -� - - and • • Horizon Hobby Limited • • ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Michael T. Traxler of Rawle & Henderson, LLP, on behalf of the defendant Hobbico, Inc., in the above-captioned action. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Michael T. Traxler. Esquire Date: of -7 / `-( 7117228-I 3.t j CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Entry of Appearance of Defendants, Hobbico, Inc. was served via first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-5016 Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 RAWLE & HENDERSON LIT B L e c Y: Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Date: Z, -7 j 1 7117228-I . A F I£i3-3FF CE THE P r?C?'1'HONO iAR': COZEN O'CONNOR BY: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire 20(4 FEB 10 PM 2: 19 ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street CUMBERLAND COUNTY Philadelphia, PA 19103 PENNSYLVANIA Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : a/s/o James and Lori Malinish : CIVIL CASE NO. 13-7223 • • • Plaintiff, • v. • KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et al. • • Defendants. PROOF OF SERVICE I, ELIZABETH J. MYERS, attorney for plaintiff herein certify that plaintiff's Writ of Summons was served upon defendant, Hobbico, Inc. on December 30, 2013 by personal service (see attached Exhibit"A"). COZEN O'CONNOR ELIZABET . YERS, ESQUIRE DATED: a/'-(/ti EXHIBIT "A" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE&CASUALTY COIVPANY NS/0 JAMES AND LORI MAUNISH ONE STATE FARM PLAZA BLOOMINGTON,ILLINOIS 61710 Case No PLAINTIFF(S) 13-7223 vs. KRAPIZEL'S HOBBIES,ET AL SERVCE DOCUMENTS: WRIT OF SUMMONS AND PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS DEFENDANT(S) The undersigned,being first duly sworn,on oath deposes and says:That s(he)is now and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States,over the age of eighteen,not an officer of a plaintiff corporation,not a party to nor interested in the above entgled action,and is competent to be a witness therein. On Dec 30,2013,at 1:00 PM,I served the above described documents upon HOBBICO,INC.as shown below: CORPORATE SERVICE was made by leaving a true and correct copy(ies)thereof,by then presenting to and leaving the same with JUDY THURMON I LEGAL ASSISTANT. Said service was effected at 2904 RESEARCH ROAD,CHAMPAIGN,IL 61822, DESCRIPTION: Gender:F Race:WHITE Age:66 H :6i" Wgt 130 Hai-.BLONDE Glasses:NO .....iy I declare under penalties of pe' that the information contained herein is true and correct. **ill'It trWAVY/ — Michael S.Morrison,Lie ff:111-001119 Judicial Attorney Services,Inc. 1701 E Empire St.,Ste 360- Bloomington,IL 61704 (t lit)567-6140 SNi, 1*---75"—Fncim. leem. scarr A DANIELSON SIMSCREED AND SWORN to before me is 30th day December,201 dr i Non PubNo-ants of*Iola ' L ___ ,,, . ......„,„„__mYcornrogision ExpimApt26,2m4' NOTARY PUBLIC _ ____---...................... CLIENT NAME ORGINAL PROOF Cr SERVICE TRACKING 4 Fredericks&Palmer Process Serving,LLC' 146226 FILES: i HE PROTHt :1.16 I 0 N(� M� BcFEB f LA 3 C ,.'i i F ` r'I\C 1�'IU13' ;rift` PENN5YLVA�,. COZEN O'CONNOR BY: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire ?OR FEB 10 PM 2: 19 ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street CUMBERLANIJ COUNTY Philadelphia, PA 19103 PENNSYLVANIA Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : a/s/o James and Lori Malinish : CIVIL CASE NO. 13-7223 • • Plaintiff, • v. • • KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et al. • • Defendants. PROOF OF SERVICE I, ELIZABETH J. MYERS, attorney for plaintiff herein certify that plaintiffs Writ of Summons was served upon defendant, Horizon Hobby, Inc. on December 26, 2013 by personal service (see attached Exhibit"A"). COZEN O'CONNOR i ELI BETH . ► - ' S, ESQUIRE DATED: ,2741 EXHIBIT "A" • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUARSERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE&CASUALTY COMPANY A/500 JAMES AND LORI COURT DATE: MALINISH ONE STATE FARM PLAZA BLOOMINGTON,ILLINOIS 61710 Case No. PLA1NTFF(S) 13-7223 vs. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES,ET AL. SERVCE DOCUMENTS: WRIT OF SUMMONS AND PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS DEFENDANT(S) The undersigned,being first duly sworn,on oath deposes and says:That s(he)is now and at aft times herein mentioned was a citizen of the United States,over the age of eighteen,not an officer of a plaintiff corporation,not a party to nor interested in the above entitled action,and is competent to be a witness therein. On Dec 26,2013,at 2:05 PM,I served the above described documents upon HORIZON HOBBY,INC.as shown below: CORPORATE SERVICE was made by leaving a true and correct copy(les)thereof,by then presenting to and leaving the same with ROGER RHODES I VICE PRESIDENT. Said service was effected at 4105 FIELDSTONE ROAD,CHAMPAIGN,IL 61822, DESCRIPTION: Gender,M Race:WHITE Age:55 Mgt:6'2" Wgt:225 1-ter BLACK/GRAY Glasses:YES 1 declare under penalties of perjury Inat the information contained heroin is true and correct. 2-7/11A211—nitik Michael S.Morrison,Lie#:117.001119 Judicial Attorney Services,Inc, 1701 E Empire St.,Ste 360- Bloomington,IL 61704 (888)567-6140 OFFICIAL SEAL SOOTT A.DANIELSON Notary Pub*:- of Illinois SUBSCRIBED AND SVVORN to bef me this 27th of Dec ,2013 Cominission Expires Apia,2014 NOTARY PUBLIC--; CLIENT NAME CAC,INAL PROOF OF SERVCE TRACKLNG Fredericks&Palmer Process Serving,LLC.' 148227 FILE#: COZEN O'CONNOR '�C? ;lvril ` BY: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire 1B 0 C l E L� �J P M O U2N• T j Y ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 PENNSYLVANIA Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Counsel for State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : a/s/o James and Lori Malinish : CIVIL CASE NO. 13-7223 • • Plaintiff, • v. • • • KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et al. • • Defendants. • PROOF OF SERVICE I, ELIZABETH J. MYERS, attorney for plaintiff herein certify that plaintiff's Writ of Summons was served upon defendant, Traxxas, L.P. on December 26, 2013 by personal service (see attached Exhibit "A"). COZEN O'CONNOR ELIZABET ■ ' S, ESQUIRE DATED: /ii//c10 EXHIBIT "A" AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland Common Pleas Court Case Number: 13-7223 CIVIL Plaintiff: STATE FARM FIRE&CASUALTY COMPANY aisle James and Lori Malinish VS, Defendant: KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, TRAXXAS, L.P., at al, For: COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Received by Fredericks& Palmer Process Serving, LLC on the 20th day of December, 2013 at 2:00 pm to be served on TRAXXAS, L.P., 1100 KLINE ROAD, PLANO,TX 75074. I, Geoffrey Hiner, being duly sworn, depose and say that on the 26th day of December,2013 at 1:10 pm, I: served a CORPORATION by delivering a true copy of the PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS AND WRIT OF SUMMONS with the date of service endorsed thereon by me, to: TODD KILLION as OPERATIONS MANAGER, for TRAXXAS, L.P.at the address of: 1100 KLINE ROAD, PLANO,TX 75074, and informed said person of the contents therein, in compliance with state statutes. Description of Person Served: Age: 45, Sex: M, Race/Skin Color: White, Height:6'4, Weight: 185, Hair: Brown, Glasses: N I certify that I am approved by the Supreme Court of Texas, Misc. Docket No. 05-9122 under rule 103 and 536(a)of the TRCP to deliver citations and other notices from any District, County and Justice Courts in and for the State of Texas. I am not less than 18 years of age, I am not a party to the above-referenced cause. I have personal knowledge of the facts and statements contained in this affidavit and each is true and correct. I am not interested in the outcome of the above-referenced cause H 1.141.1.,,„Ikar L...4 SuWribed an Sworn t9b_efore me on the 27 day Geoffre &n of Cfrtr vd4i' by the affiant who is SCH 62 /31/2014 personall .known to Fredericks o i scarbo Scarborough ughPalmer Process s Poer Ste.e;17s5Serving,East LLC 5 NO RY P/13LIC Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234 (609)233-6743 Our Job Serial Number: DAN-2013001400 — DYAN FINER MY COMMISSM November 12,201; I Cooyaohl 01992-2011 Database Services,Inc •Process Serves Toolbox V6.5m COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Email: Lmyers @cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company ii f r €E PRO THQNiO TAR Y. 2014 MAR -7 PH3 :21 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVA -NIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : a/s /o James and Lori Malinish CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 Plaintiff v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et.al. Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT TRAXXAS, LP'S NEW MATTER Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company ( "State Farm "), as Subrogee of James and Lori Malinish, through its undersigned counsel, Cozen O'Connor, hereby submits the following Reply to defendant Traxxas, LP's New Matter to Complaint: 80. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. Plaintiff State Farm further incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of its Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 81. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 82. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 83. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no, responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 84. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 85. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 86. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 87. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 2 88. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation. 89. Plaintiff is without sufficient information to admit or deny this allegation. 90. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 91. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 92. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 93. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 94. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 95. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 3 96. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 97. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 98. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 99. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 100. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 101. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 102. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 4 103. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 104. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of lawto which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 105. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 106. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this para.graph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 107. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 108. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 109. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 5 110. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 111. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 112. No responsive pleading is necessary to the averments of paragraph. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff State Farm respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant Traxxas LP. Respectfully submitted, COZEN O'CONNOR BY: 6 ELIZA H J. MY ,;.- , ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D 210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Email: Lmyers@cozen.com Counsel .for Plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire, hereby state that I am authorized by Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, to make this Verification, and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant Traxxas, L.P.'s New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: DATED: March 5, 2014 ELIZABET,- . MYERS ( #210269) COZEN O'CONNOR. BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Email: Lmyers @cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : a/s /o James and Lori Malinish CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 Plaintiff v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et.al. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that on this 5th day of March, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Defendant Traxxas LP's New Matter to be served via first -class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant, Kranzel 's Hobbies AND Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A: 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 -5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson, LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. By: F: \FILES \Clients\3050 Donegal\3050 Current13050.678 \3050.678.aris1.wpd Revised: 3/12/14 3:44PM George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies THE PROTHONO TAY 20 MAR 13 PM 3: 09 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, a/s/o James and Lori Malinish Plaintiff v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, TRAXXAS, L.P., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOBBICO, INC., HORIZON HOBBY, INC., and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 13-7223 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSLCAIM OF KRANZEL'S HOBBIES TO: STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, a/s/o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH, Plaintiff, and their attorney, ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE TRAXXAS, LP, Defendant, and their attorney, KURT E. KRAMER, ESQUIRE HORIZON HOBBY, INC., and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, Defendants and their attorney, PHILIP D. PRIORE, ESQUIRE HOBBICO, INC., Defendant, and their attorney, MICHAEL T. TRAXLER, ESQUIRE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. AND NOW, comes Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies and hereby responds to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1-2. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in these paragraphs. 3. Denied as stated. To the contrary, Kranzel's Hobbies is a sole proprietorship operated by Stuart Kranzel. It is admitted that Stuart Kranzel trading and doing business operated Kranzel's Hobbies at 2202A Gettysburg Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. It is further admitted that Stuart Kranzel d /b /a Kranzel's Hobbies is in the business of marketing and selling remote controlled vehicles and related products, including, but not limited to, Traxxas remote control cars, Horizon Hobby re- chargeable batteries and Hobbico battery chargers. 4 -7. The averments of these paragraphs refer to parties other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. It is admitted that the fire in question occurred in Cumberland County. As to the remaining averments of this paragraph, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information as to their truth or falsity. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9 -16. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in these paragraphs. 17. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph. By way of further response, the RC Car, battery and battery charger were safe for their intended use if the written instructions, which were provided at the time of the sale, were followed. 18 -27. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in these paragraphs. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice. COUNT I: Plaintiff v. Defendant Kranzel STRICT LIABILITY 28. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Answer are hereby incorporated by reference. 29. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in these paragraphs. 30. Denied. To the contrary, the products were not unreasonably dangerous and unsafe4 for their intended use, nor were they defective at the time Kranzel allegedly placed them into the stream of commerce. 31-32. The averments of this paragraph are specifically denied and denied as a conclusion of law. By way of further denial, see the responses in paragraphs 1 to 27 of this Answer. 33-35. The averments of this paragraph are a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, this averment is denied and it is further denied that Answering Defendant sold any defective product. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice. COUNT II: Plaintiff v, Defendant Kranzel NEGLIGENCE 36. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 35 of this Answer are hereby incorporated by reference. 37-38. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, it is specifically denied that Defendant Kranzel was negligent, careless, reckless, grossly negligent, or otherwise that Kranzel's acts or omissions were a cause of Plaintiff s loss. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice. COUNT III: Plaintiff v. Defendant Kranzel BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES 39. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 38 of this Answer are hereby incorporated by reference. 40. It is admitted that Stuart Kranzel d /b /a Kranzel's Hobbies is in the business of marketing and selling remote controlled vehicles and related products, including, but not limited to, Traxxas remote control cars, Horizon Hobby re- chargeable batteries and Hobbico battery chargers. 41. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of averments contained in this paragraph. By way of further response, the RC Car, battery and battery charger were safe to use in conjunction with each other if the specific written instructions, which were supplied with the products, were read and followed. 42. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of averments contained in this paragraph. By way of further response, the RC Car, battery and battery charger were safe to use in conjunction with each other if the specific written instructions, which were supplied with the products, were read and followed. 43. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of averments contained in this paragraph. By way of further response, the products were not dangerous if used together and if the written instructions and manuals were read and followed prior to the product's use. 44 -46. The averments of this paragraph are a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, these averments are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice. COUNT IV: Plaintiff v. Defendant Traxxas STRICT LIABILITY 47. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 46 of this Answer are hereby incorporated by reference. 48 -54. The averments of these paragraphs refer to parties other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. COUNT V: Plaintiff v. Defendant Traxxas NEGLIGENCE 55. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 54 of this Answer are hereby incorporated by reference. 56 -57. The averments of these paragraphs refer to parties other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VI: Plaintiff v. Defendant Hobbico STRICT LIABILITY 58. