The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About96-00291 I I I I " I ~! I I . :-,].\ t~. i ~"I' '1 ':">; ~ , 'I !J j ,1 ~ " l ,; r j :1 ' )1 <:1, I, : l j'; 1 I !.! , , . . , . ~ I .1 I I I . ~ J fA ] I I . ..,. d ~ '" , //- / , ~ 31 - R; ..!} a 'i ,}~Hf0;iU:,:':~',ti,'~:,:=:"" >.. . . . PIANCII .RIBULSlY, Indlvldually and tradlng a. SILlS AND TWlIDS and SO PORTH, IN THI COURT or COIIIION 'LIAS OP CUNBIRLAND CO" 'IHNA, .1a1ntUh I I I I . . . and. . . . I NO, q b - J q { D-~rJ T~Mvv v. UILANDIR/IIDI ASSOCIATIS COR'" CHARLIS UILANDIR, Suee...or-In-Intere.t to U.lander/llde Ae.oelate. Corp" Defendant. JURY TRIAL DIlllANDID PRABCIPB TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue Writs of Summons in the above-captioned civil action upon the following entities and persons: Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 6007 West Pickens chicago, Illinois Charles Uslander Successor-in-interest to Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 6007 West Pickens Chicago, Illinois ..- IT; i~: (-, u.'''. l ',- 1.<1..' I.. ~. I~ r'. ~ 9.f)~ ~GiL" " 'J'. ['" u.. CJ ~ ~ ~ 1 j ~ \tJ,~ ~ :.~-'::: C\ -;) I'> c.:... "'1~~"! ~ ~ VJ ',,1/) I.... m :~l"; <:> V) :;', :fll;j ::J- .' ~ ..".lw... ~ ::-.j ~~: V"t- ,.., .:1 CJ' () . 1./'1 ~ ~ ~~ "~ \l-- ~ "-C.>.:::J- .:JI'A ~t ~~~ .' ., .. . .. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland h....,.,. Prlllulaky, Irdivi",...l1y In! trading _ SUks In! ~ In! 80 Forth ... Court 01 C:onunon PI... UUander/Eide As80ciates QKp., and 0IIr1eB UIllander, Rt......--In-Interest to UUander/Eide As80ciatee Cmporation 6007 _t Picklnl Olio,,,,,,. Illinois No, __!!f!:~_'\_Cj.XU_~I!\.______________ 19____ In _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ ~j.Y...t!:_ !'Rt!fl!l. _:_ ~ ___ _________ To -J,~)-":':'-~!1!!~_~!!I.~_9!tP..__IIfXl..P1Brles Uslanler You are hereby notified that .~-'!'-'!im-~L_JmL_mU:j.A_eJ>>5v_ml_~_lQJ_~_tm:.tIl______________________ the Plain rill ha B commenced an action in -______J~iyJJ.._t.lM._______._____.._____________________ againl! you whlclJ you are required to defend or a delault Judgment may be entered agalnlt you, (SEAL) Date -___ollllUKY_J..'l______________ 19_9fi. ,-_._----~__~I_~~___----_._-----_., Prothonotary By ----a.l.J~J.~b.t!.':-j.l_:.J.l0l:"!f~1;:;;____ Deputy I g J ~I AI J , I ,1 II ~ J ~ ::l .~ · . U I J ~ .~ j~iE~~ J .... 'ii CJ I tl 004 ~J~ I . I .:ilf~ N I \0 . 111 1,1 . id~d l=i I ~ ,... lot _ ..., . " . . :,ll[f\HT'" IILTllhH . Ii,... 'ThTr"IU' IUIlI. CA:;:F. 110: 199(;-00:::11 P CONMCi/IWEAL TH OF PENIISYL V MilA: COUNTY OF CUNBERLAIIO Eli! mI.L.?1\.LF1LAt!~E~..f:J'.__~L._... ...,. _ V5. ~2J.A N l>~B (~~.U'IL~,-~so.r,:..f;PEt. R'-...It! LII~.~;:L!\.l.i n.."_...___....__.,_..___.___, Sher iff 0" Deput y :,1""1" j.f f of CUtl8EHLAND Counly, P('nnsylviJni", "ho bC.inn duly s"o"n acc:ordi.ng to Ia", sC'rvc'd lhe "ithi" n"rn,'d Dl~fEND/.II!TL_ll.~.b1\1illER_.DLIiRJ"f.:;U'i.li<;::c:::.!JI-I.!II.JQ by UnltE'd St.at.w CtntifiE'd Mail postage' prc'pilid, cm t.t,," ._~]DL.._. day of :!.~nu,.,..i~_. _!.~~., ilt .L~00_tlll_12l HOURS, at '2.~Z.NQliIlLL.QJ~~::;T._"H_"_,_,_, . OA.I\J./.IfJJi,_I L5.0.~.O ;2._________._. ._. __.._... m......._. a true and "ttc'oled copy .of the attached ..I'LHJ.I_PF...~:lJl'l!1QWL._.___ The returned n.'CE'lpt cmd "il8 8ignl?d b>' V I..<;::TOR I A._A..__.._.._........___.. on 2/13L.J.~~~}l?, .-.-.. ~--.,,--..~_.._.~--._-.--.__..._._..__._--, _~.c' SherIff's Coats: Docl,et inq Service - Affiduvit Surch'lI"ne CERTIFIED 1iAIL ~'.~n Jll"wnr"',/ .J '. '-' -,..~; ~/// ,'. ~/ J l....<;___~.:......-....~ /.'..-:;--; . -.. ...... ~ / --0: ~ R:' 'Tllo,iiai, 1';nrl(.,--5fii5iT1T""'~'---"'---" 6. Vl~;l . O~~ .00 ::. Q)~1 .., f'~, .~. :J.:. 'n0;5::' -"If(1f'IM, THONA5 .~. tr..L.. 02/.1 b/ 1 :J'Jt1 '"1,:1 CJ't- SWorn and Sllb/3cr-"bpr~ t.o' "?fore.' In" ltghis".~L~. dilY of .,.'(.."'.7....._.....__. -_--.!/._ /\. D. AND HAFER _._~ l. r......{J ...njt.dJ-'-'n~7' J -n ~1-(.,I-fi(j'ritil,.o17 i r:.: C' I. " ':J j:'.: .. t1"" ('': ," 1".