Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-4346 (2) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIE E. LEWIS, SR., and JOY LEWIS, his wife, Plaintiffs, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 04-5717 Civil Term v. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER (Jury Trial Demanded) NATHAN S. CURLEN, Defendant. Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: TO: Plaintiffs Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa.I.D.#83058 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from servi hereof or a judgment ma e t in you. SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, LL.P. Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road Lemoyne, PA 17043 S m ers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P. (717) 901-5916 #13320 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIE E. LEWIS, SR., and JOY LEWIS, his wife, Plaintiffs, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 04-5717 Civil Term v. NATHAN S. CURLEN, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Nathan S. Curlen, by and through his counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LL.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the acts and occurrences giving rise to this cause of action took place on March 15, 2003, on Carlisle Pike in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The remaining allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Paragraph 8 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time oftrial. COUNT I 9. In response to paragraph 9, the Defendant reiterates and repeats all his responses in paragraphs 1 through 8 as if fully set forth at length herein. 10. Paragraph 10 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Paragraph 11 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to PaRC.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Paragraph 12 and all of its subparts contain legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. Paragraph 13 and all of its subparts contain legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Paragraph 14 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.RC.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Paragraph 15 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Paragraph 16 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Paragraph 17 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Paragraph 18 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to PaRC.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Nathan S. Curlen, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. COUNT II 19. In response to paragraph 19, the Defendant reiterates and repeats all his responses in paragraphs 1 through 18 as if fully set forth at length herein. 20. Paragraph 20 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to PaRe.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time oftrial. 21. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Nathan S. Curlen, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. NEW MATTER 22. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute. 23. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs' claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 24. To the extent that the Plaintiffs have selected the limited tort option or are deemed to have selected the limited tort option then this Defendant sets forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the Plaintiffs' ability to recover non-economic damages. 25. This Defendant pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitation under Pennsylvania law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiffs in this action. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Nathan S. Curlen, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs with costs and prejudice imposed. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P. i evin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant By: VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that he is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has furnished to his counsel and information which has been gathered by his counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which he has given to his counsei, it is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel, he has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit. Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 1/4/0 5 I f -tJiI->r~ Nathan S. Curlen #13320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class ./ mail, postage pre-paid, this I~ day of 'k...h ,2001 Gerard C. Kramer, Esquire Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17109 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL By: evrn D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant ~ ~ ~ -1"\ ~ r'> fJ> ':P > ~ C> " c? o.P - ---------