The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About94-01022 ~ -t' - '<\J C) J! I sj CCi o MU CHING CHU and CHIN CHUN CHU, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs v . . B. L. DEITCH, t/d/b/a B. L. DEITCH HOME IMPROVEMENTS, Defendant : : NO. to ,).:J- CIVIL 1994 . . . . NOTICB You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPBR TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCH. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICB SBT FORTH BBLOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL BBLP. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 717 - 240-6200 MU CHING CHU and CHIN CHUN CHU, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. IDJ.J. CIVIL 1993 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs v B. L. DEITCH, t/d/b/a B. L. DEITCH HOME IMPROVEMENTS, Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Mu Ching Chu and Chin Chun Chu, by and through their attorneys, Broujos, Gilroy & Houston, P.C., who aver as follows: 1 The Plaintiffs are Mu Ching Chu and Chin Chun Chu, adult individuals currently residing at 318 Acre Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2 The Defendant is B. L. Deitch, an adult individual, t/d/b/a B. L. Deitch Home Improvements, with his principal place of business being located at 87 Victory Church Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3 The Plaintiffs are the owners of the premises located at 1161 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with there being erected thereon a restaurant known as The Peking Inn (the aforesaid premises being hereafter referred to as "The Peking Inn"). /,l.,..-.' L~!,r '\-:.::~..' 4 In the Spring of 1993, the Plaintiffs began to experience problems with a portion of the roof at The Peking Inn, which included some water leakage in the kitchen area of the restaurant. 5 The Plaintiffs desired to obtain a contractor who was experienced in roofing repairs to perform the necessary repairs for The Peking Inn. 6 The Defendant was listed in the Yellow Pages of the telephone directory under the category of "roofing contractor." Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A is a copy of the relevant portion of the telephone Yellow Pages listing, which is incorporated herein by reference. 7 In late May of 1993, the Plaintiffs contacted the Defendant for purposes of obtaining an estimate for the repairs to the roof. 8 The Defendant indicated to the Plaintiffs that he was experienced in roof repairs and that he was fully qualified to perform the necessary repairs to the roof on The Peking Inn. 9 On or about May 28, 1993, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant entered into a construction contract by which the Defendant agreed to v.... perform the necessary repairs to the roof on The Peking Inn for the sum of Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($6,500.00). Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B is a copy of the Agreement between the parties which is incorporated herein by reference. 10 On or about the first week of June 1993, the Defendant completed the repairs to the Plaintiffs' roof at The Peking Inn, and he was paid in full for the services rendered. 11 Shortly after the repairs to the roof were completed by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs began to experience leakage from the roof in the kitchen and also the dining room portion of The Peking Inn. 12 From on or about the end of July 1993, to December 1, 1993, the Plaintiffs contacted the Defendant on numerous occasions to indicate that there was leakage occurring and that repairs were necessary. 13 Despite repeated assurances by the Defendant that he would take care of the problems experienced by the Plaintiffs and complete the necessary repairs to prevent the leakage from occurring, no such repairs were initiated. 14 The work performed by the Defendant pursuant to the May 28, 1993 contract was defective, as follows: A. The rubber used to glue the rubber roof was not properly glued to the insulation board. B. The rubber roof which was installed was not properly tied into the sloped metal roof. C. Laps were not properly glued. D. Laps nor flashings were lap sealed. E. Corners were not properly flashed. F. Air conditioning units were improperly flashed. G. Vent pipes were not properly flashed. 