The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-4018WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP Ron L. Pingitore, Esq. ID. No. 80456 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-864-6324 TO: DEFENDANT You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Attorney for Plaintiffs Leer Electric, Inc. 3 Barlo Circle Dillsburg, PA 17019 and Millers Capital Insurance Company as subrogee of Leer Electric, Inc. 805 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 and State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical 2141 Sandy Drive State College, PA 16803 and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. 2141 Sandy Drive State College, PA 16803 Plaintiffs V. Lobar, Inc. 1 Barlo Circle Dillsburg, PA 17019 Defendants NOTICE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CASE NO, 01, -1161P (21 v LI,, ` -1'W1 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 awritten appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered aganst you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for my 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 YOJ DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania (717) 249-3166 DOCS_PH 1917271v.1 AVISO Le ban demandado a usted en la torte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas d!maudas expuestas en In pSginas siguientes, usted tiene veirte (20) digs de plazo al partir de In fecha de la demanda y Is nofificaci6n. 14ace falta mentar una comparesencia esbrita o en persona o con un abogado y envegar a la torte en formaescrlta sus defenses o sus objeciones a In demandas en contra de so persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se deftende, lacorte tomar9 medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra soya sin previo aviso o notificaci6n. AdemSs, la wrte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas In provisions de esta demands. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos inprotantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCIbN SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania (717) 249-3166 -2- DOCS_PH 1917271v.1 WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP Ron L. Pingitore, Esq. ID. No. 80456 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-864-6324 Leer Electric, Inc. 3 Barlo Circle Dillsburg, PA 17019 and Millers Capital Insurance Company as subrogee of Leer Electric, Inc. 805 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17108 and State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical 2141 Sandy Drive State College, PA 16803 and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. 2141 Sandy Drive State College, PA 16803 Plaintiffs V. Lobar, Inc. 1 Barlo Circle Dillsburg, PA 17019 Defendants COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CASE NO. bL - 41011 Plaintiff, Leer Electric, Inc. ("Leer") is a business organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its primary business address located at 3 Barlo Circle, Dillsburg, PA 17019. TO: DEFENDANT You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Attorney for Plaintiffs DOCS_PH 1879622x.1 2. Plaintiff, Millers Capital Insurance Company, as subrogee of Leer Electric, Inc. ("Millers") is a business organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its primary address located at 805 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108. 3. Plaintiff, State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical ("State College") is a business organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its primary business address located at 2141 Sandy Drive, State College, PA 16803. 4. Plaintiff, Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. ("Allied") is a business organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its primary business address located at 2141 Sandy Drive, State College, PA 16803. Defendant, Lobar, Inc. ("Lobar, Inc.") is a business organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its primary address located at 1 Barlo Circle, Dillsburg, PA 17019. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Millers insured the property interests of Leer pursuant to a policy of insurance and is subrogated to all payments made or to be made in the future for damages suffered by Leer as further defined herein. 7. At all times relevant hereto, State College was in the business of providing commercial construction services including, inter alia, heating, ventilation and air conditioning installations. At all times relevant hereto, Allied was in the business of providing commercial construction services including, inter alia, heating, ventilation and air conditioning installations. 9. At all time relevant hereto, Leer was in the business of providing commercial construction services including, inter alia, electrical services. -2- DOCS_PH 1879622x.1 10. At all times relevant hereto, Lobar Inc. ("Lobar") was in the business of providing general contracting and dewatering services. 11. In or about calendar year 2003, a construction project began at Shippensburg University in Cumberland County, Shippensburg, PA ("the project'). 12. The project involved the construction of a 73,000 square foot building housing a 1500 seat theatre, stage, academic spaces, storage space and faculty offices. 13. Plaintiffs performed services at the project including, inter alia, the installation of electrical switchgear, wiring, transformers, air handlers, compressors and other equipment. 14. Lobar was responsible and undertook to perform, inter alia, dewatering services at the project pursuant to the Project Manual and industry practices. 15. Under the Project Manual and standard industry practices, Lobar was obligated to: a. keep all excavations and structures free from water; b, design, provide, test, operate, monitor and maintain a dewatering system of sufficient size, scope, and capacity to control ground-water flow; C. prevent surface water from entering excavations by grading, dikes, or other means; d. maintain dewatering operations to prevent the flooding of excavation and damage to structures; e. maintain flow-measuring devices for monitoring performance of the dewatering system; f furnish, install and operate additional dewatering equipment and make changes in other features of the dewatering system as may be necessary to perform the dewatering in a satisfactory manner; -3- DOCS_PH 1979622v.1 g. resurvey dewatering benchmarks weekly; h. install a dewatering system utilizing wells, well points, or similar methods complete with pump equipment, standby power and pumps, water disposal and surface-water controls; i. maintain piezometric water level at a minimum of 24 inches below the basement subgrade elevation; j. provide standby equipment on-site, installed and available for immediate operation, to maintain dewatering on a continuous basis if any part of the system becomes inadequate or fails; and/or k. monitor weather patterns and forecasts to take measures necessary to dewater the project. 16. Plaintiffs and all other contractors participating in the project relied on Lobar to comply with the Project Manual and industry practices, by installing, monitoring and maintaining a dewatering system that protected completed work and equipment from damage by flood. IT On or about September 14, 2004, portions of the project flooded during a heavy rainstorm and caused damage to the plaintiffs' property, incidental and consequential expenses, and business losses. 18. The aforementioned damages were caused by Lobar's failure to properly and adequately dewater the project in accordance with the Project Manual and industry standards. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE 19. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the paragraphs and allegations set forth above as if same were set forth in length herein. -4- DOCS_PH 1879622x.1 20. Lobar was responsible for dewatering the project and owed a duty to plaintiffs to install, monitor and maintain a dewatering system that was capable of protecting completed work and property located at the project. 21. Lobar knew or reasonably should have known that plaintiffs were relying on the skills and expertise of Lobar and/or its subcontractors and/or consultants to take all steps necessary to avoid the risk of flood damage by properly installing, monitoring and maintaining a dewatering system. 