- , il.S' I... II.. . I l.).. In .j.' (' / 11 I ii I. I: 'U I ILl '.1. ~.. H. (.j U 1./', . ~ ~ ~ ~ I II J l Ii I i ~ J;~I f" I ~ FRANCES PRIBULSKY, Individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTH, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 96-291 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-In-Interest to Uslander/Eide Aesociates Corp. , Defendants AND NOW, this ORDIR or COURT day of , 1998, the Motion to Consolidate is granted and the above-captioned case is consolidated with those and consolidated by the Order of Court of September 26, 1997. BY THE COURT: J. FRANCES PRIBULSKY, Individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTH, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO, 96-291 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLES US LANDER , Successor-In-Interest to Uslander/Eide Associates Corp., Defendants ~ AND NOW, this ~~ day of February, 1998, a Rule is hereby issued to show cause why this action should not be consolidated with the other actions arising from this collapse pursuant to the Order of Court dated September 26, 1997. Rule returnable within ~d days of services. BY THE COURT: _/ ~A/L J. , / FRANCES PRIBULSKY, Individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTH, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 96-291 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-In-Interest to USlander/Eide Associates Corp. , Defendants PLAINTIPPS' PITITION TO CONSOLIDATI 1. Plaintiffs commenced this action with regard to a building collapse. 2. There are several other actions arising from this same collapse which have been brought before the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 3. Those actions were consolida~ed for the purposes of Pre- Trial proceedings pursuant to the Order of September 26, 1997 of Judge Kevin A. Hess. 4. This action arises out of the same incident or accident and should be consolidated for said purposes. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request this Honorable Court issue an Order conSOlidating this action with those consolidated by the Court's Order of September 26, 1997. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP _._ Hh h,) By: I Dou 'as B. Marcello, Esquire 305 'North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7238 CIRTIPICATI OP SIRVICI AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 199B, I, Cynthia D. Byrd, secretary in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the United States, first class mail, addressed as follows I Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 927 North Forest Oak Park, IL 60302 Charles Us lander 927 Noth Forest Oak Park, IL 60302 ~ eJ_A ,'/} , [J.Id~/u:L Cyn ia D. Byrd '- , NECHANICSBURQ OVEN, INC., et al, PlaintUh V IRENE B. KERMIBCH, et al, Defendant. . I V I . ROTHSCHILD ARCHITECTS, . et al, I Addl. Defendant. I I I rRANCES PRIBULSKY, et al, . Plaintiff. . . V I I IRINB I, KERMISCH, et al, I Defendant. I DEIORAH C. ESPOSITO, et all Plaintiff. . . V I I IRINB I, JtIRNISCH, et al, I Defendant. I MARIA STRICKLER, et al, I Plaintifh I I V I I IR.... It, JtIRNISCH, et al, . Defendant. . JtANl)y CLARK, et a1, I Plaintiff. I I V I I IRENE I. KERMISCH, at a1, . Defendant. I DIBORAH C, ESPOSITO, et a1. Plaintiff I I V I . IRENE B. KERMISCH, at a1 . OCT 0 2 1997 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PINNSYLVANIA 96-0171 CIVIL TERN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 96-0272 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 96-0271 CIVIL TIRN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 95-7385 CIVIL TIRN IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 95-738. CIVIL TIRN IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 95-0311 CIVIL TERM \.... PRANCES PRIBULSKY, et.l I Pl.intiff. I I V I I I~ENE B. KERMISCH, et al I Defend.nt. I CIPRIANO .nd JOSEPHINE I ARENA, et al I Plaintiff. I I V I I BRIDGESTONE, PIRESTONE. I INC., et al I Defendant. I -./ IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS OP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 95-0314 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS 0' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 97-0002 CIVIL TERM IN REI MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ORDER or COURT AND NOW, thi. 26th day of S.ptemb.r, 1997, thi. matter having been o.ll.d for he.ring, the within motion to oon.olidate i. gr.nt.d, and the abov.-oaption.d c.... .re COD.olidated for the PUrpo.e of pretriel proc.eding. without prejUdioe to any .ub..qu.nt motion to oon.olidat. the matter. for trial on the que.tion. of li.bility and/or damage.. By the Court, . 4..J.. Dougla. Maroello, E.quir. Daniel M. Taylor, Jr., E.quir. 'or the Plaintiff. Miohael A. Parrell. E.quire 'or Ker.mi.oh, et .1 Thom.. E. Br.nn.r. E.quire Por Cory Con.truotion Nark D, Brad.h.w, E.quire 'or Sam Cooperman ~ G.rald Berg Lind. A, Clotf.lter. E.quire 'or Hyde, Bert. Davi. ~ Associate. H.... J. I '-' '-'" Deborah A. Cavacini, E.quire For Charle. Klein . Son. Denni. J. Bonetti, ..quire For Smith Roofing Jame. P. Thoma., E.quire For Roth.child Architect. Bryan Ga.ter, ..quire For Victor Smith. Smith Hgt. Group Ibg it: ...f" , ~~ lJJC) . .. - f...'j ("),:1 ..