8. Metal edging around the perimeter of the building was not suitable for rubber roofing. I. All drains were improperly installed. J. Roof cement was used on the rubber roof around penetrations and used at numerous places on the roof. 15 The reasonable cost of remedying the defects, as more particularly set forth in Paragraph 14 is $15,750. 16 As a result of the Defendant's faulty workmanship, the interior of The Peking Inn has been damaged, the costs for repair for which will be $1,371.82. ~~.,:.' . 17 The Defendant did have insurance coverage for a portion of Plaintiffs' claims and on or about December 1, 1993, the Defendant, through his insurance carrier, did pay the sum of $4,025 to the Plaintiffs on account of the damages caused by the Defendant with the understanding that this payment was only being accepted as a partial payment on the claims against Defendant. 18 Since December 1, 1993, the Defendant has contacted the Plaintiffs and made assurances to the Plaintiffs that the Defendant would contract with another contractor to make the necessary repairs to The Peking Inn at the Defendant's cost. 19 Since December 1, 1993, the Plaintiffs had repeatedly requested the Defendant to proceed with the necessary repairs, which the Defendant has failed to do. 20 During the period of January 25 through January 31, 1994, the Plaintiffs had severe leakage in The Peking Inn which forced the Plaintiffs to close the restaurant business located at The Peking Inn. 21 The severe leakage which was experienced during the period as set forth in Paragraph 20 was as a direct result of the defective workmanship of the Defendant as more particularly specified in Paragraph 14. 22 As a direct and proximate result of the defective workmanship performed by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs have suffered the following additional damages: A. A loss of profits at The Peking Inn restaurant in the amount of $2,324. COUNT I - BREACH OJ!' CONTRACT 23 Paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 24 The terms of the contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant specified that the Defendant would perform all work in a substantial workmanlike manner as per standard practices. 25 In violation of the terms of said contract and in violation of the standard practices, the Defendant did not complete the construction or the roof repairs in a workmanlike manner all to the Plaintiffs' detriment. 26 Despite repeated demands made by Plaintiffs on the Defendant to complete the repairs as promised in the contract, the Defendant has taken no action other than to provide a payment of $4,025 toward the coet of the repairs made necessary by Defendant's defective workmanship. 27 As a result of the Defendant's breach of the contract, the Plaintiffs have incurred damages totaling $19,445.82. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant in the sum of $19,445.82, less $4,025 previously paid, plus Court costs, being an amount less than $25,000, thereby requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II - BREACH OF WARRAH'l'Y 28 Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by reference. 29 The construction contract entered into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant provided for an express ten year warranty guaranteeing the Defendant's workmanship. 30 The Defendant's contract with the Plaintiffs contained an implied warranty that all work would be performed in a reasonably workmanlike manner. 31 The Defendant did not perform his work under the contract in a .._.:......r.'t--,........- .n_ reasonably workmanlike manner and has breached the express and implied warranties under the contract more particularly as dsscribed in Paragraph 14. 32 Despite Plaintiffs' rspeated requests for Defendant to honor the express and implied warranties pertaining to the workmanship, the Defendant has failed to take any action to honor the aforesaid warranties other than making a payment to the Plaintiffs of the sum of $4,025. 