22. The flood which occurred on or about September 14, 2004 was caused by the negligence of Lobar, by and through its employees, subcontractors, servants, agents, sub-agents and/or assigns, acting in the course and scope of their employment, who failed to: a. keep all excavations and structures free from water; b. design, provide, test, operate, monitor and maintain a dewatering system of sufficient size, scope, and capacity to control ground-water flow; C. prevent surface water from entering excavations by grading, dikes, or other means; d. maintain dewatering operations to prevent the flooding of excavated areas, basements and damage to structures; e. maintain flow-measuring devices for monitoring performance of the dewatering system; f furnish, install and operate additional dewatering equipment and make changes in other features of the dewatering system as may be necessary to perform the dewatering in a satisfactory manner; g. resurvey dewatering benchmarks weekly; -5- DOCS_PH 1879622v.1 h. install a dewatering system utilizing wells, well points, or similar methods complete with pump equipment, standby power and pumps, water disposal and surface-water controls; maintain piezometric water level at a minimum of 24 inches below the basement sub-grade elevation; provide standby equipment on-site, installed and available for immediate operation, to maintain dewatering on a continuous basis if any part of the system becomes inadequate or fails; and/or k. monitor weather patterns and forecasts to take measures necessary to dewater the project. 23. As a direct and proximate result of Lobar's acts and/or omissions, as described above, plaintiffs suffered substantial and permanent losses and damages to their real and personal property, as well as loss of use, additional expenses, business losses, and other incidental and consequential damages in an amount in excess of $250,000.00. 24. Plaintiffs, State College and Allied collectively suffered losses totaling in excess of $100,000.00. 25. Plaintiff, Leer suffered losses totaling in excess of $150,000 for which it was partially indemnified by Millers and Millers is subrogated to all amounts paid or to be paid in the future by operation of law and/or the terms of the insurance policy. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Leer Electric, Inc., Millers Capital Insurance Company a/s/o Leer Electric, Inc., State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical, and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. hereby demand judgment in their favor and -6- DOCS_PH 1879622v.1 against Lobar, Inc. in an amount in excess of $250,000.00 together with pre judgment interest, delay damages and such other relief as may be properly awarded by the court. COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT (THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY) 26. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the paragraphs and allegations set forth above as if same were set forth in length herein. 27. Upon information and belief, Lobar entered into a contract with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania acting through the Department of General Services ("Department") to perform general contracting and dewatering services at the project. Plaintiffs do not possess an actual copy of the contract to attach to the Complaint, but will request one through discovery. 28. Plaintiffs knew that Lobar was responsible for, inter alia, dewatering the project and relied on Lobar to perform its obligations in a safe, effective and workmanlike manner. 29. Lobar and the Department specifically intended for plaintiffs to be a beneficiary to Lobar's contract. 30. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs, as contractors on the project, were express and/or intended third party beneficiaries of the contract between Lobar and the Department to the extent that Lobar was responsible for dewatering. 31. Lobar had actual and constructive knowledge that plaintiffs were relying on Lobar to fulfill its contractual obligations and to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the project was dewatered. 32. Lobar had actual and constructive knowledge that plaintiffs were intended to receive the benefit of its contract to dewater the project. -7- DOCS_PH 1879622v.1 33. Lobar and the Department expressly and/or intentionally desired to benefit plaintiffs by entering into a contractual relationship to, inter alia, dewater the project. 34. Lobar failed to fulfill its contractual obligations to the building owner and plaintiffs by reason of the acts and/or omissions detailed in Count I. 35. As a direct and proximate result of Lobar's acts and/or omissions, as described above, plaintiffs suffered substantial and permanent losses and damages to their real and personal property, as well as loss of use, additional expenses, business losses, and other incidental and consequential damages in an amount in excess of $250,000.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, Leer Electric, Inc., Millers Capital Insurance Company a/s/o Leer Electric, Inc., State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical, and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. hereby demand judgment in their favor against Lobar, Inc. in an amount in excess of $250,000.00 together with pre judgment interest, delay damages and such other relief as may be properly awarded by the court. COUNT III - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 36. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the paragraphs and allegations set forth above as if same were set forth in length herein. 37. Lobar owed a duty of care to plaintiffs to design, specify, install, implement and/or maintain a dewatering system for the project so that work could be performed. 38. In the course of designing, specifying, installing, implementing and/or maintaining a dewatering system for the project, Lobar, by and through its agents, servants, employees, and/or contractors breached its duty of care by falsely asserting that: a. the dewatering system would be safe and effective; -8- DOCS_PH 1879622v.1 b. the project would be free from water intrusion so that the work could proceed as intended; C. that all reasonable and necessary precautions were undertaken to properly protect the project from water intrusion; and/or d. that the project would be properly dewatered. 39. Lobar intended for the assertions set forth about to be relied upon by plaintiffs and had knowledge that plaintiffs would, in fact, rely on the assertions. 40. Lobar knew or should have known that if the assertions were false and/or erroneous, its actions would cause the loss and damage suffered by plaintiffs as described herein. 41. Lobar's assertions were, in fact, false and erroneous because the project was not properly dewatered. 42. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on Lobar's false assertions and, as a direct and proximate result, suffered damages caused by Lobar's negligence in making the assertions. 43. As a direct and proximate result of Lobar's acts and/or omissions, as described above, plaintiffs suffered substantial and permanent losses and damages to their real and personal property, as well as loss of use, additional expenses, business losses, and other incidental and consequential damages in an amount in excess of $250,000.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs Leer Electric, Inc., Millers Capital Insurance Company a/s/o Leer Electric, Inc., State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical, and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. hereby demand judgment in their favor and against Lobar, Inc. in an amount in excess of $250,000.00 together with pre judgment interest, delay damages and such other relief as may be properly awarded by the court. -9- DOCS_PH 1879622v.1 COUNT IV - BREACH OF EXPRESS/IMPLIED WARRANTIES 44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the paragraphs and allegations set forth above as if same were set forth in length herein. 45. Lobar agreed to design, specify, install, implement and/or maintain a dewatering system for the project so that work could be performed. 46. Pursuant to the relationship of the parties and duties undertaken by Lobar, it was responsible for designing, specifying, installing, implementing and/or maintaining a dewatering system and to take all steps to ensure that the system was properly performed. 47. Lobar expressly and/or impliedly warranted that the dewatering system would be properly designed, specified, installed, implemented and/or maintained. 48. Lobar was aware that plaintiffs were relying on Lobar to provide the aforementioned dewatering services in accordance with industry standards, manufacturer instructions, the Project Manual, and in a good and workmanlike fashion so that the project would be safe from water intrusion. 