Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-3097COURT O~ COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NOTICE OF APPEAL DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common I~eas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the KEYSTOKERt INC. 60 Keystoker Lane, Schuylkill Haven, PA 17972 June 5, 2002 WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNE~ CV~g[0000163-02 LTl9. CITY PAULA P. CO~6%EAL KEYSTOKER, INC., DALE STRING and VICKY GILBERT va t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS ,~IOrqAT~RE OF APPELLANT OR HIS ATTORNEY ~ A~.JqT ZIMME~MAN, LIEBERMAN, TAMULONIS & CROSSEN This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Po. R.C.PJ.P. Nc~ 1008& This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this cas~ Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy If appellant was CLAIMANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001 (6) in action before District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon WILLIAM J. BRUNN-ER and NANCY BRUS[NER , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal (Common Pleas No ~5.,~ ~--~1~?/'~--(.~, i/j'/'~-e'-" L [,..J~,~j) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. ZIMM~&~ LIEB~TAMULONIS & CRO~EN RULE: To WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCy BRUNNER , appellee(s). JOHN B. LIEBEP/4AN, III, ESQUIRE ; D~fe: June 27 (1) You am notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule up~x~ you by personal service or by certified or registered mail (2) If you do not file a coml:daint witb~ this time,~ JUD~NT O1~ NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of set. ice of this role if s~vice was by mail is the d_ata of mailing. ,~2oo~ , ~ COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DA YS AFTER filing the notme of appeal Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I hereby s~vearor affirmtha~ I served COUNTY OF- · AFFIDAVIT: .[~ a 00py of the Notice.of ~al, CommQn PleasNo upon the District Justice designate(~ therein on (date of service) ~ ~ [] by persona~ service- [] by~cexttfied) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached het~tt~,-andf t~9§~t4he ~ppeff~e, . ~ I'-I b~oersonal serv ce ~ by (cert f ed (registered) mail sender s r~ceipt attached ~er~to. D,,~nd fu rt ~ha~,~ed t~ ~le to Fi[~a Corn plaint accompanying t ~e~~p~al ~ ~h~appe~h°m,, the Rule wa~ addressed on' ' 19 ~ by personal service ~ by (certified) (registered) mail. senderrs rece pt a~he6~ h'ereto. SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS _ .D,~' Signeture of official before whom affidavit was made ~ig~aru~'a of affiant Title of officiel My c~xnmission e~pire$ on ~OMMONWEALTH OF PEN~-- 'LVANIA COUNTY OF: KEYSTOKEH INC 60 KEYSTOKER LANE SCHUYLKILL HAVEN, PA 17972 ' T Is ISJoL ,FY.YOU~THATL- ,,. · -jd~ment..- .... . ~,, ...... ~-"~ J'udgment was entered for: (Name) ~'] Judgment was entered against: (Name) NOTICE; ,: JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT PLAINT FF: CIVIL CASE NAME and ADDRESS ~BRUN~, WILLIAM J/NANCY 11 HOPE TERRACE CAPJ~ISLE. PA 17013 L Docket No.: ~-0000163 -02 Date Filed: 4/10/02 in the amount of $ 1:7~2_Tn on: ntly and severally I ab e This case. dismissed without prejudice. [Date of Judgment) ~/n~/n~ " .,. (Date & Time) Amo, unt:of Judgment :2, JUdgment Costs" interest o~ Judgment Attornby Fees Total Amount of Judgment Subject to [] Attachment/Act 5 o} 1996 $ [] Levy is stayed for days or J'~ generally stayed. [~ Objection to levy has been filed and heanng will be hela: 73~00ti $ .00' $ .0C. $ 1~763.7~ Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total ===========~$ Date: , ' Place: . ,~ ..... _ ** Represents refund of: purchase price of' st~ 6~ tax. S~ove is to be returned ~o Cool Time: Plus ~re plu ~rgy ANY PARTY H.~S THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU .MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS'NOTICE OF JUDG~ :~ FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. ' My commission expires first Monday of ,January, AOPC 315-99 SEAL ..... ' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs VS. KEYSTOKER, INC., DALE STRING and VICKY GILBERT t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, Defendants NO. 02-3097 Civil Term · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Print our name and address on the reverse . · ,haY~ ~(~ ~a-h'~'{~'~ t~'e~r~d'ybd... ~' · ~;~ t'l~is card to the back of the mallp~ece, ~ or on the front if space permits. 1. Articis Addressed to: District Justice Paula P- Corre~ East Wing - Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 [] Agent r-lYes D. I;~ delivery address different fron [] No If YES, enter daiive~ address 3. Sewice Type [~ Certified Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered r-I Return Receipt for Merchandise 1-1 Insured Mail r'l C.O.D. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 2. ArUcis Number (Transfer from service label) 7099 3400 0007 4964 3339 '-~'~-~'orm 3811, March 2001 Domestic Return Receipt · Comp~items 1,2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Pdnt your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Mrs. Nancy Brunner 11 Hope Terrace Carlisle, PA 17013 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) A. Reseivad by ( [] Agent diffemr~ from item 17 [] Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: [] No Service Type !~1 Certified Mail [] Registered [] insured Mail [] Express Mail [] Return Receipt for Merchandise [] C.O.D. 4. Rsstdcted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 7099 3400 0007 4964 2172 102595-01 -M-1424 PS Form 3811, March 2001 Domestic Return Receipt · Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you, · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Mr. William Jack Brunner 11 Hope Terrace Carlisle, PA 17013 [] Agent D. Is daiivery~ddress different ' [] Yes if YES, enter delivery address below: r-I No 3. Sewlce Type ~1 C.,ertff'~d Mail [] Express Mail [] Registered [] Retum Receipt fo~ Merchandise [] Insured Mail [~ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes 2. Article Number (Tm~w~om~e~a~e0 7099 3400 0007 4964 3377 102595-O1 -M-1424 · i~ Form 3811, March 2001 Domestic Return Receipt IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs VS. KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS and DALE STRING, Defendants NO. 02-~ ..RO~ ~ NO. 02-3166 NO. 02-3176 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, KEYSTOKER, INC., TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS The defendant, Keystoker, Inc., by and through its a,ttomeys, Zimmerman, Lieberman, Tamulonis & Crossen, hereby enters the following Answer and New Matter to the Complaint of the plaintiffs as follows: ANSWER 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. The averments of paragraph 5 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 6. The averments of paragraph 6 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 7. The averments of paragraph 7 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 8. It is admitted that the plaintiffs purchased the stove in question on December 7, 2000 for the price of $1,595.00 plus tax, but the remaining averment of paragraph 8 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. The averment of paragraph 13 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment. 14. The averments of paragraph 14 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 15. The averments of paragraph 15 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 16. The averments of paragraph 16 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 17. The averments of paragraph 17 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 18. The averments of paragraph 18 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 19. The averments of paragraph 19 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 20. The averment of paragraph 20 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that avet~ient. 21. The averment of paragraph 21 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment. 22. The averment of paragraph 22 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment. 23. The averments of paragraph 23 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 24. The averments of paragraph 24 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 25. The averments of paragraph 25 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 26. Admitted. 27. The averments of paragraph 27 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 28. The averments of paragraph 28 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 29. The averments of paragraph 29 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 30. The averments of paragraph 30 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 31. The averments of paragraph 31 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 32. The averment of paragraph 32 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment. 33. The averments of paragraph 33 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 34. The averments of paragraph 34 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 35. The averment of paragraph 35 of the Complaint is denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of that averment. 36. The averments of paragraph 36 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 37. The averments of paragraph 37 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 38. The averments of paragraph 38 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 39. Denied. On the contrary, it is believed that the stove operated properly at all times material hereto, it did not leak kerosene on repeated occasions, and the plaintiffs have not been rendered unable to use their family room in their home for over one and one-half years. 40. The averments of paragraph 40 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 41. Denied. On the contrary, the stove is not inoperable and has not created a fire hazard in plaintiffs' home due to leaking gasoline. 42. Denied as stated. On the contrary, upon inspection, the representatives of the answering defendant determined that the stove was in perfect working order. COUNT I Plaintiffs vs. Keystoker, Inc. 43. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 42 above are incorporated herein by reference as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 44. Admitted. 45. Denied. On the contrary, the stove is not inoperable, it does not emit excessive soot, it is not a fire hazard and if it has leaked kerosene on three occasions, that problem was not caused by the stove itself and it was not caused by any act or failure to act on the part of the answering defendant. 46. Denied. On the contrary, there were no manufacturer defects in the internal components of the stove. For further answer, the stove does not constitute a fire hazard and it does operate properly. 47. Denied. On the contrary, the answering defendant is not in any manner unjustly enriched. The stove is operable and does not constitute a fire hazard. WHEREFORE, the answering defendant prays your Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the plaintiffs. COUNT II Plaintiffs vs. Gilbert 48. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 47 above are incorporated herein by reference as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 49.-52. The averments of paragraphs 49 through 52, inclusive, of the Complaint are not directed to the answering defendant. COUNT III Plaintiffs vs. String 53. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 52 above are incorporated herein by reference as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 54.-56. The averments of paragraphs 54 through 56, inclusive, of the Complaint are not directed to the answering defendant. COUNT IV PUNITIVE DAMAGES 57. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 56 above are incorporated herein by reference as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length. 58. Denied. On the contrary, the answering defendant appealed the judgment based upon the reasonable belief that it is not indebted to the plaintiffs and that it did not sell an inoperable stove. 59. Denied. On the contrary, the conduct of the answering defendant is not in any manner dilatory, vexatious nor obdurate. 60. The averments of paragraph 60 are denied for the reasons set forth in paragraph 58 above, the ave,ments of which are incorporated herein by reference. 61. Denied. On the contrary, the answering defendant did present appropriate defenses to the District Justice. 8 62. The averments of paragraph 62 of the Complaint are denied for the reason that the answering defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those averments. 63. Denied. On the contrary, the answering defendant is not responsible for any punitive damages nor attomey fees. WHEREFORE, the answering defendant prays your Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the plaintiffs. NEW MATTER IN THE FORM OF A CROSSCLAIM AGAINST CO-DEFENDANT, DALE STRING, PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO. 2252(d) The answering defendant avers the following New Matter in the form of a Crossclaim against the co-defendant, Dale String, pursuant to the provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 2252(d): 64. If the allegations in the plaintiffs' Complaint pertaining to the defendant, Dale String, are found to be true, then in that event, said defendant is liable to the plaintiffs for any damages that the plaintiffs may have sustained. 65. If the answering defendant is found to be in anyway liable to the plaintiffs, then the defendant, Dale String, is jointly liable with the answering defendant to the plaintiffs or is liable over to the answering defendant by way of contribution or indemnity for any verdict that the plaintiffs may recover. WHEREFORE, the answering defendant claims that the co-defendant, Dale String, is liable to the plaintiffs and if the answering defendant is found to be in anyway liable 9 to the plaintiffs, then the co-defendant, Dale String, is jointly liable with the answering defendant or is liable over to the answering defendant for contribution or to indemnity the answering defendant for any verdict which may be recovered by the plaintiffs. ZIMMERMAN, LIEBERMAN, TAMULONIS & CROSSEN By:. Attorneys for Defendant, Keystoker, Inc. Attorney ID No. 07779 10 VERIFICATION I, GEORGE SOMERS, Vice-President of Keystoker, Inc., within-named defendant, certify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer and New Matter which are within my personal knowledge are true, and those which are based on information received from others, I believe to be true. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. GEORG~./SOMERS Dated: October 9 , 2002 11 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs VS. KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS and DALE STRING, Defendants AND NOW, this NO. 02-3099 NO. 02-3166 NO. 02-3176 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE /o~ day of October, 2002, I, John B. Lieberman, III, Esquire, of the law firm of Zimmerman, Lieberman, Tamulonis & Crossen, attorneys for defendant, Keystoker, Inc., hereby certify that I served the within Answer and New Matter this day by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in the Post Office at Pottsville, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Scott T. Wyland, Esquire Malatesta Hawke & McKeon LLP 100 North Tenth Street P.O. Box 1778 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Cameron Mansion Harrisburg, PA 17101 JOHN B. LIEBERMAN, III, ESQUIRE Zimmerman, Lieberman, Tamulonis & Crossen 111 East Market Street P. O. Box 238 Pottsville, PA 17901-0238 570-622-1988 Attorney ID No. 07779 WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs Mo KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT, t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and DALE STRING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 3~q7 ~'~ NO. 02-3~99 CIVIL TERM NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: William J. Brunner and Nancy Bnmner c/o Bradley L. Griffie Griftie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be emered against you. ~60 Malatesta Hawke & McKeon Harrisburg Energy Center 100 North Tenth Street PO Box 1778 Harrisburg, PA 17105-1778 717-236-1300 Counsel for Defendant Dale String DATE: November 13, 2002 WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT, t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and DALE STRING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : c : NO. 02 IVIL TERM : : NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM : : NO. 02-3176 CIVILTERM . ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT DALE STRING AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Dale String, by and through his counsel in this matter, Malatesta Hawke & McKeon LLP, and sets forth the following Answer and New Matter: 1. ADMITTED. 2. ADMITTED. 3. ADMITTED. 4. ADMITTED. 5. ADMITTED, upon information and belief. 6. ADMITTED, upon information and belief. 7. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the avei-inents of Paragraph 7. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 7 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 8. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 8. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 8 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 9. ADMITTED, upon information and belief. 10. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 10. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 10 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. ADMITTED. 12. ADMITTED. 13. ADMITTED. 14. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 14. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 14 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiffs contacted Defendant String, who examined the stove for problems and was able to cause the stove to work properly. The balance of the avemlents of Paragraph 15 are specifically DENIED because, after reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the aveiments of Paragraph 15. 16. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to foim a belief as to the truth of the avenlaents of Paragraph 16. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 16 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. DENIED as stated. It is ADMITTED that Defendant String advised the Plaintiffs that he would contact Gilbert and her late husband concerning how the parties should proceed. It is specifically DENIED that Defendant String was unable to correct the problems and to make the stove operational after several attempts. By way of further answer, Defendant String caused the stove to work properly through his efforts. 18. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 18. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 18 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 19. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that on March 10, 2001, Defendant String came to Plaintiffs' residence and examined the stove. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the averments in Paragraph 19. Accordingly, said avemxents are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 20. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 20. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 20 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 21. ADMITTED. 22. ADMITTED. 23. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sulTlcient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 23. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 23 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 24. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 24. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 24 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The correspondence referred to speaks for itself. 25. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 25. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 25 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 26. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that Defendant String installed a carburetor on or about November 15, 2001. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information concerning whether the carburetor was one "referenced by Gilbert," and that part of the averments of Paragraph is specifically DENIED. 27. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to foim a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 27. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 27 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 28. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiffs contacted Defendant String on or about November 16, 2001, regarding a leak. As to the balance of the averments of Paragraph 18, after reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to fomi a belief as to the troth of those averments. Accordingly, said averments are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at 29. ADMITTED. 30. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 30. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 30 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 31. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 31. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 31 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 32. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiffs contacted Defendant String regarding a kerosene leak on or about November 22, 2001. Defendant String is without knowledge or information concerning whether the Plaintiffs contacted him "immediately" following any other problem they experienced with the stove in question. Accordingly, said averment is specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 33. ADMITTED. 34. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that Plaintiffs contacted Defendant String to advise him of a leaking problem on or about December 5, 2001 and that Defendant String advised the Plaintiffs to contact Gilbert. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or info~-ixiation sufficient to fo~-iii a belief as to the troth of the balance of the ave~-iiients of Paragraph 34. Accordingly, the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 34 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 35. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or infoxmation sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 35. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 35 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 36. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or infoi-i~ation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 36. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 36 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The correspondence referred to speaks for itself. 37. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 37. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 37 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 38. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to from a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 38. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 38 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 39. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 39. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 39 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 40. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph '40. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 40 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 41. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or infoxmation sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 41. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 41 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 42. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 42. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 42 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 43. No answer required. 44. ADMITTED. 45. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the avem~ents of Paragraph 45. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 45 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 46. ADMITTED in part, DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED, upon information and belief, that Keystoker issued a two-year warranty against manufacturer defects in the internal components of the stove and have refused to remove the stove and refund the purchase price to the Plaintiffs. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the balance of the averments of Paragraph 46. Accordingly, the balance of the averments of Paragraph 46 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 47. The allegations of Paragraph 47 amount to a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or info~mation sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 47. Accordingly, said averments are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 48. No answer required. 49. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or infomxation sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 49. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 49 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 50. After reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments of Paragraph 50. Accordingly, the allegations of Paragraph 50 are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 51. The allegations of Paragraph 51 amount to a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, after reasonable investigation, Defendant String is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 51. Accordingly, said averments are specifically DENIED and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 52. ADMITTED upon information and belief. 53. No answer required. 54. ADMITTED. 55. DENIED. It is specifically DENIED that Defendant String adjusted or modified the stove in such a fashion as to cause the stove to be inoperable and a fire hazard to Plaintiffs' home. 56. DENIED. It is specifically DENIED that the conduct of Defendant String has made the stove inoperable and a fire hazard. 57. No answer required. 58. The allegations of Paragraph 58 are specifically DENIED. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 58 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken summarily. 59. The allegations of Paragraph 59 amount to a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary. In addition, Defendant String does not understand the allegation of Paragraph 59; the sentence appears to be an error. 60. The allegations of Paragraph 60 are specifically DENIED. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 60 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken summarily. 61. The allegations of Paragraph 61 are specifically DENIED. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 61 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken summarily. 10 62. The allegations of Paragraph 62 are specifically DENIED. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 562 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken summarily. 63. The allegations of Paragraph 63 are specifically DENIED. By way of further answer, the averments of Paragraph 563 are scandalous and impertinent and should be stricken summarily. WHEREFORE, Defendant String respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just. NEW MATTER 64. The Complalm falls to state a claim upon which punitive damages may be awarded. 65. Paragraphs 58, 59, 60 and 62 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint contain scandalous and impertinent matter, including allegations that are inadmissible, prejudicial, untrue, irrelevant and immaterial to the Plaintiffs' claims. 66. Upon information and belief, the stove that is the subject of this action remains under warranty, with Plaintiffs have nearly an unlimited right to repairs and replacement; accordingly, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to monetary damages. 67. The Plaintiffs themselves, or at least Plaintiff William J. Brunner, contributed to the condition of the stove as described by the Plaintiffs because Plaintiff William J. Brenner 11 attempted to "fix" the stove himself, without proper training and supervision, thereby adversely affecting the ftmctioning of the stove. WHEREFORE, Defendant String respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint and enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, together with such other relief as this Court deems just. DATE: November 13, 2002 Respectfully submitted, Harrisburg Energy Center 100 North Tenth Street PO Box 1778 Harrisburg, PA 17105-1778 717-236-1300 Counsel for Defendant Dale String 12 VERIFICATION I, Dale String, hereby verify that the statements made and the information provided in the foregoing document are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge or infom~ation and belief and that false statements are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unswom falsifications to authorities. Dale String DATED: -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF~ I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below: _Service by First Class Mail Addressed as Follows: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire Griffie & Associates 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street Cameron Mansion Harrisburg, PA 17101 John B. Lieberman, Esquire Zimmerman Lieberman Tamuionis & Crossen Post Office Box 238 Pottsville, PA 17901 DATED: November 13, 2002 T. ---- - NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT, t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and DALE STRING, Defendants RULE 1312-1. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 3077 NO. 02-ova.. CIVIL TERM J NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the following form: : PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS -~ : .- TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire respectfully represents that: counsel for the plaintiff/defemlam in the above ~ticn (or actions), 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of the plaintiffin this action is $_ 2.436.70, plus costs, fees, interest attorney's fee.