-fr-, ,~.) r , : I, , C:J"I I': " Li <::'1 - ,..... .. ...., :, . 0.... ,_. '-i tJ..'~ l~.) ~:,~. ,l. J ~... .' ,;~I "'~ f'. , t.!;! /"..;.i -I') ~'._';.t. 'J U r'J - r" I" ll. "J C1 ~ t ~ ..... a S "-J ~ ~ ; l Iii ~ ;. ~ ~ E ~ ,l! 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w \ II II II a .. ci .. ~ E i Ii II :> :I i ~ z . v. IN THE COURT OF ~OMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 96-291 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED FRANCES PRIBULSKY, Individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTH, Plaintiffs USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER, Succeesor-In-Interest to USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., Defendants NOTICB YOU HAVI BBBN SUlD 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 attorney and filing in writing with this 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. Court Administrator Cumberland County courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 NOTICIA LB RAN DDlANDO A USTBD IN LA CORTB. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrito e en persona 0 por obogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objectiones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 ostros derechos importantes para usted. 1 . FRANCES PRIBULSKY, Individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTH, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 96-291 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLES US LANDER , Successor-In-Interest to USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., Defendants AMBNDBD COMPLAINT 1. Frances Pribulsky individually and t/a Silks & Tweeds at all times in question owned and operated a business at Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 2. Charles as Uslander Successor-in-interest to Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. which is believed to be a Successor-in- interest to Structomatic, Inc., and/or successor to the product line and/or was at all times relevant hereto engaged in the business of selling, planning, designing, fabricating and/or manufacturing trusses. 3 . Uslander /Eide Associates Corp. is believed to be a Successor-in-interest to Structomatic, Inc., and/or successor to the product line and was at all times relevant hereto engaged in the business of selling, planning, designing, fabricating and/or manufacturing trusses and/or assumed and is responsible for the liabilities and/or purchased the assets of Structomatic and/or continued its business and enterprise. 4. The trusses which supported the roof at 5216-5220 East Simpson Ferry Road, which collapsed on January 21, 1994. 5. Said wood trusses were planned, designed, sold, constructed and/or fabricated by Defendant, Structomatic, Inc. 6. By correspondence dated May 10, 1974, Structomatic, Inc. stated that the trusses were sufficient to support the placement of air conditioning units on the roof. 7. On or about January 21, 1994, the roof of the Windsor Park Shopping Center collapsed, causing substantial damage to Plaintiffs' leasehold and personal property and substantially interrupted the operation of Plaintiffs' business and caused a loss of business income and created a hazard of injury to the occupants of the building. COUNT I I PRODUCT LIABILITY PLAINTIrpS V. USLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. B. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Complaint. 9. Defendant Structomatic, Inc., and/or Uslander Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, has been engaged in the planning, design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans, and/or roof trusses, and related hardware. 10. Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Us lander Eide Assoc. Corp. designed and/or fabricated the roof trusses used in the construction of the subject building. 11. Sometime before January 21, 1994, Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander Eide Assoc. Corp. sold and placed into the 2 stream of commerce drawings, and certain hardware used in the manufacture of roof trusses and/or the actual roof trusses used in the construction of the subject building. 12. Defendant, Structomatic, Inc., and/or Us lander Eide Assoc. Corp. designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells truss plans, trusses, and related hardware, expecting those plans, trusses, and related hardware to reach consumers in the condition in which they are manufactured and sold and knowing, or having reason to know, that they will be used without inspection for defects. 