49. Lobar knew that the dewatering system was necessary to avoid significant damage to plaintiffs' property and potentially personal injuries to employees, visitors, and/or business guests. 50. Lobar expressly and/or impliedly warranted that the dewatering system was reasonably fit for its intended purpose, was merchantable for the general purpose for which it was intended, when in fact, the dewatering system was not reasonably fit for its intended purpose and was not of merchantable quality. -10- DOCS_PH 1879622v.1 51. Lobar expressly and/or impliedly warranted that its work would be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, when in fact the dewatering system did not perform in a good and workmanlike manner for the reasons set forth in Counts I, II and III. 52. As a direct and proximate result of Lobar's acts and/or omissions, as described above, plaintiffs suffered substantial and permanent losses and damages to their real and personal property, as well as loss of use, additional expenses, business losses, and other incidental and consequential damages in an amount in excess of $250,000.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs Leer Electric, Inc., Millers Capital Insurance Company a/s/o Leer Electric, Inc., State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical, and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc. hereby demand judgment in their favor against Lobar, Inc. in an amount in excess of $250,000.00 together with pre-judgment interest, delay damages and such other relief as may be properly awarded by the court. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all claims. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LP Ron L. Pingitore, Esq. 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-864-6324 -11- DOCS_PH 1879622v.1 JUL-06-2006 THU 11;43 AM LEER ELECTRIC, INC. FAX NO. 717 432 9758 P. 01/01 VERIFICATION I, 3_6 a„ Alt of of ChLskr J w? g. hereby state that I am authorized to sign on behalf of the company as a Plaintiff in the within action and verify that the statements set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and make these statements subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 related to unworn falsifications to authorities. 111 Date-:114(i)(0 - ???.,a ?+ 1 MoD(, _12_ DOGS PH 1879622v.1 n!? / VERIFICATION 11 J4ftcS =rKk5 of ?c c irk isle hereby state that I am authorized to sign on behalf of the company as a Plaintiff in the within action and verify that the statements set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and make these statements subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 related to unswom falsifications to authorities. i Date: 77A.90'4 DOCS_PH 1879622v.i b 'd L6lL uiN -12- 6VL7:L 90H 9 lr 071071200E 15:35 717-232-3973 MILLERS CAPITAL INS PAGE 02?02 VERB A? XON I, ?Ep A N S S is of )#//,L - eS ?691?1T??-fir • (:z . hereby state that I am authorized to sign on behalf of the company as a Plaintiff in the within action and verify that the statements set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and make these statements subject to the penalties of 18 Pa- C_S. §4904 related to unworn falsifications to authorities. Date: 71,( o 6 -12- DOCS-PH 1879622v.1 4Q 7k n U7 '6' r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL, INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC, INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC. Plaintiffs, Vs. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P.1012 TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Robert A. Lerman, Esquire of Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins, as attorneys for Defendant, Lobar, Inc., in the above-captioned matter and mark the docket accordingly. GRIFFITH, S CKLER, LERMAN, SOL S CA t 1: BY: OROBERT A. LERMAN, EZQVIRE #07490 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 717-757-7602 Attorney for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. Dated: August 18, 2006 y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL, INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC, INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC. Plaintiffs, VS. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this / day of August, 2006, I, Robert A. Lerman, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire White and Williams LLP 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Counsel for Plaintil*) GRIFFITH, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & By: ROBERT A. LERMAN, ES #07490 Attorneys for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 klr/lobar-prp N ?.' na U m s= ` 6m w SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY e CASE NO: 2006-04018 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: 'COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LEER ELECTRIC INC ET AL VS LOBAR INC R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: LOBAR INC but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On August 18th , 2006 , attached return from YORK County, Pennsylvania, to s office was in receipt of the Sheriff's Costs: So answe Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline Dep York County 43.47 Sheriff of Cumberland County Postage 1.26 81.73f 9115-1,r 08/18/2006 WHITE & WILLIAMS Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of , A. D. YORKTOWNE BUSINESS FORMS, INC. Ph. (717) 845-5955 Fax (717) 848-8936 email: ybf@blazenet.net COUNTY OF YORK r ? OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 c-RVICE SHERIFFAFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PROCESS RECEIPT a?' 1 PLAINTIFF/SI Leer 3 OEFENDANTISf SERVE 2 1?1?14 8y1QE C1V11 Inc et al OTICE A CICA .tc. ;LAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD Lobar Inc 6 ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT NO. CITY, BORO, TWP. STATE AND ZIP CODE) 1 Barlo Circle Dillsburg, PA 17019 O PERSONAL U PERSON IN CHARGE U DEPUTIZE CET`MI,IL U 1ST CLASS MAIL .m r ?r?ri H SERVICE CALL. (717) 771-9601 U POSTED U OTHER 7,/ Auc(ust 4 20 06 I, SHERIFF OF 'M[ COUNTY, PA do hereby York COUNTY to execute tmake retur to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff.. `^ 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. the sheriff of according ADVANCE FEE PAID BY CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sherdf levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE W H I T E A N D W I L L I A M S L L 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER II DATE FILED 1800 ONE LIBERTY PLACE, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-864-6324 7-17-2006 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed) CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SMWT -- DO NOT WRrrE SLOW T"S LIRE 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15 Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. M J M C G I L L Y C S O 1 8-7-2006 1 -16-2006 16. HOW SERVED. PERSONAL ( RESIDENCE ( } POSTED( ) POE( ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. C3 1 hereby certify and return NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, etc named above. (See remarks below.) 18 E TITLE F IN0 IDUAL SERVED/ LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendant) . 19 Da((s of Service me of Service 2 W - oaO JA 1 V. R OF M1-,Q 0T 21 . EMPTS Date Time s t. Date Time Miles Int Date Time M ika Int Date Time Miles Int Date Time Mlles Int Date Time Miles Int. 22. REMARKS: 23. Advance Costs 24 rvice Costs 25. N/F 26 Mileage 27 Postage 28. Sub Total 29. Pound 30 Notary 31 Surchg. 32 Tot. Costs 33 Costs'6 eck No I $100.00 ? 0 8. .5 O&) 3. S?vrS II 34. Foreign County Costs 35. Advance Costs 36 Service Costs 37 Notary Cert - 38. PoslageJNot Found 39 Total Costs 40 Costs Due or Refund ANSWERS 41. AFFIRME f this W Signature of 45 T 42 day co p. Sheriff I NOTA AL /NOTARY 46. Signature of Yolk L-? 47 DATE' LISA L. BOWMAN NOTARY PUBLIC County Sheriff , CITY OF YORK, YORK COUNTY WILLIAM M H OSE,, SH /15/06 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 12, 2009 48 Signature of Foreign 49 DATE -°- ?--- -. - --.