~; _ and punitive damages The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is _ $ 0.00 The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: .John B. Lieberman, Esquire, Scott T. Wyland, Esquire, and Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint thee (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. iubmitted, ~r~,~ffey L. Griffie, Esquire ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, /(~e_,¢.o, o7~.3 , 20~, in cons~fierati~on of the foregoing petition, ,.SE~, .~.a~j~..~ ~g/d_~t~/~,Esq.' ,~~Z_J /~4~'~,,- , ~t~'ina~edr .ac~as-~p~ayed~7~ j ,Esq. are appointed arbitrators in the abo eveve~c2ptioned BY THE COURT, William J. Brunner and Nancy Brunner,) Plaintiffs ) v. ) Keystoker, Inc., Vicky Gilbert t/d/b/a Coal Enerty Plus, and Dale Defendants OATH The Court of ¢ounon Pleas of C~mberland ¢o~uty, Pennsylvania HO. , 0~-3097 ' 02-3166 02-3176~' We do solely avcar (or affiru) that ye viii support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States 8nd the ConstttuC~ou of this Counon- vealth and that ye viii diacharse the dutieA of O~,r office vith fidelity. Daniel. K Deardorff, ae ~.,,C s±dy, ~rb-itrator We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly. appointed and sworn. (or ..affirmed), make the following award: ..- . (Hote: If damages for delay are awarded, they separately stated.) applicable.) DaCe of Hear~n$: Date of Award: · Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if Daniel K. ~ard~rff, Chai~f M i~h~l ~. ~ s~vi ~dy/~,~rb it r at or yis~arie ~oyne, ~rbitrator N~ICE OF ~R~ AW~ ' Now, the ~/~ day of , l~J~z~, at/~,P5 , /~ .H., the above a~mrd was en=ered upon the t and notice thereof given b~ mail ~o the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: P~otho~6~ary William J. Brunner and Nancy Brunner,) Plaintiffs ) v. ) Keystoker, Inc., Vicky Gilbert t/d/b/a Coal Enerty Plus, and Dale ~rJn~. Defendants OATH The Court of ¢c~uon Pleas of ~--~erland County, Pennsylvania Has , 02-3097 ~ .... 02-3166 02-3176-' We do solemnly avcar (or affiru) that ve viii support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and :he Consti~ucf. on of this Counon- veal:h and thac ve rill discharge the duties of O~r off, ice with fidelity. Daniel. K Deardorff, ae .~r. ~ C~s±dy, Arbitrator ' Marie Arbitrator We, :he undersiKned arbitra£ors, having been duly. appointed and sworn. (or .-affirmed), make che following award: (Hate: If danaSes for delay are awarded, they shal!. be:' . AFbXtFatoF, dXssents. applicable. ) separately stated.) Dace of Award: Daniel K. ~eard~rff, Cha:Lr~f' ' ' I M~i ~~i~yp)rbitrator NOTI~ OF ~~AW~ ' Now, the ,~/~-~ day of (~ award was entered upon the~ocket parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ 2eo. o-o , 1~3, at ~:0~, /~.M., the above and notice thereof given by mail to the Pro~ho~o~tary D~puty William J. Brunner and Nancy Brunner,} Plaintiffs Keystoker, Inc., Vicky Gilbert t/d/b/a Coal Enerty Plus, and Dale ~rin~ Defendants OATH In The Court of Counon Pleas of C~mberlsnd County, Pennoylvanin , 02-3097 02-3166 02-3176-' We do soI~ly ~wear (or affirm) tl~t we vll~ support, obey and defend ~he Coustitut~on of the United S~tes and the Const~r~ou of this Counon- vealth 8nd that ye viii discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. Daniel. K Deardorff, n--- ~,e~C~_idy, ~_Arb it r at is Marie Coy e,'~ Arbitrator We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duIy..appointed 8nd sworn. (or ..affirmed), hake the foIIow~ng sward: -... . .~ .... ~ (HoSe: If dsn~ses for delay are awarded, they shII. be: applicable. ) DaCe of Hearing: Date of Award: Now, the 2/~ day of ~Z~ , ]~2~z~, at/o:o~~, /~ .M., the above award was entered upon the~ocket and notice thereof given bT ail to the part~es or their actotmeys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ 290.0'0 Pro~ho~o~ary Dffput:y WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs Vo KEYSTOKER, 1NC., VICKY GILBERT, t/b/Wa COAL ENERGY PLUS and DALE STRING, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COLrNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 02-3097 CIVIL TERM ~ : NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM : NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter judgment for Defendant, Vicky Gilbert, Individually and Trading as Coal Energy Plus and against William J. Brunner and Nancy Brunner, in accordance with the Arbitrators' Award dated April 21, 2003. A copy of the Arbitrators' Award is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. Date Anthofly T. McBet~Xs[ffq. Attorney for Defejld~an~xVicky Gilbert 407 North FronffSt., Fir~ Floor Harrisburg, P~I 7 (717) 238-3686 Supreme Court I.D. # 53729 Judgment as emered above. Date Prothonotary ~lliam J. Brunner and Nancy Brunner,} Plaintiffs Keystoker, Inc., Vicky Gilbert t/d/b/a Coal Enerty Plus, and Dale ~trin~ Defendants OATH In The Court of Co~on Pleas of ~erland County, Pennsylvania RO. , 07-3097 X~ 02-3166 02-3176~' Ne do solely m~ear (or affirm) that ve vilLI support, obey and defend ~he Constitution of the ~ted States ~d the ~ti~cion of this ~n- wealth ~d t~t we viii discharge the duties of O~r off!ce with fidelity. 9aniel. K 9eardor~, C~l~n Arbitrator Ne; the undersigned arbitrators, having been d~ly..appointed (or ..dfirmed), make tl~e following ~ard: ..