13. On or about January 21, 1994, while the above-described roof trusses and related hardware were being used in a manner which was intended or reasonably foreseeable, specifically, to support other elements of the roof assembly, said roof trusses and related hardware failed, causing and allowing the roof of the subject building to collapse. 14. At the time of their manufacture and sale, the plans, roof trusses and related hardware were not fit for their intended or reasonably foreseeable use and were defective and unreasonably dangerous. 15. The plans, roof trusses and related hardware were defective and unreasonably dangerous in that (a) the diagonal web members were undersized; (b) the web members did not have adequate load capacity to support the minimum code required snow and/or live loads; (c) substandard wood species were used in the diagonal web 3 members; (d) bracing for the diagonal web members was inadequate; (e) the plans, trusses, and hardware contained such other defect(s) as to render the roof trusses inadequate for their intended purpose; (f) failing to design, plan, fabricate and/or specify truss for the building sufficient to support the roof, HVAC units, snow loads in the geographical location of the building, live loads, and/or dead loads; (g) violating the applicable national standards with respect to the plan, design, specification, manufacture, construction and/or fabrication of the trusses; (h) violating Restatement (Second) of Torts ~323; (i) improperly performing its contractual obligation to specify, plan, and design the trusses; (j) improperly performing its contract; (k) improperly performing its professional services as engineer and/or architect of the trusses; and (m) failing to specify, plan, design, construct and/or manufacture the trusses that was safe for the occupants and/or property of others. 16. As the direct and proximate result of the defective condition and/or design of the plans, roof trusses and related hardware, Plaintiffs suffered extensive property damages as well as the substantial interruption in their business and resultant loss of profit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their r I , , I I I ) ! favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under 4 I , I I , the circumstances. COUNT II I NBGLIGBNCB PLAINTIPPS V. t1SLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 17. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 of this Complaint. lB. Plaintiffs' damages were directly and proximately caused by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Structomatic, Inc. , and/or Uslander /Eide Assoc. Corp. generally and in the following particulars: (a) In failing to design or to adopt a safe plan or design or the production, manufacture and installation of the roof trusses in the subject building, which conduct this Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, rendered the roof trusses incapable of withstanding the required roof loads, which defect created a highly dangerous condition to the Plaintiffs as well as to the users and customers of the Plaintiffs' business; (b) In failing to design or adopt a safe plan or design for the production, manufacture and installation of said roof trusses; (c) In carrying out the design and plan for the production, manufacture, and installation of t.he said roof trusses which this Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known would produce a defective and unsafe roof which was unable to sustain acceptable roof loads; (d) In failing to assure a safe and adequate design and plan for the manufacture, assembly, production and installation of said roof trusses; (e) In failing to adequately test or otherwise discover that the said roof trusses were designed, manufactured and installed in such an unreasonable and dangerous manner and under such unreasonable and dangerous conditions as to render the roof unsafe for use; (f) In supplying, installing, or causing to be installed in 5 the premises wooden roof trusses which this Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence ahould have known were defective, inadequate, and inaufficient for the purpose for which they were uaed, (g) In using or allowing the use of an inferior grade of lumber in the production, manufacture and inatallation of the said roof trusses, when this Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known was not the proper grade of lumber; (h) In failing to warn Plaintiffs of the potential dangers resulting from the design, manufacture and inatallation of the defective roof trusses; (i) In failing to design, manufacture, aasemble and install the roof trusses in a professional and workmanlike manner; (j) In failing to provide roof trusses which were