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 57 of this Answer are hereby incorporated by reference. 59 -65. The averments of these paragraphs refer to parties other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VII: Plaintiff v. Defendant Hobbico NEGLIGENCE 66. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Answer are hereby incorporated by reference. 67 -68. The averments of these paragraphs refer to parties other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. COUNT VII: Plaintiff v. Defendants Horizon and Horizon Ltd. STRICT LIABILITY 69. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 68 of this Answer are hereby incorporated by reference. 70 -76. The averments of these paragraphs refer to parties other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice. COUNT IX: Plaintiff v. Defendant Horizon and Horizon Ltd. NEGLIGENCE 77. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Answer are hereby incorporated by reference. 78 -79. The averments of these paragraphs refer to parties other than the Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice. NEW MATTER 80. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 79 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 81. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted upon Defendant Kranzel. 82. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 83. Plaintiffs Complaint and claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiff s contributory negligence and the contributory and comparative negligence of Plaintiff' s subrogors. 84. Plaintiff s insureds knew or should have known of the risk involved with their actions and such actions were intervening superseding clause of Plaintiffs damages. 85. Plaintiff's insureds failed to follow the product instructions and warnings associated with the alleged loss. 86. To the extent that any loss was sustained by Plaintiff, it was caused solely by the negligence or liability producing conduct of one or more of the co- Defendants. 87. The products, if sold by Defendant Kranzel, contained adequate warnings. 88. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its damages. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. NEW MATTER CROSS -CLAIM PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1031.1 89. The averments of Plaintiff's Complaint, which averments have been specifically denied, are hereby incorporated for the limited purpose of this cross - claim. 90. If Plaintiff is entitled to recover from any party, which is expressly denied, then the other Defendants are alone liable to Plaintiff or liable over to Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies by way of contribution and/or indemnity or are jointly and /or severally liable to Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies on account of their own negligence or other liability producing conduct as alleged in the pleadings. 91. If Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies is found liable to Plaintiff which liability is expressly denied, its liability is secondary and passive to the liability of the other co- Defendants whose liability is primary and active. WHEREFORE, Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment against Defendants Traxxas, L.P., Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited for all sums that may be adjudged against Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies in favor of Plaintiff, in the alternative, Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment against Defendants Traxxas, L.P., Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited for contribution and /or indemnity for the appropriate part of the amount of damages and costs awarded to Plaintiff, if any. Dated: 3/12/14 MARTSON LAW OFFICES George B. F.' er, Jr., Esquire I.D. No. 49813 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243 -3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies 4. VERIFICATION I, Stuart Kranzel, President of Kranzel's Hobbies, acknowledge I have the authority to execute this Verification on behalf of Kranzel' s Hobbies and certify the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of this Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent the Answer with New Matter and Crosslcaim is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief To the extent the content of the Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. This statement and Verification are made subject to the penalties of I 8 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES Stuart Kranze CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Nichole L. Myers, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim of Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorneys for PlaintifP Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART SCATCHARD 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-5016 (Attorneys for Defendant Traxxas, LP) Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCormick & Priore, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorneys for Defendants Horizon Hobby, Inc. And Defendant Horizon Hobby Limited) Michael T. Traxler, Esquire RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 240 North Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Attorneys for Defendant Hobbico, Inc.) MARTSON LAW OFFICES By J4 tbAt6,4‘, tAkc Nichole L. Myers Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 3/12/14 Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney I.D. # 40685 CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054 -5016 (856) 234 -6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP ?.i 1 (11 AR 21 AMU: lib CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s /o James and Lori Malinish, : CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 Plaintiff, vs. : CIVIL ACTION Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, LP, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited, Defendants. ANSWER OF TRAXXAS, LP TO CROSSCLAIM OF KRANZEL HOBBY Defendant, Traxxas, LP ( "Traxxas" or "Answering Defendant "), files the following response to the Crossclaim of Defendant Kranzel Hobby ( "Kranzel ") and avers as follows: 89. Denied. To the extent applicable, Traxxas incorporates its factual averments, denials, and objections as contained in its Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim filed in response to Plaintiffs Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in paragraph 89 of Kranzel' Crossclaim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are 3056439 therefore denied. To the extent any of the averments in Kranzel's Crossclaim directed against Traxxas are factual, they are specifically denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Traxxas was negligent, careless, reckless, or that Traxxas, or anyone for whom Traxxas may be deemed liable, was a cause of Plaintiff's alleged damages. 90. Denied. To the extent applicable, Traxxas incorporates its factual averments, denials, and objections as contained in its Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim filed in response to Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in paragraph 90 of Kranzel' Crossclaim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore denied. To the extent any of the averments in Kranzel's Crossclaim are directed against Traxxas are factual, they are specifically denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Traxxas was negligent, careless, reckless, or that Traxxas, or anyone for whom Traxxas may be deemed liable, was a cause of Plaintiff's alleged damages. 91. Denied. To the extent applicable, Traxxas incorporates its factual averments, denials, and objections as contained in its Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim filed in response to Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in paragraph 91 of Kranzel's Crossclaim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore denied. To the extent any of the averments in Kranzel's Crossclaim are directed against Traxxas are factual, they are specifically denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Traxxas was negligent, careless, reckless, or that Traxxas, or anyone for whom Traxxas may be deemed liable, was a cause of Plaintiff's alleged damages. 3056439 WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP demands judgment in its favor and against Kranzel's Hobbies, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited and/or any additional defendant(s) hereafter joined for all damages, costs, attorneys' fees that may be awarded to Plaintiff, and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. A Professional Corporation By: Dated: March 19, 2014 3056439 Kurt E. ' amer, Esq. Atto - y for Defendant, Trax as, LP VERIFICATION ' I, Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendant Traxxas, LP in the foregoing lawsuit, and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to New Matter and Crossclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and I understand that the statements in said Answer to New Matter are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: March 19, 2014 3056439 Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney I.D. # 40685 CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054-5016 (856) 234-6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s/o James and Lori Malinish, Plaintiff, VS. • : CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 CIVIL ACTION Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, LP, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kurt E. Kramer, hereby certify that on this 19th day of March, 2014. I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer of Defendant, Traxxas, LP to Crossclaim of Kranzel Hobby, via U.S. regular mail on the following: Elizabeth J. Meyers, Esq. Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 2957107 George B. Faller, Jr., Esq. Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Wiliam H. Resch, Jr., Esq. Philip D. Priore, Esq. McCormick & Priore, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Michael T. Traxler, Esq. Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 2957107 Z1 li t i AR 28 ` 1 '40 iBE r C11`ot F ERR `1� ��`(L';� i 1ip. k RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Michael T. Traxler Identification No.: 90961 Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 234 -7700 NOTICE TO PLEAD: To: Plaintiff and Defendants. You are hereby notified to- file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a; dgme _ • - • - • - st you. /.. Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s /o James and Lori Malinish vs. Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, L.P., Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY : Civil Case No. 13 -7223 ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSS CLAIM OF DEFENDANT, HOBBICO, INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendant, Hobbico, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "answering defendant "), by its attorneys, Rawle & Henderson LLP, hereby files its answer to plaintiff's Complaint and alleges as follows: 1. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiff s Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or 7235739 -1 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 3. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of plaintiff s Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 4. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiff s Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant has a principal place of business at 2904 Research Road, Champaign, Illinois 61822. It is admitted that answering defendant markets and sells battery chargers intended for use with remote control vehicles. It is denied that answering defendant is in the business of designing battery chargers intended for use with remote control vehicles. It is denied that answering defendant: is in the business of manufacturing battery chargers intended for use with remote control vehicles. 6. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of plaintiff s Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 7. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of plaintiff s Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or 7235739-1 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Upon information and belief, it is admitted that the fire relating to Plaintiffs claims occurred in Cumberland County. The remaining averments in this paragraph, unless otherwise specifically admitted, are denied. Further denied as these allegations constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 9. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff s Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 7235739 -1 13. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 14. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 16. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 18. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge 7235739-1 or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 19. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of plaintiffs Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 20. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 21. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 22. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 23. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 7235739 -1 24. The averments in paragraph 24 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent they are deemed otherwise, they are denied. 25. The averments in paragraph 25 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent they are deemed otherwise, they are denied. 26. Answering defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiff's Complaint. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and proof thereof is demanded at trial. 27. The averments in paragraph 27 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent they are deemed otherwise, they are denied. COUNT I: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT KRANZEL STRICT LIABILITY 28. Answering defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 29. The allegations contained in paragraph 29 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 29 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 29 of plaintiffs Complaint and they are therefore denied. 30. The allegations contained in paragraph 30 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is 7235739 -1 required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 30 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 30 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 31. The allegations contained in paragraph 31 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 31 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 31 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 32. The allegations contained in paragraph 32 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 32 of plaintiffs Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 32 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 7235739 -1 33. The allegations contained in paragraph 33 of plaintiffs Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are . conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 33 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 33 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 34. The allegations contained in paragraph 34 of plaintiffs Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 34 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 34 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 35. The allegations contained in paragraph 35 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 35 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering 7235739 -1 defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 35 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. COUNT II: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT KRANZEL NEGLIGENCE 36. Answering defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 37. The allegations contained in paragraph 37 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 37 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 37 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 38. The allegations contained in paragraph 38 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 38 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering 7235739 -1 defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 38 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. COUNT III: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT KRANZEL BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES 39. Answering defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 40. The allegations contained in paragraph 40 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 40 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 40 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 41. The allegations contained in paragraph 41 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 41 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering 7235739 -1 defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 41 of plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 42. The allegations contained in paragraph 42 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 42 of plaintiffs Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 42 of plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 43. The allegations contained in paragraph 43 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 43 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 43 of plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 44. The allegations contained in paragraph 44 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 44 of 7235739-1 plaintiffs Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 44 of plaintiffs Complaint and they are therefore denied. 45. The allegations contained in paragraph 45 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is .required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 45 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 45 of plaintiffs. Complaint and they are therefore denied. 46. The allegations contained in paragraph 46 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 46 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 46 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. COUNT IV: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT TRAXXAS STRICT LIABILITY 7235739 -1 47. Answering defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 48. The allegations contained in paragraph 48 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 48 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 48 of plaintiffs Complaint and they are therefore denied. 49. The allegations contained in paragraph 49 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 49 of plaintiffs Complaint: are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 49 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 50. The allegations contained in paragraph 50 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 50 of 7235739 -1 plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 50 of plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 51. The allegations contained in paragraph 51 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 51 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 51 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 52. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive •pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 52 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 52 of plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 53. The allegations contained in paragraph 53 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore 7235739-1 denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 53 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 53 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 54. The allegations contained in paragraph 54 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 54 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 54 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. COUNT V: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT TRAXXAS NEGLIGENCE 55. Answering defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 56. The allegations contained in paragraph 56 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 56 of 7235739 -1 plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 56 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 57. The allegations contained in paragraph 57 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they . are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 57 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 57 of plaintiffs Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. COUNT VI: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT HOBBICO STRICT LIABILITY 58. Answering defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 59. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant markets and sells battery chargers intended for use with remote control vehicles. It is denied that answering defendant designed, fabricated, manufactured, produced, assembled, distributed, supplied, delivered, and/or placed into the stream of commerce battery chargers, which were intended to be used by members of the general public. After reasonable investigation answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit 7235739 -1 or deny the remaining averments in this paragraph, including the inference that a battery charger marketed or sold by answering defendant was given to, or in the possession of, Nathaniel Malinish. By way of further response, the remaining averments contained in paragraph 59 of plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. 60. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 60 of plaintiff s Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any battery charger marketed or sold by answering defendant was unreasonably dangerous and/or unsafe for its intended use. 61. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 61 of the plaintiffs Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any battery charger marketed or sold by answering defendant was unreasonably dangerous and/or unsafe for its intended use or presented a substantial danger to users. 62. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 62 of the plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any battery charger marketed or sold by answering defendant lacked adequate warnings. 63. Denied: The averments contained in paragraph 63 of the plaintiffs Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any battery charger marketed or sold by answering defendant was defectively designed and/or manufactured or caused 7235739-1 damage to the plaintiffs insureds' property. By way of further denial, answering defendant does not design or manufacture battery chargers. 64. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 64 of the plaintiffs Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied any battery charger marketed or sold by answering defendant was defectively designed and/or manufactured or caused damage to the plaintiff's insureds' property. By way of further denial, answering defendant does not design or manufacture battery chargers. 65. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 65 of the plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. COUNT VII: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT HOBBICO NEGLIGENCE 66. Answering defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. - 67. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 67 and it subparts of the plaintiff's Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied answering defendant was negligent, careless, reckless, or grossly negligent and/or that its conduct was a cause of plaintiffs insureds' loss. 7235739 -1 68. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 68 of the plaintiffs Complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. It is specifically denied any battery charger marketed and sold by answering defendant was defective. It is specifically denied any battery charger marketed and sold by answering defendant caused damage to plaintiff's insureds' property. It is specifically denied that answering defendant engineered, designed, and/or manufactured battery chargers. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny any remaining factual averments in this paragraph. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. COUNT VIII: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS HORIZON AND HORIZON LTD. STRICT LIABILITY 69. Answering defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 70. The allegations contained in paragraph 70 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 70 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 70 of plaintiffs Complaint and they are therefore denied. 7235739 -1 71. The allegations contained in paragraph 71 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 71 of plaintiffs. Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 71 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 72. The allegations contained in paragraph 72 of plaintiffs Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 72 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 72 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 73. The allegations contained in paragraph 73 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 73 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering 7235739 -1 defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 73 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 74. The allegations contained in paragraph 74 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 74 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 74 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 75. The allegations contained in paragraph 75 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 75 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 75 of plaintiff's Complaint and they are therefore denied. 76. The allegations contained in paragraph 76 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 76 of 7235739 -1 plaintiffs Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 76 of plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. COUNT IX: PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS HORIZON ANDHORIZON LTD. NEGLIGENCE 77. Answering defendant incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 78. The allegations contained in paragraph 78 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 78 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 78 of plaintiff s Complaint and they are therefore denied. 79. The allegations contained in paragraph 79 of plaintiff's Complaint are addressed to a defendant other than answering defendant. No responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is required, the averments in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and they are therefore denied. By way of further response, to the extent the averments in paragraph 79 of plaintiff's Complaint are deemed to be factual, after reasonable investigation, answering 7235739-1 defendant is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the averments in paragraph 79 of plaintiffs Complaint and they are therefore denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. NEW MATTER 80. Plaintiff may have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 81. Plaintiff's claims and all recovery thereto may be barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations which is hereby invoked as an alternative defense. 82. Answering defendant was not negligent, careless, or reckless with regard to plaintiff's insureds or others. 83. Any acts or omissions of answering defendant alleged to constitute negligence or carelessness were not substantial causes or factors or factual causes of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged. 84. The battery charger was not defective in any way. 85. The incident and /or damages described in plaintiff's Complaint may have been caused or contributed to by the plaintiff's insureds. 86. Plaintiff's may have assumed the risk, or may have been contributorily negligent. 87. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening superseding causes of damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff. 7235739 -1 88. The incident, injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff was not proximately caused by answering defendant. 89. There were no implied warranties supplied with the battery charger. 90. The battery charger met all applicable warranties. 91. The battery charger complied with all applicable consensus standards. 92. Plaintiff's insureds misused the battery charger and their actions with regard to said misuse were not reasonably foreseeable. Plaintiff's insureds acted in a highly reckless manner, and, as such, plaintiff's claims are barred. 93. Plaintiff's insureds' conduct was highly reckless and the sole or intervening cause of plaintiff's injury. 94. Plaintiff's insureds failed to follow product warnings associated with the products at issue in this litigation. 95. Hobbico, Inc. was not the final distributor of the products that caused plaintiff's loss and the final distributor of any such product was responsible for communicating the risks associated with the products to plaintiff's insureds. 96. Hobbico, Inc. had no control over the communication of any required warnings to plaintiff's insureds associated with the product or conduct that caused the plaintiff's loss. 97. Answering defendant does not design or manufacture battery chargers. 98. To the extent it is established that any product designed and/or distributed by answering defendant was involved in the incident complained of by plaintiff then, upon information and belief, said product was fit for its intended purpose at the time it left answering defendant's care, custody and control. 7235739 -1 99. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent it is established that plaintiff has failed to timely file and serve sufficient process against answering defendant within the statutorily prescribed period for limitations on negligence, warranty and products liability actions. 100. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited to the extent it is established that plaintiff and plaintiff's insured failed to mitigate their damages. 101. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent it is established that the involved battery charger was not properly maintained and used and that said improper maintenance and/or use created the condition which caused the incident complained of by plaintiff. 102. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent that the subject battery charger was misused and/or abused after they left the care, custody or control of answering defendant. 103. Plaintiff's claims against answering defendant are barred to the extent it is established that the subject battery charger underwent material and/or substantial changes from the condition they were in when they left answering defendant's possession, custody and control. 104. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited due to spoliation of evidence. 105. Plaintiff s claims may be federally preempted. 106. Answering defendant denies any liability for damages under Rule 238, as amended, for the reason that the Rule as amended is arbitrary and unconstitutional. 107. Defendant raises all affirmative defenses set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1030 to plaintiff's Complaint and all cross claims asserted by any and all co- defendants, including the legal doctrines of payment, accord and satisfaction, release, waiver, estoppel and set -off. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed as against Hobbico, Inc. and that Hobbico, Inc. be awarded its counsel fees, costs of suit, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems proper. 7235739 -1 • NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1031.1 IN THE NATURE OF A CROSSCLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS, KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, TRAXXAS, L.P. HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED 108. If plaintiff is entitled to recover, said recovery being specifically denied herein, it may be solely or partially as a result of the negligent acts, omissions or other liability producing conduct of defendants, Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, L.P., Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, as more fully set forth in plaintiffs Complaint, which allegations are incorporated herein solely for the purpose of this cross - claim, and they may be alone liable to plaintiffs, or jointly and severally liable to answering defendant, or liable over to plaintiffs or liable to answering defendant for contribution, common law indemnification, and/or contractual indemnification. WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc. hereby prays that the plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed, at the cost of the respective parties, or, in the alternative, further relief alleged in paragraph 107 above. Date: ?//2 -7 1 7235739 -1 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: ichael T. Traxler, Esq ire Ai, VtilitICATION The undersigned hereby veriliesthatthe-,statements. in the foregoing :,pleading 'arc Oased upon Information which has been furnished to CQ1111401 and information which has been gathered by Counsel iii the Preparation of the defense of this'lawsuit. The language ,ofthepleading is that Of Counsel and not my Own. .1 have read the pleading, and to the extent that it is based upon infontiatien Which-41tave given to COttriSel,. it is true and correct to the best briny: knowledge, InfOnnatiOn.and belief. To Ilte.extent that the tontentiathepleading is ,that- Of Counsel, T have relied upon. Counsel in making this verification, The andersIgned utiderStandS that the statements thereirriaro made subjeetto thePettaltie.soll$ unsworn falsification to authorities: Date: ..._ /z/ 12357i9.1 dy Th 1111011' lobbido, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via first -class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below: Date: 7235739 -1 Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 George B. Faller, Jr:, Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 -5016 Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Michael T. Traxler, Es • uire RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Michael T. Traxler Identification No.: 90961 Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 234-7700 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. 711—Ed—Ot- r ut,o I P R ONO 1,•t; 7.31411AR 31 PM 2: 06 CUMBE:RLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANM State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s/o James and Lori Malinish VS. Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, L.P., Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY : Civil Case No. 13-7223 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, HOBBICO, INC. TO CROSS-CLAIMS OF DEFENDANT, TRAXXAS, L.P. AND NOW, defendant, Hobbico, Inc., hereby answers the Cross-Claims of defendant, Traxxas, L.P. as follows: 113. — 122. Answering defendant hereby incorporates its responses and defenses in each of its pleadings as if the same were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in these paragraphs are denied as they contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an affirmative response may be required, Answering defendant denies that they are solely liable, jointly or severally liable, or liable over to plaintiff, or any of the original defendants by way of common law or contractual contribution and/or indemnity. Further, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were caused by Answering defendant. 7218134-1 WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc., demands that judgment be entered against plaintiff and all co- defendants and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Date: 3/7/,5-// V 7218134 -1 VERIFICATION MICHAEL T. TRAXLER, ESQUIRE, hereby states that he is a member of the law firm of Raw le & Henderson LLP, attorney for defendant, Hobbico, Inc., that he is authorized to make this verification on behalf of said defendant. The undersigned verifies that he has read the within pleading and that the same is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements set forth in said pleading are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. 7218134-1 • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-5016 Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy. Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Date: 3 g71 7218134-1 Michael T. Trax er, Esquire ■ FAFILES \ Clients V3050 Donegal'3050 Current \3050.678 \3050.678.reply1 .wpd Revised:9/31/14 I:17PM George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies 1-;LLIi-U1 THE , 2014 APR - I PH 1:26 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, a/s/o James and Lori Malinish : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. : NO. 13-7223 KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, TRAXXAS, L.P., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOBBICO, INC., HORIZON HOBBY, INC., and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY OF KRANZEL'S HOBBIES TO NEW MATTER OF HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED AND NOW, comes Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies and hereby responds to the New Matter of Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited as follows: 108. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). MARTSON LAW OFFICES By Date: 3/31/14 Ge rge B. ller, Jr., Esqui I.D. Number 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Nichole L. Myers, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply of Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies to New Matter of Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorneys for Plaintiff) Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART SCATCHARD 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-5016 (Attorneys for Defendant Traxxas, LP) Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCormick & Priore, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorneys for Defendants Horizon Hobby, Inc, And Defendant Horizon Hobby Limited) Michael T. Traxler, Esquire RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 240 North Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Attorneys for Defendant Hobbico, Inc.) MARTSON LAW OFFICES By "0-4 Nichole L. Myers Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 3/31/14 COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Email: Lmyers@cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company r 17! EH I' )13 0 -MONO TATC. 2014 APR 72 PH 2: 28 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s/o James and Lori Malinish Plaintiff v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et.al. Defendants. CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT KRANZEL'S HOBBIES Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company ("State Farm"), as Subrogee of James and Lori Malinish, through its undersigned counsel, Cozen O'Connor, hereby submits the following Reply to defendant Kranzel's Hobbies' New Matter to Complaint: 80. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. Plaintiff State Farm further incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of its Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 81. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 82. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 83. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 84. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 85. Denied. Plaintiff's insureds followed product directions and warnings to the extent directions and warnings were provided and understandable. 86. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 87. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 2 88. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff State Farm respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant Kranzel's Hobbies. Respectfully submitted, COZEN O'CONNOR BY: 3 ELIZABEWJ. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTOR Y I.D. #210269 1900 M rket Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Email: Lmyers @cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Email: Lmyers @cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : a/s /o James and Lori Malinish CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 Plaintiff v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et.al. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that on this 31th day of March, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Defendant Kranzel Hobbies' New Matter to be served via first -class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant, Kranzel 's Hobbies AND Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 3005 PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 -5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson, LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. By: RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Michael T. Traxler Identification No.: 90961 Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 234 -7700 1 i-PRO 'MONO iA.'i (. 20144 R10 PHA'1:3 CUMBERLAND COUNT Y PENNSYLVANIA Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS a/s /o James and Lori Malinish CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs. Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, L.P., Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited : Civil Case No. 13 -7223 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, HOBBICO, INC. TO CROSS -CLAIM OF DEFENDANT, KRANZEL'S HOBBIES AND NOW, defendant, Hobbico, Inc., hereby answers the Cross -Claim of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies as follows: 89. — 91. Answering defendant hereby incorporates its responses and defenses in each of its pleadings as if the same were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in these paragraphs are denied as they contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an affirmative response may be required, answering defendant .denies that they are solely liable, jointly or severally liable, or liable over to plaintiff, or any of the original defendants by way of common law or contractual contribution and/or indemnity. Further, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were caused by answering defendant. 7278818 -1 WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc., demands that judgment be entered against plaintiff and all co- defendants and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Date: 4i 7278818 -1 Michael T. Traxler, Esquire VERIFICATION MICHAEL T. TRAXLER, ESQUIRE, hereby states that he is a member of the law firm of Rawle & Henderson LLP, attorney for defendant, Hobbico, Inc., that he is authorized to make this verification on behalf of said defendant. The undersigned verifies that he has read the within pleading and that the same is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements set forth in said pleading are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. MICHAEL T. TRAXLER, ES • IRE 7278818 -1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via first -class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy. & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 -5016 Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Date: ylip 7278818 -1 Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney I.D. # 40685 CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054 -5016 (856) 234 -6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP f i L.. 3 -- t.. F :! t c "t E P r \rR 1 1 Rai 2: 21 4 JMC.)EnLAND COUNTY PENNS /LVA.N1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s /o James and Lori Malinish, Plaintiff, vs. Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, LP, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited, Defendants. : CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 : CIVIL ACTION ANSWER OF TRAXXAS, LP TO NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM OF HOBBICO, INC. Defendant, Traxxas, LP ( "Traxxas" or "Answering Defendant "), files the following response to the New Matter Cross Claim of Defendant Hobbico, Inc. ( "Hobbico ") and avers as follows: 108. Denied. To the extent applicable, Traxxas incorporates its factual averments, denials, and objections as contained in its Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim filed in response to Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in paragraph 108 of Hobbico's New Matter Cross Claim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore denied. To the extent any of the averments in Hobbico's New Matter 3090932 Cross Claim directed against Traxxas are factual, they are specifically denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Traxxas was negligent, careless, reckless, or that Traxxas, or anyone for whom Traxxas may be deemed liable, was a cause of Plaintiff's alleged damages. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP demands judgment in its favor and against Kranzel's Hobbies, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited and/or any additional defendant(s) hereafter joined for all damages, costs, and attorneys' fees that may be awarded to Plaintiff, and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. By: Dated: April 9, 2014 3090932 CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. A Professional Co . oration urt E. ► er, Esq. Attorney f , Defendant, Traxxas, P VERIFICATION I, Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendant Traxxas, LP in the foregoing lawsuit, and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to New Matter Cross Claim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and I understand that the statements in said Answer to New Matter Cross Claim are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. • Dated: April 9, 2014 3090932 Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney I.D. # 40685 CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054 -5016 (856) 234 -6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP THE PRO7 2B314 APR 1 1 PM 2: 2 C'l,iMBE..RLANI) COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s /o James and Lori Malinish, : CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL ACTION Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, LP, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kurt E. Kramer, hereby certify that on this 9th day of April, 2014. I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer of Defendant, Traxxas, LP to New Matter and Crossclaim of Hobbico, via U.S. regular mail on the following: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esq. Cozen O'Connor, PC 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 2957107 George B. Faller, Jr., Esq. Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Wiliam H. Resch, Jr., Esq. Philip D. Priore, Esq. McCormick & Priore, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Michael T. Traxler, Esq. Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 2957107 McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore@mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s/o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED FiCE ?E NU) THDNO TAR' 2014 APR 14 PM 1:25 Attorney for Defendants ?3'.. Horizon Hobby, Ind:::11 ERL AND COUNTY Horizon Hobby Limite E NNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO THE CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, KRANZEL'S HOBBIES 89. Answering defendants incorporate by reference their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaims as though fully set forth herein at length. . 90. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are alone liable to plaintiff, and it is specifically denied that answering defendants are liable over to defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, for contribution or indemnity. It is also specifically denied that answering defendants are jointly or severally liable to defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies. It is specifically denied that answering defendants were negligent or engaged in other liability producing conduct. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 90 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 90 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are directed to parties other MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTCDNEYS AT LAW than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of paragraph 90 of New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 91. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are at all liable on any basis. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 91 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 91 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of paragraph 91 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 2 Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Philip D. Priore, Esquire, states that he is counsel for defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in this matter and that the facts contained in the foregoing Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Date: `"L' elkt viVf BY: Philip D. Pr re, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PPIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited THE Pi;;011-101110 TAR' 2014 APR 114 1: 25 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO CROSSCLAIMS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1031.1 OF DEFENDANT, TRAXXAS, L.P. COUNT I SOLE LIABILITY 113. Denied. The averments of paragraph 113 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Traxxas, L.P., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 114. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is not liable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants in the case. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 114 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 115. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are directly or jointly or severally liable for any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 115 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 115 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT II COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION 116. Denied. The averments of paragraph 116 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Traxxas, L.P., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 117. Denied. Answering defendants specifically deny any allegations contained in plaintiff's Complaint against answering defendants. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 117 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 118. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is not liable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants in the case. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 118 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 119. Denied. It is specifically denied that any act or omission by answering defendants caused any injuries or damages or losses to plaintiff. It is also specifically denied that answering 2 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW defendants are liable to defendant, Traxxas, L.P., for any amount which plaintiff may recover against Traxxas or for costs or legal expenses or fees incurred by defendant, Traxxas, L.P. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 119 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 119 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT III CONTRIBUTION 120. Denied. The averments of paragraph 120 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Traxxas, L.P., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 121. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is not liable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants in the case. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 121 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 122. Denied. It is specifically denied that any act or omission by answering defendants make them jointly or severally liable to defendant, Traxxas, L.P., for contribution for any amounts which plaintiff may recover. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 122 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 122 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no 3 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted; MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 4 Philip D.'Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Philip D. Priore, Esquire, states that he is counsel for defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in this matter and that the facts contained in the foregoing Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of Defendant, Traxxas, L.P., are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Date: BY: Philip D. Pr'iore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of Defendant, Traxxas, L.P., was forwarded to counsel identified below, by first -class U.S. mail, postage pre -paid, on April 10, 2014. Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Plaintiff Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire Capehart & Scatchard, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O.Box5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054 -5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, L.P. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: !i± Philip D. I'riore,. Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215- 972 -5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited i THE PR T�ii33.OE. TAin Mt 3 AP c 1 4 PM 1. 24 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO THE CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, HOBBICO, INC. 108. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants were negligent or performed any liability producing conduct. It is also specifically denied that answering defendants are alone liable to plaintiffs or jointly or severally liable to defendant, Hobbico, Inc., or liable over to plaintiff or liable to Hobbico, Inc. for contribution or common law indemnification or contractual indemnification. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are liable on any basis to any party. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 108 of the New Matter Crossclaim of defendant, Hobbico, Inc., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 108 of the New Matter Crossclaim of defendant, Hobbico, Inc., are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of paragraph 108 of the New Matter Crossclaim of defendant, Hobbico, Inc., are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 2 Philip D. riore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Philip D. Priore, Esquire, states that he is counsel for defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in this matter and that the facts contained in the foregoing Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Hobbico, Inc., are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 1 MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: Philip D. 'riore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 10th day of April, 2014, a true and correct copy of the Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Hobbico, Inc., was forwarded to counsel identified below, by first-class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid. Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Plaintiff Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire Capehart & Scatchard, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054-5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, L.P. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 1/4 AA.A-.1j Philip D. Fiore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW PRO TII,Ot.td 231 l4 A"i 1 �'� It 24 Lu1•s uUa PENNSYLVANIA � McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215- 972 -0161 (F) 215- 972 -5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED To: All Parties You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter and Crossclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. By: s /Philip D. Priore Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 3 of plaintiffs Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 4105 Fieldstone Road, Champaign, IL 61822. It is admitted that answering defendant at all times material hereto was in the business of marketing and selling batteries, including batteries designed and marketed for use with remote control vehicles. It is specifically denied that answering defendant designed or manufactured such batteries. To the extent the averments of paragraph 6 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, is a British company and subsidiary of Horizon Hobby, Inc. with its principal place of business at Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road, Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM18 7NS. It is 2 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW also admitted that answering defendant was in the business of marketing and selling batteries, including those designed and marketed for use with remote control vehicles. It is specifically denied that answering defendant was in the business of designing and manufacturing such batteries, and it is specifically denied that any battery marketed or sold by answering defendant had any connection with the battery and incident at issue in the present case. To the extent the averments of paragraph ' of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 8 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 3 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 12 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 13 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 14 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 16 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 17 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. • 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 18 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 4 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 19 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 20 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 21 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 21 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 22 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 23 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 24 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 24 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 25 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 27 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. COUNT I PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT, KRANZEL STRICT LIABILITY 28. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 of their Answer to plaintiffs Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 29 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was unreasonably dangerous or unsafe for its intended use, and it is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants contained defects which existed when they were placed in the stream of commerce. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 30 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 30 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. 6 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore@mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s/o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED FiCE ?E NU) THDNO TAR' 2014 APR 14 PM 1:25 Attorney for Defendants ?3'.. Horizon Hobby, Ind:::11 ERL AND COUNTY Horizon Hobby Limite E NNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO THE CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, KRANZEL'S HOBBIES 89. Answering defendants incorporate by reference their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaims as though fully set forth herein at length. . 90. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are alone liable to plaintiff, and it is specifically denied that answering defendants are liable over to defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, for contribution or indemnity. It is also specifically denied that answering defendants are jointly or severally liable to defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies. It is specifically denied that answering defendants were negligent or engaged in other liability producing conduct. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 90 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 90 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are directed to parties other MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTCDNEYS AT LAW than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of paragraph 90 of New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 91. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are at all liable on any basis. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 91 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 91 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of paragraph 91 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 2 Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Philip D. Priore, Esquire, states that he is counsel for defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in this matter and that the facts contained in the foregoing Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Date: `"L' elkt viVf BY: Philip D. Pr re, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PPIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited THE Pi;;011-101110 TAR' 2014 APR 114 1: 25 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO CROSSCLAIMS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1031.1 OF DEFENDANT, TRAXXAS, L.P. COUNT I SOLE LIABILITY 113. Denied. The averments of paragraph 113 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Traxxas, L.P., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 114. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is not liable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants in the case. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 114 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 115. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are directly or jointly or severally liable for any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 115 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 115 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT II COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION 116. Denied. The averments of paragraph 116 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Traxxas, L.P., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 117. Denied. Answering defendants specifically deny any allegations contained in plaintiff's Complaint against answering defendants. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 117 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 118. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is not liable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants in the case. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 118 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 119. Denied. It is specifically denied that any act or omission by answering defendants caused any injuries or damages or losses to plaintiff. It is also specifically denied that answering 2 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW defendants are liable to defendant, Traxxas, L.P., for any amount which plaintiff may recover against Traxxas or for costs or legal expenses or fees incurred by defendant, Traxxas, L.P. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 119 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 119 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT III CONTRIBUTION 120. Denied. The averments of paragraph 120 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Traxxas, L.P., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 121. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is not liable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants in the case. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 121 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 122. Denied. It is specifically denied that any act or omission by answering defendants make them jointly or severally liable to defendant, Traxxas, L.P., for contribution for any amounts which plaintiff may recover. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 122 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 122 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no 3 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted; MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 4 Philip D.'Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Philip D. Priore, Esquire, states that he is counsel for defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in this matter and that the facts contained in the foregoing Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of Defendant, Traxxas, L.P., are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Date: BY: Philip D. Pr'iore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of Defendant, Traxxas, L.P., was forwarded to counsel identified below, by first -class U.S. mail, postage pre -paid, on April 10, 2014. Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Plaintiff Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire Capehart & Scatchard, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O.Box5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054 -5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, L.P. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: !i± Philip D. I'riore,. Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215- 972 -5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited i THE PR T�ii33.OE. TAin Mt 3 AP c 1 4 PM 1. 24 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO THE CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, HOBBICO, INC. 108. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants were negligent or performed any liability producing conduct. It is also specifically denied that answering defendants are alone liable to plaintiffs or jointly or severally liable to defendant, Hobbico, Inc., or liable over to plaintiff or liable to Hobbico, Inc. for contribution or common law indemnification or contractual indemnification. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are liable on any basis to any party. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 108 of the New Matter Crossclaim of defendant, Hobbico, Inc., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 108 of the New Matter Crossclaim of defendant, Hobbico, Inc., are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of paragraph 108 of the New Matter Crossclaim of defendant, Hobbico, Inc., are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 2 Philip D. riore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Philip D. Priore, Esquire, states that he is counsel for defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in this matter and that the facts contained in the foregoing Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Hobbico, Inc., are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 1 MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: Philip D. 'riore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 10th day of April, 2014, a true and correct copy of the Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Hobbico, Inc., was forwarded to counsel identified below, by first-class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid. Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Plaintiff Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire Capehart & Scatchard, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054-5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, L.P. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 1/4 AA.A-.1j Philip D. Fiore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW PRO TII,Ot.td 231 l4 A"i 1 �'� It 24 Lu1•s uUa PENNSYLVANIA � McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215- 972 -0161 (F) 215- 972 -5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED To: All Parties You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter and Crossclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. By: s /Philip D. Priore Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 3 of plaintiffs Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 4105 Fieldstone Road, Champaign, IL 61822. It is admitted that answering defendant at all times material hereto was in the business of marketing and selling batteries, including batteries designed and marketed for use with remote control vehicles. It is specifically denied that answering defendant designed or manufactured such batteries. To the extent the averments of paragraph 6 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, is a British company and subsidiary of Horizon Hobby, Inc. with its principal place of business at Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road, Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM18 7NS. It is 2 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW also admitted that answering defendant was in the business of marketing and selling batteries, including those designed and marketed for use with remote control vehicles. It is specifically denied that answering defendant was in the business of designing and manufacturing such batteries, and it is specifically denied that any battery marketed or sold by answering defendant had any connection with the battery and incident at issue in the present case. To the extent the averments of paragraph ' of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 8 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 3 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 12 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 13 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 14 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 16 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 17 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. • 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 18 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 4 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 19 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 20 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 21 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 21 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 22 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 23 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 24 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 24 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 25 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 27 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. COUNT I PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT, KRANZEL STRICT LIABILITY 28. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 of their Answer to plaintiffs Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 29 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was unreasonably dangerous or unsafe for its intended use, and it is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants contained defects which existed when they were placed in the stream of commerce. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 30 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 30 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. 6 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore@mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s/o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED FiCE ?E NU) THDNO TAR' 2014 APR 14 PM 1:25 Attorney for Defendants ?3'.. Horizon Hobby, Ind:::11 ERL AND COUNTY Horizon Hobby Limite E NNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO THE CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, KRANZEL'S HOBBIES 89. Answering defendants incorporate by reference their Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaims as though fully set forth herein at length. . 90. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are alone liable to plaintiff, and it is specifically denied that answering defendants are liable over to defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, for contribution or indemnity. It is also specifically denied that answering defendants are jointly or severally liable to defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies. It is specifically denied that answering defendants were negligent or engaged in other liability producing conduct. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 90 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 90 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are directed to parties other MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTCDNEYS AT LAW than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of paragraph 90 of New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 91. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are at all liable on any basis. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 91 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 91 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of paragraph 91 of the New Matter Crossclaim pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 2 Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Philip D. Priore, Esquire, states that he is counsel for defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in this matter and that the facts contained in the foregoing Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies, are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Date: `"L' elkt viVf BY: Philip D. Pr re, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PPIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215-972-5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited THE Pi;;011-101110 TAR' 2014 APR 114 1: 25 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO CROSSCLAIMS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1031.1 OF DEFENDANT, TRAXXAS, L.P. COUNT I SOLE LIABILITY 113. Denied. The averments of paragraph 113 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Traxxas, L.P., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 114. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is not liable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants in the case. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 114 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 115. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are directly or jointly or severally liable for any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 115 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 115 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT II COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION 116. Denied. The averments of paragraph 116 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Traxxas, L.P., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 117. Denied. Answering defendants specifically deny any allegations contained in plaintiff's Complaint against answering defendants. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 117 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 118. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is not liable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants in the case. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 118 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 119. Denied. It is specifically denied that any act or omission by answering defendants caused any injuries or damages or losses to plaintiff. It is also specifically denied that answering 2 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW defendants are liable to defendant, Traxxas, L.P., for any amount which plaintiff may recover against Traxxas or for costs or legal expenses or fees incurred by defendant, Traxxas, L.P. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 119 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 119 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT III CONTRIBUTION 120. Denied. The averments of paragraph 120 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of defendant, Traxxas, L.P., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 121. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendant, Traxxas, L.P., is not liable to plaintiff and/or the other defendants in the case. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 121 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 122. Denied. It is specifically denied that any act or omission by answering defendants make them jointly or severally liable to defendant, Traxxas, L.P., for contribution for any amounts which plaintiff may recover. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 122 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 122 of the Crossclaims pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no 3 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of this paragraph are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted; MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 4 Philip D.'Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Philip D. Priore, Esquire, states that he is counsel for defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in this matter and that the facts contained in the foregoing Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of Defendant, Traxxas, L.P., are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Date: BY: Philip D. Pr'iore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to Crossclaims Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1 of Defendant, Traxxas, L.P., was forwarded to counsel identified below, by first -class U.S. mail, postage pre -paid, on April 10, 2014. Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Plaintiff Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire Capehart & Scatchard, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O.Box5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054 -5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, L.P. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: !i± Philip D. I'riore,. Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215-972-0161 (F) 215- 972 -5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited i THE PR T�ii33.OE. TAin Mt 3 AP c 1 4 PM 1. 24 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 REPLY OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO THE CROSSCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, HOBBICO, INC. 108. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants were negligent or performed any liability producing conduct. It is also specifically denied that answering defendants are alone liable to plaintiffs or jointly or severally liable to defendant, Hobbico, Inc., or liable over to plaintiff or liable to Hobbico, Inc. for contribution or common law indemnification or contractual indemnification. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are liable on any basis to any party. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 108 of the New Matter Crossclaim of defendant, Hobbico, Inc., constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 108 of the New Matter Crossclaim of defendant, Hobbico, Inc., are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW answer is required of answering defendants. Also, the averments of paragraph 108 of the New Matter Crossclaim of defendant, Hobbico, Inc., are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 2 Philip D. riore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION Philip D. Priore, Esquire, states that he is counsel for defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, in this matter and that the facts contained in the foregoing Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Hobbico, Inc., are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 1 MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: Philip D. 'riore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 10th day of April, 2014, a true and correct copy of the Reply of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to the Crossclaim of Defendant, Hobbico, Inc., was forwarded to counsel identified below, by first-class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid. Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Plaintiff Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire Capehart & Scatchard, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054-5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, L.P. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: 1/4 AA.A-.1j Philip D. Fiore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW PRO TII,Ot.td 231 l4 A"i 1 �'� It 24 Lu1•s uUa PENNSYLVANIA � McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. By: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney ID # 38987 Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 (T) 215- 972 -0161 (F) 215- 972 -5580 email: ppriore @mccormickpriore.com STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY a/s /o JAMES AND LORI MALINISH v. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES and TRAXXAS, L.P. and HOBBICO, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY, INC. and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED To: All Parties You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter and Crossclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. By: s /Philip D. Priore Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSSCLAIM 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiffs Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 3 of plaintiffs Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 4 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 5 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 4105 Fieldstone Road, Champaign, IL 61822. It is admitted that answering defendant at all times material hereto was in the business of marketing and selling batteries, including batteries designed and marketed for use with remote control vehicles. It is specifically denied that answering defendant designed or manufactured such batteries. To the extent the averments of paragraph 6 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, is a British company and subsidiary of Horizon Hobby, Inc. with its principal place of business at Units 1 to 4 Ployters Road, Staple Tye, Southern Way, Harlow, Essex CM18 7NS. It is 2 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW also admitted that answering defendant was in the business of marketing and selling batteries, including those designed and marketed for use with remote control vehicles. It is specifically denied that answering defendant was in the business of designing and manufacturing such batteries, and it is specifically denied that any battery marketed or sold by answering defendant had any connection with the battery and incident at issue in the present case. To the extent the averments of paragraph ' of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 8 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 8 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 9 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 10 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 11 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 3 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 12 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 13 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 14 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 15 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 16 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 17 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. • 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 18 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 4 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 19 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 20 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 21 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 21 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 22 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 23 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 24 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 24 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 25 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 26 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 27. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 27 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. COUNT I PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT, KRANZEL STRICT LIABILITY 28. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 of their Answer to plaintiffs Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 29 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was unreasonably dangerous or unsafe for its intended use, and it is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants contained defects which existed when they were placed in the stream of commerce. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 30 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 30 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. 6 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW in paragraph 34 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 34 of plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 34 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. 35. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 35 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 35 of plaintiffs Complaint are directed to a party other than answering defendant, so no answer is required of answering defendants. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT II PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT, KRANZEL NEGLIGENCE 36. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 of their Answer to plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 37. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was defective or dangerous. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 37 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 37 of plaintiffs Complaint are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. 38. Denied. The averments of paragraph 38 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to a party other than answering defendants, so no answer is required of answering defendants. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to 8 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants posed a substantial danger to users that ordinary consumers would not have recognized. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 31 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 31 of plaintiff s Complaint are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. 32. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants lacked any proper and necessary warning for the dangerous nature of the products when placed in the stream of commerce. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 32 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 32 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. 33. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants caused any fire or resulting damage to the Malinish home, and it is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was defective. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 33 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 33 of plaintiff s Complaint are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product marketed or distributed or sold or supplied or delivered or placed in the stream of commerce by answering defendants caused any damages to plaintiffs insureds. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the other averments contained 7 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW form a belief as to the truth of the other averments contained in paragraph 38 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT III PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT, KRANZEL BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES 39. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 of their Answer to plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 40 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 40 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 41 Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 41 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 41 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 42. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 42 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 42 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 MCCORMICK & PRIO E ATTORNEYS AT LAW 43. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was dangerous. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the other averments contained in paragraph 43 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 43 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 44 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to a party other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answering defendants. 44. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was defective, and it is specifically denied that the fire and any resulting damage to the Malinishes, was caused by any product supplied by answering defendant. After reasonable investigation, answerinidefendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the other averments contained in paragraph 44 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 45. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product marketed or distributed or sold or supplied or delivered or placed in the stream of commerce by answering defendants was defective or dangerous. It is also specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants caused any damage to plaintiff's property. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the other averments contained in paragraph 45 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 45 of plaintiff s Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the averments of paragraph 45 of 10 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW plaintiff s Complaint are directed to parties other than answering defendants, no answer is required of answer defendants. 46. Denied. The averments of paragraph 46 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The averments of paragraph 46 of plaintiff's Complaint are also directed to, a party other than answering defendants, so no answer is required of answering defendants. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT IV PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT, TRAXXAS STRICT LIABILITY 47. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 of their Answer to plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 48. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 48 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 48 of plaintiff' s Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 49 -54. Denied. The averments of paragraphs 49 through 54 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the averments of paragraphs 49 through 54 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to a party other than answering defendants, so no answer is required of answer defendants. 11 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT V PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT, TRAXXAS NEGLIGENCE 55. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 54 of their Answer to plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein 56 -57. Denied. The averments of paragraphs 56 and 57 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the averments of paragraphs 56 and 57 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to a party other than answering defendants, so no answer is required of answering defendants. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT VI PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT, HOBBICO. STRICT LIABILITY 58. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 57 of their Answer to plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 59 -65. Denied. The averments of paragraphs 59 through 65 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the averments of paragraphs 59 through 65 of plaintiff's Complaint are directed to a party other than answering defendants, so no answer is required of answering defendants. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. 12 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW COUNT VII PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT, HOBBICO NEGLIGENCE 66. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 65 of their Answer to plaintiff s Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 67-68. Denied. The averments of paragraphs 67 and 68 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the aveinients of paragraphs 67 and 68 of plaintiff s Complaint are directed to a party other than answering defendants, so no answer is required of answering defendants. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. COUNT VIII PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LTD. STRICT LIABILITY 69. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 68 of their Answer to plaintiff s Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 70. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, had any connection to the product at issue. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the other averments contained in paragraph 70 of plaintiff s Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. 71. Denied. It is specifically denied that any battery supplied by answering defendants was unreasonably dangerous or unsafe for its intended use, and it is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was defective when placed in the stream of commerce. It is also specifically denied that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, had any connection with the product at issue. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient 13 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the other averments contained in paragraph 71 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 71 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil. Procedure. Also, the averments of paragraph 71 of plaintiff's Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 72. Denied. It is specifically denied that the battery presented a substantial danger to users that ordinary consumers would not have recognized. It is also specifically denied that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, had any connection with the product at issue. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 72 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, the averments of paragraph 72 of plaintiff's Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 73. Denied. It is specifically denied that the battery lacked adequate warnings for any dangers associated with the battery at the time it was placed in the stream of commerce, and it is specifically denied that there were dangers associated with the battery at the time it was placed in the stream of commerce. It is also specifically denied that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, had any connection with the product at issue. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 73 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, the averments of paragraph 73 of plaintiff's Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 74. Denied. It is specifically denied that any battery supplied by answering defendants caused a fire or damage to plaintiffs insureds' property and it is specifically denied that the battery was defectively designed or manufactured. It is also specifically denied that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, had any connection with the product at issue. Furthermore, the averments 14 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW of paragraph 74 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, the averments of paragraph 74 of plaintiff's Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 75. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was defective or dangerous, and it is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants caused substantial damage to the property of plaintiff's insureds. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the other averments contained in paragraph 75 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 75 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, the averments of paragraph 75 of plaintiff's Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 76. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants are strictly liable for the fire and resulting damages pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(a), et seq. It is also specifically denied that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, had any connection to the product at issue. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 76 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, the averments of paragraph 76 of plaintiffs Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. 15 MCCORMICK & PRIME ATTORNEYS AT LAW COUNT IX PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS, HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LTD. NEGLIGENCE 77. Answering defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 76 of their Answer to plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 78. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants were negligent or careless or reckless or grossly negligent, and it is specifically denied that the fire and any damage to the property of plaintiff's insureds was caused by any act or omission by answering defendants. It is also specifically denied that answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, or its agents or servants or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or agency had any connection with the product at issue. Furthermore: a. It is . specifically denied that answering defendants . supplied a defectively manufactured or designed product which they knew or should have known subjected the intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm and it is specifically denied that any product supplied by answering defendants was defectively manufactured or designed or subjected the intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; b. It is specifically denied that answering defendants designed a product that created a danger which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; c. It is specifically denied that answering defendants failed to adequately or properly or safely assemble or inspect or test the battery and it is specifically denied that answering defendants had a duty to assemble or inspect or test the battery; 16 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW d. It is specifically denied that answering defendants marketed defectively manufactured or designed products which they knew or should have known subjected intended users to an unreasonable risk of harm; e. It is specifically denied that the battery was inadequately or improperly or unsafely assembled or inspected or tested; f. It is specifically denied that answering defendants failed to give all proper and necessary warnings and it is specifically denied that there were dangers associated with the battery; g. It is specifically denied that the battery was not properly inspected to ensure that it was free from any defects or damage and it is specifically denied that the battery had any defects or damage; h. It is specifically denied that the battery was not properly inspected to ensure that the component parts were free from any defects or damage and it is specifically denied that the component parts had any defects or damage; i. It is specifically denied that answering defendants failed to supply any and all components necessary to safely charge the battery in battery chargers; j. It is specifically denied that any act or omission by answering defendants was negligent. Furthermore, the averments of paragraph 78 of plaintiffs Complaint constitute conclusions of law which require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The averments of paragraph 78 of plaintiffs Complaint are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 79. Denied. It is specifically denied that any product engineered or designed or marketed or distributed or manufactured or supplied or sold by answering defendants was defective or 17 MCCORMICK & PRIORP ATTORNEYS AT LAW dangerous. It is also specifically denied that any act or omission by answering defendants or any product supplied by answering defendants caused substantial damage to the property of plaintiff's insureds. After reasonable investigation, answering defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge' to form a belief as to the truth of the other averments contained in paragraph 79 of plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, they are denied. To the extent the averments of paragraph 79 of plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law, they require no answer under the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, the averments of paragraph 79 of plaintiff s Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. issue. NEW MATTER 80. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 81. Answering defendants owed no duty to plaintiff or its insureds. 82. Answering defendants breached no duty to plaintiff or its insureds. 83. Answering defendant, Horizon Hobby Limited, had no connection to the product at 84. Plaintiff and its insureds sustained no compensable injuries or damages or losses for which answering defendants can be liable. 85. Plaintiff's injuries or damages or losses may have resulted from the carelessness or negligence of plaintiff's insureds and/or Nathaniel Malinish. 86. Plaintiff's claims may be barred or reduced by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 18 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 87. No action or omission by answering defendants caused any injuries or losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds. 88. Any losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds were caused by a person or persons not under the control of answering defendants and for whom answering defendants were not responsible. 89. Any losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds may have been caused by a condition or conditions not under the control of answering defendants and for which answering defendants were not responsible. 90. Any losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds may have been caused by a force or forces not under the control of answering defendants and for which answering defendants were not responsible. 91. Any losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds were caused by a product or products for which answering defendants were not responsible. 92. Plaintiff may lack standing to maintain this action. 93. Plaintiff's claims may be barred or limited by the misuse or modification or alteration of the product allegedly at issue. 94. Any product found to have been supplied by answering defendants was without defect and was reasonably fit, suitable and safe and contained every element necessary to make it safe for its foreseeable and intended use for its intended users. 95. Any product found to have been supplied by answering defendants was not in a defective condition or unreasonably dangerous when it left the possession or control of answering defendants. 19 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 96. Any product found to have been supplied by answering defendants was in accordance with the scientific and technological knowledge available to answering defendants at the time that the product was placed on the market, giving due consideration to customary designs, methods, standards and techniques in designing and manufacturing such products in the applicable industry. 97. Answering defendants hereby assert the sophisticated user /knowledgeable purchaser/ learned intermediary doctrine as a defense. 98. At the time of the alleged incident, plaintiffs insureds and/or Nathaniel Malinish may have used the product in a manner that was not reasonably foreseeable in accordance with the intended purpose of the product. 99. Any losses or damages to plaintiff and its insureds may have been due to misuse of the product allegedly at issue. 100. Any losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds may have been due to the substantial alteration of the product allegedly at issue. 101. Any danger associated with the use of the product allegedly at issue may have caused or contributed to losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds, the existence of which is denied, was open and obvious. 102. Answering defendants incorporate by reference all defenses contained in the Uniform Commercial Code of Pennsylvania. 103. Any losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds may have been due to defective components of the product allegedly at issue which were provided by other parties. 104. Any losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds may have been due to a defective product with no connection to the product allegedly at issue. 20 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 105. Any losses or damages to plaintiff or its insureds may have been due to defective products used in conjunction with the product allegedly at issue. 106. Any claim by plaintiff may be barred or reduced by the Fair Share Act of Pennsylvania. 107. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, as amended and adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, on its face and as applied, is violative of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act, as it imposes a chilling effect upon answering defendants' exercise of their constitutional rights and imposes a penalty on answering defendants for delays not attributable to them. 108. To the extent consistent with this pleading, answering defendants incorporate by reference any and all claims and defenses of other party defendants and additional defendants against plaintiff. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1031.1 AGAINST CODEFENDANTS 109. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1031.1, answering defendants hereby crossclaim against codefendants, Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, L.P. and Hobbico, Inc. (hereafter referred to as "cross- defendants"). 110. Answering defendants incorporate by reference their Answer to plaintiff s Complaint as though fully set forth at length herein. 111. For purposes of this Crossclaim, the averments of plaintiff's Complaint against cross- defendants are hereby incorporated by reference, without adoption or admission, as though fully set forth at length herein. 21 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 112. Answering defendants allege that cross - defendants are solely liable to plaintiff. 113. In the event that a monetary award is entered in favor of plaintiff and against answering defendants, such a possibility being specifically denied, answering defendants allege that cross - defendants are liable over to answering defendants and /or jointly and /or severally liable to answering defendants for contribution and /or indemnity on the causes of action set forth in plaintiff's Complaint for any such amount. 114. In the event that a monetary award is entered in favor of plaintiff and against answering defendants, such a possibility being specifically denied, on any products liability claim, answering defendants allege that cross - defendants are liable to answering defendants for indemnity on such causes of action for any such amount. WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, demand judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: �.�! L, kA. __ Philip D. P ore, squire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited 22 MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFICATION , as authorized representative of Horizon Hobby, Inc. verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc.. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaim are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: r —Y -2611 adaii HORIZON HOBBY, INC. VERIFICATION 1= , as authorized representative of Horizon Hobby Limited verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaim are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Answer of Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, to Plaintiff s Complaint with New Matter and Crossclaim was forwarded to counsel identified below, by first-class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, on April 10, 2014. Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire Cozen O'Connor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire Capehart & Scatchard, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054-5016 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 MCCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. BY: Philip D. Priore, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited MCCORMICK & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW F:\FILES \ Clients \3050 DonegaMOSO CurrentU050.678 \3050.678.reply2.wpd Revised: 4/17/14 0:32PM George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies 'FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY OTTO GILROY & FALLER 2014 APR 17 hi •19 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, a/s/o James and Lori Malinish Plaintiff v. : NO. 13-7223 KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, TRAXXAS, L.P., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOBBICO, INC., HORIZON HOBBY, INC., and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA REPLY OF DEFENDANT KRANZEL'S HOBBIES TO NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIM OF HORIZON HOBBY, INC., and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED AND NOW, comes Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies and hereby responds to the New Matter Crossclaim of Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited as follows: 109-114. The averments of these paragraphs are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, these averments are denied and proof is demanded. Date: 4/17/14 MARTSON LAW OFFICES erg' . alier, Jr., Esquire I.D. Number 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ami J. Thumma, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply of Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies to New Matter Crossclaim of Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorneys for PlaintifJ) Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART SCATCHARD 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 -5016 (Attorneys for Defendant Traxxas, LP) Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCormick & Priore, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorneys for Defendants Horizon Hobby, Inc. And Defendant Horizon Hobby Limited) Michael T. Traxler, Esquire RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 240 North Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Attorneys for Defendant Hobbico, Inc.) MARTSOlr1, LAW OFFICES Ten East Hi: Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243 -3341 Dated: 4/17/14 Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney I.D. # 40685 CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054 -5016 (856) 234 -6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP FILED-OFFICE OF THE ROOF OHOT ;R''f 20111 APR I 1 P! CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF' COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s /o James and Lori Malinish, : CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 Plaintiff, vs. : CIVIL ACTION Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, LP, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited, Defendants. ANSWER OF TRAXXAS, LP TO CROSSCLAIM OF HORIZON HOBBY, INC AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Defendant, Traxxas, LP ( "Traxxas" or "Answering Defendant "), files the following response to the Crossclaim of Defendants of Horizon Hobby, Inc and Horizon Hobby Limited (jointly "Horizon ") and avers as follows: 109. Denied. To the extent applicable, Traxxas incorporates its factual averments, denials, and objections as contained in its Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim filed in response to Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in paragraph 109 of Horizon's Crossclaim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore denied. 3056439 110. Denied. To the extent applicable, Traxxas incorporates its factual averments, denials, and objections as contained in its Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim filed in response to Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in paragraph 110 of Horizon's Crossclaim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore denied. To the extent any of the averments in Horizon's Crossclaim are directed against Traxxas are factual, they are specifically denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Traxxas was negligent, careless, reckless, or that Traxxas, or anyone for whom Traxxas may be deemed liable, was a cause of Plaintiff's alleged damages. 111. Denied. To the extent applicable, Traxxas incorporates its factual averments, denials, and objections as contained in its Answer, New Matter and Crossclaim filed in response to Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of further response, the averments contained in paragraph 111 of Horizon's Crossclaim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore denied. To the extent any of the averments in Horizon's Crossclaim are directed against Traxxas are factual, they are specifically denied. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Traxxas was negligent, careless, reckless, or that Traxxas, or anyone for whom Traxxas may be deemed liable, was a cause of Plaintiff's alleged damages. 112. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 112 of Horizon's Crossclaim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore denied. To the extent any of the averments in Horizon's Crossclaim are directed against Traxxas are factual, they are specifically denied. 113. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 113 of Horizon's Crossclaim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore denied. To the extent any of the averments in Horizon's Crossclaim are directed against Traxxas are factual, 3056439 they are specifically denied. It is further specifically denied that Traxxas is liable to Horizon and/or is jointly and/or severally liable to Horizon for contribution and/or indemnity. 114. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 114 of Horizon's Crossclaim are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and are therefore denied. To the extent any of the averments in Horizon's Crossclaim are directed against Traxxas are factual, they are specifically denied. It is further specifically denied that Traxxas is liable to Horizon for contribution and/or indemnity. WHEREFORE, Traxxas, LP demands judgment in its favor and against Kranzel's Hobbies, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited and/or any additional defendant(s) hereafter joined for all damages, costs, attorneys' fees that may be awarded to Plaintiff, and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. A Professional o I or. tion B Y• Kurt E. 'lamer, Esq. Attorn y for Defendant, Traxxas, LP Dated: April 15, 2014 3056439 VERIFICATION I, Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendant Traxxas, LP in the foregoing lawsuit, and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to New Matter and Crossclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and I understand that the statements in said Answer to New Matter are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: April 15, 2014 3056439 E. Krame Esquire Kurt E. Kramer, Esq. Attorney I.D. # 40685 CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, N.J. 08054 -5016 (856) 234 -6800 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s /o James and Lori Malinish, : CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION vs. Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, LP, Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kurt E. Kramer, hereby certify that on this 15th day of April, 2014. I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer of Defendant, Traxxas, LP to Crossclaim of Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, via U.S. regular mail on the following: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esq. Cozen O'Connor, PC 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 2957107 George B. Faller, Jr., Esq. Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Wiliam H. Resch, Jr., Esq. Philip D. Priore, Esq. McCormick & Priore, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Michael T. Traxler, Esq. Rawle & Henderson LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 2957107 COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Email: Lmyers@cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff Slate Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : a/s/o James and Lori Malinish Plaintiff V. KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et.al. Defendants. No cow S v,4 p y 1/4 CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT HOBBICO, INC. Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company ("State Farm"), as Subrogee of James and Lori Malinish, through its undersigned counsel, Cozen O'Connor, hereby submits the following Reply to defendant Hobbico, Inc.'s New Matter to Complaint: 80. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. Plaintiff State Farm further incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of its Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 81. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 82. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 83. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 84. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. By way of further response, Plaintiff incorporates the paragraphs of its complaint identifying the ways in which the battery charger is defective. 85. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 86. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 2 87. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 88. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 89. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 90. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual ave ments, all such averments are denied. 91. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 92. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 93. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 3 94. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. Plaintiffs insureds followed product directions and warnings to the extent directions and warnings were provided and understandable. 95. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 96. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny these facts. 97. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny these facts. 98. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 99. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 4 100. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 101. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. As alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, the battery charger was in new condition at the time of the fire 102. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 103. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 104. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. Defendants were immediately placed on notice of this loss and asked to participate in the identification and preservation of evidence related to claims and/or defenses arising out of this loss. 105. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 5 106. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 107. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff State Farm respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant Hobbico, Inc. Respectfully submitted, COZEN O'CONNOR BY: 6 ELIZ TH S, ESQUIRE ATTORNE #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Email: Lmyers@cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire, hereby state that I am authorized by Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, to make this Verification, and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant Hobbico, Inc.'s New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made herein are subject t� the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: DATED: April 16, 2014 I AB H J. MYERS (#210269) COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Email: Lmyers@cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : ais/o James and Lori Malinish CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 Plaintiff V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et.al. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that on this 16th day of April, 2014, 1 caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Defendant Hobbico, Inc.'s New Matter to be served via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Manson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant, Kranzel 's Hobbies AND Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 3005 PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 -5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson, LLP Payne Shoemaker Building. 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. By: Eliz e J. M rs COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Email: Lmyers @cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company THE 11 7i's. 28141)PR 28 Ati 06 PE NNSY(VANIA f IN THE COURT, OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE& CASUALTY COMPANY : a/s /o James and Lori Malinish CIVIL CASE NO: 13 -7223 Plaintiff v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et.al. Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT HORIZON HOBBY, INC. AND HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company ( "State Farm "), as Subrogee of James and Lori Malinish, through its undersigned counsel, Cozen O'Connor, hereby submits the following Reply to defendant Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited's New Matter to Complaint: 80. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. Plaintiff State Farm further incorporates by reference all of the paragraphs of its Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 81. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 82. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 83. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 84. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 85. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 86. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 87. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 2 88. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 89. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 90. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 91. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 92. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 93. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 94. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 3 95. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 96. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny these facts. 97. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 98. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 99. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 100. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 101. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 4 102. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 103. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 104. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 105. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 106. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 107. The averments of this paragraph constitute erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. To the extent this paragraph may be deemed to include any factual averments, all such averments are denied. 108. As previously stated, Plaintiff denies each of the factual averments set forth by the defendants in their new matters to the extent that the new matters contain any facts. However, 5 according to Plaintiff's reading of defendants' new matters, defendants attempt to rely on numerous erroneous conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff State Farm respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendant Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited. Respectfully submitted, COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZ • BETH RS, ESQUIRE ATTORNE . . #210269 1900 M/. t Street Philade phia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665 -2022 Facsimile: (215) 701 -2160 Email: Lmyers @cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company 6 COZEN O'CONNOR BY: ELIZABETH J. MYERS, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. #210269 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-2022 Facsimile: (215) 701-2160 Email: Lmyers@cozen.com Counsel for Plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY : a/s/o James and Lori Malinish CIVIL CASE NO: 13-7223 Plaintiff V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, et.al. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that on this 23nd day of April, 2014, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Defendant Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited's New Matter to be served, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant, Kranzel 's Hobbies AND Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Rawle & Henderson, LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. By: F:\FILES \Clients\3050 Donegal\3050 Curren03050.678\3050.678.reply3.wpd Revised: 4/29/14 11:20AM George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS MARTSON LAW OFFICES I.D. 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243 -3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies �lLED -Of FI,Cr,. THE PR THDND TAR Y OTTO GILROY & FALLE 2014 APR 29 P! `' uU�IDERLAND COUNTY PENNS YLVANIA STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, a/s /o James and Lori Malinish Plaintiff v. : NO. 13 -7223 KRANZEL'S HOBBIES, TRAXXAS, L.P., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOBBICO, INC., HORIZON HOBBY, INC., and HORIZON HOBBY LIMITED, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA REPLY OF DEFENDANT KRANZEL'S HOBBIES TO CROSSCLAIMS OF TRAXXAS, L.P. AND NOW, comes Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies and hereby responds to the Crossclaims of Traxxas as follows: COUNT I SOLE LIABILITY 113. The averments of Kranzel's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference. 114 -115. The averments of these paragraphs are a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, these averments are denied. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of the Crosslcaim with prejudice. COUNT II COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION 116. The averments of Kranzel's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference. 117 -119. The averments of these paragraphs are a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, these averments are denied. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of the Crosslcaim with prejudice. COUNT III CONTRIBUTION 120. The averments of Kranzel's Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference. 120 -122. The averments of these paragraphs are a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, these averments are denied. WHEREFORE, Kranzel's Hobbies demands judgment in its favor and dismissal of the Crosslcaim with prejudice. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By /I[.' t! all caller, Jr., Esqu George B I.D. Number 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243 -3341 Attorneys for Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies Date: 4/29/14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Nichole L. Myers, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply of Defendant Kranzel's Hobbies to Crossclaims of Traxxas, L.P., was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorneys for Plaintiff) Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART SCATCHARD 8000 Midlantic Drive, Suite 300S P.O. Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-5016 (Attorneys for Defendant Traxxas, LP) Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCormick & Priore, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Attorneys for Defendants Horizon Hobby, Inc. And Defendant Horizon Hobby Limited) Michael T. Traxler, Esquire RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP 240 North Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Attorneys for Defendant Hobbico, Inc.) MARTSON LAW OFFICES By tdik-rfliA Nichole L. Myers Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 4/29/14 toy RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP , By: Michael T. Traxler Identification No.: 90961 p f i SAND C�j g�� Payne Shoemaker Building LVA'0 240 North Third Street, 9t' Floor Attorney for Defendant, A Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Hobbico, Inc. (717) 234-7700 State Farm Fire & Casualty Company : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS a/s/o James and Lori Malinish : CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. : Civil Case No. 13-7223 Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, L.P., Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, HOBBICO,INC. TO CROSS-CLAIM OF DEFENDANT,KRANZEL'S HOBBIES AND NOW, defendant, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited, hereby answers the Cross-Claim of defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies as follows: 109. — 114. Answering defendant hereby incorporates its responses and defenses in each of its pleadings as if the same were fully set forth herein at length. The averments contained in these paragraphs are denied as they contain conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an affirmative response may be required, answering defendant denies that they are solely liable, jointly or severally liable, or liable over to plaintiff, or any of the original defendants by way of common law or contractual contribution and/or indemnity. Further, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff were caused by answering defendant. 7323262-1 WHEREFORE, defendant, Hobbico, Inc., demands that judgment be entered against plaintiff and all co-defendants and such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary or appropriate under the circumstances. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Date: 7323262-1 /a N• VERIFICATION MICHAEL T. TRAXLER, ESQUIRE, hereby states that he is a member of the law firm of Rawle & Henderson LLP, attorney for defendant, Hobbico, Inc., that he is authorized to make this verification on behalf of said defendant. The undersigned verifies that he has read the within pleading and that the same is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, 'information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements set forth in said pleading are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. r _ MICHAEL T. TRAXLER, ESQJ6IRE 7323262-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART& SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-5016 Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK&PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: ' Michael T. Traxler, Esquire Date: 7323262-1 RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP By: Lane E. Brody Identification No.: 202295 Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 234-7700 Attorney for Defendant, Hobbico, Inc. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS a/s/o James and Lori Malinish vs. Kranzel's Hobbies, Traxxas, L.P., Hobbico, Inc., Horizon Hobby, Inc., and Horizon Hobby Limited : CUMBERLAND COUNTY : Civil Case No. 13-7223 PRAECIPE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the appearance of Lane E. Brody of Rawle & Henderson LLP, in place of Michael T. Traxler on behalf of the defendant, Hobbico, Inc., in the above -captioned action. RAWLE &gip NDERSON LLP Date: 7983630-1 Lane E. Brody, `"'squire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below: Elizabeth J. Myers, Esquire COZEN O'CONNOR 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Plaintiff George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant, Kranzel's Hobbies Kurt E. Kramer, Esquire CAPEHART & SCATCHARD, P.A. 8000 Midatlantic Drive, Suite 300S PO Box 5016 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054-5016 Attorneys for Defendant, Traxxas, LP Philip D. Priore, Esquire McCORMICK & PRIORE, P.C. Four Penn Center, Suite 800 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Defendants, Horizon Hobby, Inc. and Horizon Hobby Limited RAWLE & HE RSO B Date: 7983630-1 E. Brody, Esquire