-- __. County Sheriff INSTRUCTIONS PLEASE TYPE ONLY LIME 1 THRU 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES w S IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL CIVIL ACTION - LAW INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC., NO. 06-4018 Plaintiffs, VS. LOBAR, INC., JURY TRIAL Defendant. DEMANDED TO: Leer Electric, Inc., Millers Capital Insurance Company a/s/o Leer Electric, Inc., State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., Plaintiffs c/o Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire White and Williams LLP 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment/&Vf be entered against you. GRIFFITH,/SYRICKLER, LERMAI,k SOLYMOS & By: ROBERT A. LERMAN, ESQUIRE #07490 Attorney for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 Dated: October 5, 2006 . t IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, VS. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, LOBAR, INC., TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Defendant, Lobar, Inc., by its counsel Robert A. Lerman and Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins and files the following Answer and New Matter in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted upon information and belief. 3. Admitted upon information and belief. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation set forth in Paragraph No. 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at all times relevant, Lobar, Inc. was in the business of providing general contracting services. It is denied that at all times relevant, Lobar, Inc. was in the business of providing dewatering services and averred, to the contrary, that dewatering services are provided only incidentally to Lobar, Inc.'s business of general contracting and Lobar, Inc. does not independently provide dewatering services. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted but qualified to state that the project involved the construction of an Instructional Arts Facility at Shippensburg University, generally accurately described in Paragraph No. 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied as stated. On the contrary, it is averred that Lobar, Inc. was responsible for and undertook to perform dewatering services at the subject project pursuant to the requirements of its contract with the owner which contract is a written document and speaks for itself. 15. Denied. The allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 15 constitute either a recessitation or interpretation of written documents which documents speak for themselves and therefore, no response is required thereto. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is 2 averred that at all times relevant, Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 16. Denied. To the extent the allegations set froth in Paragraph No. 16 require Defendant to respond to allegations involving the alleged state of mind of Plaintiffs and/or all other contractors participating in the project, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is averred that at all times relevant, Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 17. Denied. It is denied that on or about September 14, 2004, portions of the project flooded during a heavy rainstorm and caused damage to the Plaintiffs' property, incidental and consequential expenses and business losses. On the contrary, it is averred that basement level flooding was discovered on September 20, 2004, apparently due to hurricane related rainfall which occurred over the weekend dates of Saturday, September 18, 2004, and Sunday, September 19, 2004. The remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied in that after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of Plaintiffs' damage claims and strict proof thereof are hereby demanded. 3 18. Denied. It is denied that the aforementioned damages were caused by Lobar's failure to properly and adequately dewater the project in accordance with the Project Manual and industry standards. On the contrary, it is averred that Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. By way of further answer, see Defendant's New Matter hereinafter set forth. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE 19. Defendant incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth at length, its Answers to Paragraph Nos. 1 through 18, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length. 20. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 20 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is admitted that Defendant, through its authorized employees and workmen, performed dewatering services for the subject construction project. It is further averred that such dewatering services were performed in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded and it is averred that any duty deemed owed to any other individual or entity, contractually or by virtue of common law, was fulfilled and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 21. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 21 require Defendant to respond to allegations involving the alleged state of mind of Plaintiffs and/or all other contractors participating in the project, no response is required. To the extent a response is 4 deemed required, it is averred that at all times relevant, Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 22. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 22 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is denied that a flood occurred on September 14, 2004, and it is further denied that the alleged flood was caused by the negligence of Lobar, Inc. by and through its employees, subcontractors, servants, agents, sub-agents and/or assigns acting in the course and scope of their employment and it is specifically denied that Lobar failed or was required to: a. Keep all excavations and structures free from water; b. Design, provide, test, operate, monitor and maintain a dewatering system of sufficient size, scope and capacity to control ground-water flow; C. Prevent surface water from entering excavations by grading, dikes or other means; d. Maintain dewatering operations to prevent the flooding of excavated areas, basements and damage to structures; e. Maintain flow-measuring devices for monitoring performance of the dewatering system; f. Furnish, install and operate additional dewatering equipment and make changes in other features of the dewatering system as may be necessary to perform the dewatering in a satisfactory manner; 5 g. Resurvey dewatering benchmarks weekly; h. Install a dewatering system utilizing wells, well points or similar methods complete with pump equipment, standby power and pumps, water disposal and surface-water controls; i. Maintain piezometric water level at a minimum of 24 inches below the basement sub-grade elevation; j. Provide standby equipment on-site, installed and available for immediate operation, to maintain dewatering on a continuous basis if any part of the system becomes inadequate or fails; and/or k. Monitor weather patterns and forecasts to take measures necessary to dewater the project. On the contrary, it is averred that Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 23. Denied. It is denied that as a direct and proximate result of Lobar's acts and omissions as described in Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs suffered the damages alleged. Specifically with regard to Plaintiffs' alleged damages, same are denied in that after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and same are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in 6 Paragraph No. 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Lobar, Inc., demands judgment in its favor against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit and its specifically denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to pre- judgment interest or delay damages. COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT (THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY) 26. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth at length, its Answers to Paragraph Nos. I through 25, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length. 27. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that that Defendant is a signatory to a contract with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to perform certain services as one of several Prime Contractors in connection with the construction of an Instructional Arts Facility at Shippensburg University. It is further admitted that Defendant's contract with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania included dewatering services for the subject project. The remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 27 are denied in that after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and same are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. By way of further response, it is averred that the referenced contract is a matter of public record and available to Plaintiffs. 