-'.. .... (Note: If dmg~ for dehy are awarded, they separately s~ted.) Marie Coy~e,' Arbitrator ¢ ¢¢ og r applicable.) · Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if Date of Award: (~' //)~ M ~a~l ~. ~ s/~i .dy/~r b i t r a t o r /~isa/Marie C'9.y~e, frbitrat0r NOTICE OF ENIRY.~OF' AWARD of ~ , ~2o~, at ~.o~ , /~.M., the above Now, the2/~ day ' > award vas,entered upon the-~ocke~ and notice thereof given b~mail ~o the parties or their attot-aeys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: EXHIBIT "~" P~o thoI~6~ary D~puty WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT, t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and DALE STRING, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 02-3097 CIVIL TERM '~ : NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM : : NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE Please mark the judgment entered in the above captioned action against Defendant Keystoker, Inc., as satisfied and settled. Date:~ Respectfully submitted, GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT, t/dPo/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and DALE STRING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-3097 C1VIL TERM NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter judgmem for Defendant, Dale String, and against Plaintiffs William J. Brenner and Nancy Brenner, in accordance with the Arbitrator's Award dated April 21, 2003. A copy of the Arbitrator's Award is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. ~ d Scott T. ~o~u,u, x.~,. ~o. 52660 Malatesta Hawke & McKeon Harrisburg Energy Center 100 North Tenth Street PO Box 1778 Harrisburg, PA 17105-1778 717-236-1300 Counsel for Defendant Dale String DATE: July 2, 2003 Judgment as entered above. Prothonotary WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaimiffs KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT, t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and DALE STRING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-3097 CIVIL TERM NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM TO: WILLIAM J. BRUNNER, Plaimiff You are hereby notified that on ,_ )¢ · ~,,/ entered against you in the above-captioned cas& · 2003, the following Judgment was Judgment for Dale String and against you, on your claim. DATE: Prothonotary I hereby certify that the name and address of the proper person(s) to receive this notice is: William J. Brunner c/o Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 A WILLIAM J. BRUNNER, Demandante Por este medio so le esta notificando que el de el/la siguiento Fallo ha sido en contra suya en el caso mencionado en el epigrafe. ,2003, FECHA: Protonotario Certifico que la siguiente direccion es la del defendido/a segun indicada en el certificado de residencia: William J. Brurmer c/o Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Abogado del Demandante WILLIAM J. BRUNNER and NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiffs KEYSTOKER, INC., VICKY GILBERT, t/d/b/a COAL ENERGY PLUS, and DALE STRING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 02-3097 CIVIL TERM : : NO. 02-3166 CIVIL TERM NO. 02-3176 CIVIL TERM TO: NANCY BRUNNER, Plaintiff You are hereby notified that ont )~e.~d~t entered against you in the above-captioned case.' ,2003, the following Judgment was Judgment for Dale String and against you, on your claim. DATE: Prothonotary I hereby certify that the name and address of the proper person(s) to receive this notice is: Nancy Brunner c/o Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 A WILLIAM J. BRUNNER, Demandante Por este medio so le esta notificando que el de el/la siguiento Fallo ha sido en contra suya en el caso mencionado en el epigrafe. ,2003, FECHA: Protonotario Certifico que la siguiente direccion es la del defendido/a segun indicada en el certificado de residencia: Nancy Brenner c/o Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Abogado del Demandante ~Qilliam J. Keystoker, Inc., Vicky Gilbert t/d/b/a Coal Enarty Plus, and Dale ~rjno Defendants Brunner and Nancy Brunner,) Plaintiffs ) ) In Tn~ ~ourt ol ~m-~on P.l=r.~, of. Cu~b~rlmnd C~a~ty, Pennaylvanim No. ., 02-30~7 X~Lg_X 02-3166 02-3!76-' ~e do ~ol~-,-nly ~ear (or affirm) that we will ~upport, obey and defend Constitution of the ~ited S~tes ~d the Co~ti~zi~n of thi~ ~u- w~aI~h ~d t~t ~e will di~charg~ the duties of our office ~ith fidelity, Dani&l. K Deardorff, d~{~n ~ae~.,t<, C~-%sidy, Arbitrator We, g~ ~he under£1 sd arbitrators, having been duly.appointed andF. sworn (or :~fi~ad), ~ke the fo!l~g a~arfl: · . . .~j~ (Note: If d~g~ for de~y are awarded, they s~ll be'%.q" separately ~ta~ed.) . : applicable.) ..r~te of Eearing: Da~e of A~a'rd: · Arbitrator, dissents. (In~ert name if ~---~a aris C~oyv~e, ~rbitr~tg~ NOTICE OF Now, the'y/-z~ day of / ~3~3 at/~. 3 /_~.M., the above award ~ras .entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by m~il to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compe~sation to be paid upon appeal: · Protho~cary EXHIBIT ": D~pucy