33 As a direct result of Defendant's breach of the express and implied warranties of workmanship, the Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $19,445.82. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant in the sum of $19,445.82 less $4,025 previously paid, plus Court costs, being an amount less than $25,000" thereby requiring compulsory arbitration. Christopher C. Houston, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Broujos, Gilroy & Houston, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717 - 243-4574 " ,. , , t I. t t r. .C1~ ./" 'IOPOSAl SUllln STIlET ..,.,.- t Bol' Delteh . . ' ~ ,ilODie',Jm~rov'i!1l1ents " 87 Victory Church Road. Gardnen. PA 17324 · (717) ~3440 \ '..... " , ' f '. \ f:'t'O posa 1 . ,.-.---\' I . , i 'HOU . z,. JOB IAlt " --- Poge, No. of DATE pagn .. 71/ 11 . -._- ( , ~ J J ! , \ \ _l~CATlOI JOB PHDlt DATt OF 'LAIIS J ' we heNby PfOPOM 10 l~~ rMtINIa and ..bOt nteeINIY 10t'.~ =-;npteuon of. . ." . I ~ . 'I .ICHITlCT \ , \ i\ \ I .' ~ '... , . l~ .~ . ~ 30Dc) .. , , {' j.,u"k II- . J ~ r;(v;; 1"1} '2.S7~ : , , WE PROPOSE hlroby to'fu,nhh mO'lflolond I~~r - cam;>lollln KCOrdonco-wlth IbOYO lPoclllcollon" for ,holUm of, ./ . I . , , J.- ... All ml.er'll II gu"a"tMd to tM II 'Dlclfled. All work to be compllted In I .uta....:" . ,t,nUII workmanlike manner accordln. to SPeclfleatlonISUtMftl<<,d, per Itlndara:-- "l6IUwlfiltd practices. Any ,,,e,ltlon or deviation from above apeeUlcatlonl Involving I.tr.' Stpalurt cOltl will be ..ecuttd only upon written orde,I. and will bKome .n ,,'r. chlroe over and Abo" thl 1.lImlte. AIII.rHm,"" contln..", upon 'trikes, .ccld.nt. or '. JIG II . dtl'VI blVond our control. Ownlr 10 Clrry flrl, 10rnMlo Ind Olhlr nlcl...ry In. If. nus propo~1 NY be sUrlnc.. Our workers ar. fully covered IIY Workmen'l Compensation InlUranc~ lIlt!'drawn by us If nollcelpltd ..Uun , ,- , ' 1 ACCEPTANCE OF'PROPOSAL Tno IbOYI .".... ,_"IClOUon, ond condl.......,4~. lions art uUsfaclory and ar. hereby accePled. You ar . . al SPlClfl~ Paymenl will III mad. II outlln. all. 001'. 1M I" . y, ",-... "7".' EXHIBIT h,'J.. ' ~ .-, 01..... 'ao:..,tsnco,'" ." ,-,,"', "\1. r, , ayment to be m. . as 0 OWlI pso(P. ~(/ ~ (Iollars (S I , ,.,. . .' ,0/ . . d,ys, .. .. .' 13 IlNlu,. ,I . ' ..'--~. ':.---, I verify that the statements in the foregoing pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PaCS 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. '<~Rd ~~ /m; 'C;~NG CHU ! I verify that the statements in the foregoing pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PaCS 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~~- caIN CHON CHU . '<.-""-....~ ~ ~ '-S ~ ~ 1- .". <T> ~~, :a, = ~ ~. 'V ....,.:.. ~ ~ , ; .. . - ::r:: D- '~"< -,., ie' '> Q \J) a I.ri ~ \s) ~ ~ ''-I . ~ !;) ........ . ~ __l ~~ = <2J SHERIFF'S RETURN CO'MClN'r'IEI\L'lll OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNI'Y OF CLMBERLAND In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No. 1022 Civil Term 1994 Complaint in Civil Action Law and Notice Mu Ching Chu and Chin Chun Chu VS B.L. Deitch t/d/b/a B.L. Deitch Home Improvements Robert r.. Fink , RmJffi~ Deputy Sheriff of Cunberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he served the within rnmp1 A; n to in ri\1i' n,....; nn r ~tAJ ;::IlnQ Mnt:i C'9 B.L. Deitch t/d/b/a B.L. upon Deitch Home Improvement" , the defendant, at ) 'Qn o'clock P .M. EST / ~ on the , , day of M:iI,...,..h , 19Mat R7 \Ii ,....nry rhll,..,..h Rn;llrl (;;lIrr1npr~ , Cunberland County, Pennsylvania, by handing to r."y n,:::.; trh wi-fp of R. T.. neitch a true and attested copy of the romp'"int ,n rivil Action Law And Notice, and at the same t~ directing attention to the contents thereof and hpr the "Notice to Plead" endorsed thereon. Sheriff's Costs. Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So answers: 7 ...........~.....,~~~ R. Thanas Kline, Sheriff 14.00 6.72 2.00 22.72 Pd. by Atty. 3-15-94 by $;:6- ~1;L~ Deputy Sheriff Sworn and subscribed to before me this If rj... day of -1JJ.. < ,,~ 19 A.D. () 'I ,-I," (' 111.1'1.. I Prothonotary