28. Denied. To the extent the allegations set froth in Paragraph No. 28 require Defendant to respond to allegations involving the alleged state of mind of Plaintiffs and/or all 7 other contractors participating in the project, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is averred that at all times relevant, Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 29. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 29 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 29 call for an interpretation of a written contract, said contract speaks for itself and no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 29 call for the Defendant to speculate as to the state of mind of the Department, such allegation is improper and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is averred that Plaintiffs were neither the intended beneficiaries nor were Plaintiffs third party beneficiaries to Lobar's contract and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 30. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 30 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 30 call for an interpretation of a written contract, said contract speaks for itself and no further response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is denied that Plaintiffs were the express, intended, or third party beneficiaries of Lobar's contract and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 31. Denied. It is denied that Lobar had actual and constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs were relying on it to fulfill its contractual obligations and to exercise reasonable care to ensure the project was dewatered and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further 8 response, it is averred that Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and at all times exercised reasonable care and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 32. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs were intended to receive the benefit of Lobar's contract to dewater the project and strict proof thereof is demanded. It is further denied that Lobar had actual and constructive knowledge that Plaintiffs were allegedly intended to receive the benefit of its contract and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further response, it is averred that the contract in question is a written document and speaks for itself and no further response is required. 33. Denied. To the extent the allegations of paragraph 33 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is denied that Lobar and the Department expressly and/or intentionally desired to benefit Plaintiffs by entering into a contractual relationship to inter alia dewater the project and strict proof thereof is demanded. It is denied that Plaintiffs were the express, intended and/or third-party beneficiaries of Lobar's contract with the Department and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further response, it is averred that Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and at all times exercised reasonable care and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. To the 9 extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 33 call for an interpretation of a written contract, said contract speaks for itself and no response is required. 34. Denied. It is denied that Lobar failed to fulfill its contractual objections to the building owner and Plaintiffs by reason of the acts and/or omissions detailed in Count I. To the extent it is determined that Lobar owed any contractual obligations to the Plaintiffs, said contractual obligations were fulfilled to the extent required by law. By way of further response, Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to allegations 1 through 33 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as hereinabove set forth. 35. Denied. It is denied that as a direct and proximate result of Lobar's alleged acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs suffered the damages claimed. On the contrary, it is averred that that Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and industry practices, customs and standards and at all times exercised reasonable care and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. With regard to Plaintiffs' specific claims for damages, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth of those said allegations and strict proof thereof demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Lobar, Inc., demands judgment in its favor against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit and its specifically denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to pre- judgment interest or delay damages. 10 COUNT III - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 36. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth at length, its Answers to Paragraph Nos. 1 through 35, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length. 37. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 37 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is averred that any duty of care deemed to be owed by Defendant to Plaintiffs (which duty of care is denied) was fulfilled and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. By way of further response, it is averred that Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and at all times exercised reasonable care and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Lobar designed and/or specified the design of the dewatering system for the project in question. 38. Denied. It is denied that Defendant designed or specified the design of the dewatering system and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. It is further denied that Defendant falsely asserted and/or made misrepresentations with respect to the installation, implementation, maintenance and/or design or design specifications for the dewatering system and it is further specifically denied that Defendant breached any duty of care and/or falsely asserted that: a. The dewatering system would be safe and effective; b. The project would be free from water intrusion so that the work could proceed as intended; 11 C. That all reasonable and necessary precautions were undertaken to properly protect the project from water intrusion; and/or d. That the project would be properly dewatered. On the contrary, it is averred that the dewatering services performed by Lobar, Inc. by and through its authorized agents, servants, employees and contractors met the design specifications, met all contractual requirements and that Lobar performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and at all times exercised reasonable care and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 39. Denied. It is denied that Defendant intended or had knowledge that Plaintiffs would rely upon the assertions that Plaintiffs allege, in Paragraph No. 38 of their Complaint, they believe Lobar made. By way of further response, Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to allegations 1 through 38 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as hereinabove set forth. 40. Denied. It is denied that any assertions made by Lobar, Inc. through its authorized agents, servants, workman, employees and/or contractors were false and/or erroneous and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. It is further denied that Lobar, Inc. knew or should have known that the assertions Plaintiffs claim were made by or on behalf of Defendant would cause Plaintiffs' alleged losses and damages and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 41. Denied. It is denied that any assertions made by Lobar, Inc. through its authorized agents, servants, workman, employees and/or contractors were false and erroneous and further denied that the project was not properly dewatered. On the contrary, it is averred that 12 Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and at all times exercised reasonable care and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 42. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 42 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that Lobar through its authorized agents, servants, workman, employees and/or contractors made any false assertions and further averred that any alleged assertions, alleged acts and/or alleged omissions Plaintiffs claim were made by or on behalf of Defendant were the direct and proximate cause of the damages Plaintiffs claim and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 43. Denied. It is denied that any acts and/or omissions on the part of the Defendant were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' alleged damages and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. Specifically, with regard to Plaintiffs' alleged damages, same are denied in that after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and same are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Lobar, Inc., demands judgment in its favor against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit and its specifically denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to pre- judgment interest or delay damages. COUNT IV - BREACH OF EXPRESS/IMPLIED WARRANTIES 44. Answering Defendant incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth at length, its Answers to Paragraph Nos. 1 through 43, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length. 13 45. Denied. It is denied that Lobar agreed to design, specify, install, implement and/or maintain a dewatering system for the project so that work could be performed. On the contrary, it is specifically denied that Lobar agreed to design the dewatering system and averred to the contrary that Lobar's contractual obligations are embodied in the terms of a written contract which document speaks for itself. 46. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 46 constitute a conclusion of law in connection with the allegations relating to "relationship of the parties and duties undertaken", no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is denied that Lobar was responsible for designing and/or for the design specifications for the dewatering system and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. By way of further response, it is averred that Lobar's contractual obligations are embodied in the terms of a written contract which document speaks for itself. By way of further response, Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and at all times exercised reasonable care and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 47. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 47 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is averred that Lobar's contractual obligations are embodied in the terms of a written contract which document speaks for itself. It is further denied that Lobar, Inc. expressly and/or impliedly warranted that the dewatering system would be properly designed, specified, installed, implemented and/or maintained and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. 14 48. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph 48 require Defendant to respond to allegations involving the alleged state of mind of Plaintiffs and/or other contractors participating in the project, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is averred that Lobar's contractual obligations are embodied in the terms of a written contract which document speaks for itself. To the extent a further response is deemed required, it is averred that at all times relevant, Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 49. Denied. It is denied that Lobar, Inc. knew that the dewatering system was necessary to avoid significant damage to Plaintiffs' property and potential personal injuries to employees, visitors and/or business guests. On the contrary, it is averred that any dewatering system as necessary pursuant to the terms of Answering Defendant's contract and/or any other duties or obligations determined to be owed by Answering Defendant was provided and/or fulfilled and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. By way of further answer, it is averred that at the time of the incident which forms the basis of Plaintiffs' Complaint, no dewatering system was necessary with respect to the area of the basement where the property of the Plaintiffs allegedly damaged was located and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 50. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 50 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is averred that Lobar's contractual obligations are embodied in the terms of a written contract which document speaks for itself. By way of further response, Defendant performed all of its 15 contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and at all times exercised reasonable care and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded and it is also averred that to the extent required by applicable law, the dewatering system was reasonably fit for its intended purpose and was of merchantable quality and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 51. Denied. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph No. 51 constitute a conclusion of law, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is averred that Lobar's contractual obligations are embodied in the terms of a written contract which document speaks for itself. By way of further response, Defendant performed all of its contractual obligations in connection with the construction project which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint and performed those contract obligations in an appropriate, proper, lawful, workmanlike and prudent manner, in accordance with its contractual obligations and applicable industry practices, customs and standards and at all times exercised reasonable care and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded and it is also averred that all work required to be performed by Lobar in connection with the dewatering system for the project was performed in a good and workmanlike manner. By way of further response, see Defendant's New Matter hereinafter set forth. 52. Denied. It is denied that any acts and/or omissions on the part of the Defendant were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' alleged damages and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded. Specifically, with regard to Plaintiffs' alleged damages, same are denied in that after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to 16 form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and same are denied and strict proof thereof demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Lobar, Inc., demands judgment in its favor against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit and its specifically denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to pre- judgment interest or delay damages. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Defendant demands a trial by jury. By way of further Answer, Defendant asserts the following: NEW MATTER 53. Defendant, Lobar, Inc., incorporates herein by reference, as if fully set forth at length, its Answers to Paragraph Nos. 1 through 52, inclusive, as if fully set forth at length. 54. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 55. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver of subrogation. 56. Plaintiffs' asserted actions for negligence, breach of contract (third party beneficiary), negligent misrepresentation and breach of express/implied warranties and any other liability theories may be barred by applicable Statutes of Limitation. 57. The damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs were caused by acts or omissions, in whole or in part, of individuals or entities other than Answering Defendant, over whom Answering Defendant exercised no authority, supervision or control including but not limited to acts and/or omissions by Plaintiff, Leer Electric, Inc., and/or Plaintiff, Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., and/or Plaintiff, State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical. 17 58. Plaintiffs' claims are barred due to the expressed or implied assumption of the risks involved by virtue of the specific acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff, Leer Electric, Inc., and/or Plaintiff, Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., and/or Plaintiff, State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical. 59. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the comparative and/or contributory negligence of one or more of the Plaintiffs, Leer Electric, Inc., Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., and/or State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical. 60. Some or all of the damages sought in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint may not be recoverable in this action. 61. One or more of the Plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their damages. 62. Some or all of Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Economic Loss Doctrine. 63. Plaintiffs' alleged damages and losses were caused by the superseding and/or intervening acts or omissions of individuals or entities other than Defendant including but not limited to the acts and/or omissions of Plaintiff, Leer Electric, Inc., and/or Plaintiff, Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., and/or Plaintiff, State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical. 64. Defendant pleads any and all releases entered into by Plaintiffs or to be entered into by Plaintiffs as a reduction, in whole or in part, of any damages Plaintiffs' are entitled to recover from Defendant although it is specifically denied that Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs in any respect. 65. Defendant specifically denies that it designed the dewatering system for the project in question. 66. Any and all work for which Defendant contracted to perform and/or performed by 18 and through its authorized agents, servants, workmen and employees was performed in a skillful, reasonable, prudent, lawful and appropriate manner in accordance with the contract, the contract specifications, project manual and applicable industry customs and standards. 67. Defendant fulfilled any and all terms of its contractual relationship with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or the owner of the construction project and fulfilled any and all other contractual duties and obligations owed and/or imposed by law and strict proof to the contrary is hereby demanded. 68. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrines of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel and/or claim preclusion. 69. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrines of Laches, Estoppel and/or waiver. 70. Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the doctrines of waiver, release and/or immunity from suit. 71. The Plaintiffs losses and damages allegedly sustained were not proximately caused by Answering Defendant. 72. If it is determined that any warranties, express or implied, were provided by Answering Defendant (such allegations being specifically denied), it is averred that Plaintiffs are not in privity to assert any alleged breach of warranty claims and further, it is denied that any alleged breach of warranty proximately caused Plaintiffs' alleged losses and damages. 73. None of the Plaintiffs to this action are or were intended (expressly or impliedly) to be third party beneficiaries of the contract between Defendant and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services. 74. None of the Plaintiffs to this action have any basis or legal standing to assert they 19 ? C are third party beneficiaries under Defendant's contract with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services. 75. The alleged occurrence of Plaintiffs' alleged losses and damages were not foreseeable to Answering Defendant. 76. No act or failure to act on the part of Answering Defendant was a proximate or substantial cause of any losses or damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs. 77. Answering Defendant specifically denies each and every allegation contained within Plaintiffs' Complaint with respect to activities providing any basis of liability whatsoever against Answering Defendant and further, specifically denies any losses or damages alleged to have been suffered by the Plaintiffs were in any manner caused as the result of activities, omissions, or alleged representations and/or alleged misrepresentations on the part of Answering Defendant or Answering Defendant's authorized agents, servants, representatives or workmen. 78. Plaintiffs failed to take reasonable measures to prevent the alleged losses and damages they ultimately claimed they sustained. 79. All work performed and/or services provided by Defendant as required pursuant to the terms of its contract with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services were performed in accordance with the contractual requirements and specifications of a governmental entity such that Defendant is immune from Plaintiffs' claims by virtue of the government contractor's defense. 80. Some or all of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and damages are not related to the flooding incident described in Plaintiffs' Complaint and are therefore barred. 81. Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and damages were caused by an act of God and are barred by the doctrine of force majeure. 20 82. Plaintiff, Leer Electric, Inc., failed to perform its contractual obligations owed to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services and/or the owner of the construction project including but not limited to a failure to maintain an electrical supply to the pumps necessary for dewatering or removing water from the project which failure and breach of contract was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damages Leer Electric, Inc. now claims as well as the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiff, State College Electric & Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical, and Plaintiff, Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., and any and all insurers of those Plaintiffs such that Leer Electric, Inc. is solely liable to the other Plaintiffs and/or jointly and severally liable with Lobar, Inc. and/or directly liable to Lobar, Inc. for contribution and indemnification for any damages which may be assessed against Lobar, Inc. in favor of the other Plaintiffs. 83. Plaintiff, Leer Electric, Inc., knew or should have known that Lobar, Inc. and all other contractors participating in the project relied on Leer Electric, Inc. to comply with the terms of its contract and the Project Manual and industry practices by providing, monitoring and maintaining electrical service to the pumps for the dewatering system or the pumps that protected on-going and completed work and equipment from damage by water and/or flood. 84. Leer Electric, Inc. knew or reasonably should have known that Lobar, Inc. and the other Plaintiffs and other contractors were relying on Leer Electric, Inc.'s skills and expertise to take all steps necessary to avoid the risk of water and/or flood damage by properly installing, monitoring and maintaining the electrical supply to the dewatering and water removal pumps. 85. All of the injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiffs for which recovery is sought were caused by the negligence and carelessness of Leer Electric, Inc. by and through its employees, agents, workmen, subcontractors, subagents and/or assigns, acting in the course and 21 scope of their employment who failed to properly install, monitor and maintain the electrical supply to the dewatering and water removal pumps. 86. Defendant believes and therefore avers that Plaintiffs, Leer Electric, Inc., State College Electric & Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical, and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., were contractually obligated to take all reasonable precautions for the safety of and all reasonable protection to prevent damage, injury or loss to all employees and/or work, and/or equipment and all persons or entities who may be affected thereby and all work and all materials and all equipment under their care, custody and control or under the care, custody and control of their agents, servants, workman or subcontractors and Plaintiffs breached their contractual obligations in this regard. 87. Defendant believes and therefore avers that Plaintiffs Leer Electric, Inc., State College Electric & Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical, and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., are contractually obligated to provide remediation for all damages or loss to any property caused in whole or in part by them or their agents, servants, workmen, subcontractors or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable and said Plaintiffs have breached their contractual obligations to remediate such damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Lobar, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with costs of suit. GRIFFITH, RICKLER, LE N, SOL S & CA INS By: OBERT A. LERMAN, ESQt?fkE #07490 Attorney for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. 110 South Northern Way Dated: October 5, 2006 York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 22 VERIFICATION I, Charles E. Shughart , hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer and New Matter of Defendant, Lobar, Inc., to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief, as well as reports, records, conferences and other investigatory material made available to me. To the extent that the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact, I verify that my knowledge or information is sufficient to form a belief that one or more of them is true, although I am currently unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true. To the extent that the foregoing contains legal conclusions or opinions, I hereby state that my Verification is made upon the advise of counsel, upon whom I have relied in the filing this document. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 related to unsworn falsifications to authorities. LOBAR, INC. Dated: 10-2-06 By: Charles E. Shugha V.P. of Field Operations J ,, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, VS. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2006, I, Robert A. Lerman, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the Answer and New Matter of Defendant, Lobar, Inc., to Plaintiffs' Complaint via overnight delivery, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire White and Williams LLP 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) GRIFFITH, ST LER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CAL B Y• OBERT A. LERMAN, ESQLftPf #07490 Attorney for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 klr/lobar-anm .., ,--? .°> .--? ,_ -?-, ?:;z ,,.:; ,, r ;, ?;-a {? __ ?; ; ?;: _ __? s ^; rr.,,a' ".rC, WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP Ron L. Pingitore, Esq. ID. No. 80456 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-864-6324 Leer Electric, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs V. Lobar, Inc. Defendant : Attorney for Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case No.: 06-4018 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF LOBAR, INC. Plaintiffs, Leer Electric, Inc., Miller's Capital Insurance Company a/s/o Leer Electric, Inc., State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., by their attorney, Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire respond as follows to defendant Lobar, Inc.'s New Matter. 53-87. Denied. The averments in these paragraphs constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required and are deemed denied. To the extent such averments are deemed factual, plaintiffs deny that their claims are barred and/or diminished for the reasons asserted in the New Matter. DOCS_PH 1953220v.1 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request judgment in their favor and against the defendant. Dated: October 19, 2006 WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP By: Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire One Liberty Place, Suite 1800 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 864-6324 -2- DOCS PH 1953220v.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Lobar, Inc. was served via regular mail, postage pre-paid, upon the following: Robert A. Lerman, Esq. Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 S. Northern Way York, PA 17402-3737 Date: October 19, 2006 Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire DOCS_PH 1953220v.1 J VERIFICATION I, ' AJ19AJ 1 4 L 6 _, hereby state, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unworn falsifications to authorities that I am authorized to make this Verification and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to New batter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. DOCS 1?14 1953220v.1 ZO/ZO 39Vd SNI 1t11IdVO S8311IW EL66-ZEZ-LTL EZ:bT 900Z/ET/0T r•a Q r N ., i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, vs. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 34?-day of a , 2006, I, Robert A. Lerman, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Request for Production of Documents of Defendant, Lobar, Inc., to Plaintiffs, State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., Set No. 1 by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire White and Williams LLP 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) GRIFFITH, $YRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & C INS By: ROBERT A. LERMAN, ESQUIRE #07490 Attorneys for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 k I r/lobar-rfpd-state C`> ??rti IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, VS. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ?C?ERRTIIFICAT L OF SERVICE AND NOW, this dray of U-, 2006, I, Robert A. Lerman, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Interrogatories of Defendant, Lobar, Inc., to Plaintiffs, State College Electric and Mechanicals, Inc. d/b/a Allied Mechanical and Electrical and Allied Mechanical & Electrical, Inc., Set No. I by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire White and Williams LLP 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) GRIFFITH, S ICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CA S i1 , ----) By: ROBERT A. LERMAN, ESQUIRE #07490 Attorneys for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 klr/lobar-int-state 25 r-? s -r. `1 eJ, (.i y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, VS. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of D (A - , 2006, I, Robert A. Lerman, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Request for Production of Documents of Defendant, Lobar, Inc., to Plaintiffs, Leer Electric, Inc. and Millers Capital Insurance Company a/s/o of Leer Electric, Set No. 1 by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire White and Williams LLP 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) GRIFFITH, S RICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & By: kkR-ObtERT NS AqLERM?Alq, ESQUIRE #07490 Attorneys for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 kldlobar-dpd-leer r? F W Te .Y ? .. l v r cp -t N ~! IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, VS. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICAT&ft SERVICE AND NOW, this,.? 0-?day of , 2006, I, Robert A. Lerman, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Interrogatories of Defendant, Lobar, Inc., to Plaintiffs, Leer Electric, Inc. and Millers Capital Insurance Company a/s/o of Leer Electric, Set No. 1 by United States Mail, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire White and Williams LLP 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) GRIFFITH, By: ,R, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & ROBERT A. LERMAN, MUIRE #07490 Attorneys for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 kirllobar-int-leer r-3 ° C7 c? .`rr ^ lam') IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, VS. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Z CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of November, 2006, I, Robert A. Lerman, Esquire, a member of the firm of GRIFFITH, STRICKLER, LERMAN, SOLYMOS & CALKINS, hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of Answers of Defendant, Lobar, Inc., to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents via overnight delivery, addressed to the party or attorney of record as follows: Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire White and Williams LLP 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) GRIFFITH, S SOIJ¢ By: klr/lobar-ati Attorneys for Defendant, Lobar, Inc. 110 South Northern Way York, PA 17402 (717) 757-7602 ?? ?', c3"' ...1 Q `? -?f t ??,.?:t, ri: ?? s ?.? . "' '` ? + ?? ? ` fir ? " r .""? • ?r + ? .? r 1 E/' .«w.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LEER ELECTRIC, INC., MILLERS CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o LEER ELECTRIC INC., STATE COLLEGE ELECTRIC AND MECHANICALS, INC. d/b/a ALLIED MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, vs. LOBAR, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-4018 PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above captioned action settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP By• Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire I.D. No. 80456 1800 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Plaintiffs 215-864-6324 v' A,, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End was served upon all counsel of record by mailing the same via first class 14, mail, postage pre-paid, this / l day of September, 2007. Thomas B. Sponaugle, Esquire Law Offices of Griffith, Strickler, Lerman, Solymos & Calkins 110 S. Northern Way York, Pennsylvania 17402-3737 WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP By: Ron L. Pingitore, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiffs -2- rn ..s