adequate and sufficient for the purposes for which they were installed; (k) In failing to accurately calculate the load to which the roof would be subjected; (1) In failing to supply adequate hardware for the manufacture of the roof trusses; (m) Failing to specify, plan and/or design for the bUilding sufficient to support snow loads in the geographical location of the building; (n) Failing to specify, plan, design, construct and/or erect the trusses in a manner so as to provide sufficient and adequate dead load, snow load, and live load; (0) Violating the provisions of applicable national standard with respect to the plan, design, manufacturo, construction, and/or erection of the bUilding; (p) Failing to use reasonable care in performing serv~.ces which care defendant recognized, or should h~ve recognized, as necessary to protect the interests or Plaintiffs and in violation of the provisions of the Restatement of Torts 2d, ~323, (q) Improperly performing its contractual obligation to specify, plan, and design the trusses; 6 (r) Improperly performed its contract; (s) Improperly performed its professional services as engineer and/or architect of the trusses; and (t) Failing to specify, plan, design, manufacture trusses that were safe and/or property of others. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts construct and/or for the occupants and omissions of this defendant, as set forth above, Plaintiffs have sustained damage in that the building collapsed and was consequently demolished, causing extensive real and personal property loss, as well as the lengthy interruption of the Plaintiffs' business and resultant loss of profit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant, in an am~unt in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT III. BREACH OP BXPRBSS AND IMPLIBD WARRANTIBS PLAINTIPP~ v. t1SLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 20. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Complaint. 21. In selling the roof truss plans, roof trusses and related hardware and placing same into the stream of commerce, Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Eslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. expressly and impliedly warranted that the plans, trusses, and related hardware were merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which such items are used and/or that the trusses would be fabricated in a 7 workmanlike manner. 22. Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. breached its aforesaid express and implied warranties because the plans, roof trusses, and related hardware were not merchantable, were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such items are used, were not fit for their intended use and/or were not fabricated in a workmanlike manner. To the contrary, the plans, roof trusses and related hardware were defective in such a manner as to be unreasonably dangerous to the Plaintiffs, which defects were not reasonably discoverable by Plaintiffs at or prior to the date and time of the roof collapse. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid breaches, the roof of the subject building collapsed on or about January 21, 1994, causing Plaintiffs substantial real and personal property loss as well as the substantial interruption of Plaintiffs' business and resultant loss of profits. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT IV. PRODUCT LIABILITY PLAINTIrrS V. CHARLES t1SLANDBR Succ...or in Int.r..t to USLANDER/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 24. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 B through 23 of this Complaint. 25. Defendant Charles Us lander purchased the assets of Uslander/Eide Assoc. COt'p. and/or was a successor in interest. 26. Defendants Charles Uslander continues to operate said predecessors, designing, manufacturing and distributing the same products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. 27. Defendant Charles Us lander assumed and are responsible for the liabilities of Uslander/Eide Corp. 2B. Defendants Charles Us lander successor in interest to Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, has been engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans and/or roof trusses and have engaged in a continuing enterprise of substantially the same business. 29. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments of Count I of their Complaint to the same force and effect as if set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant, Charles Uslander and Patricia Reynolds t/d/b/a Structomatic, Inc. in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. 9 COUNT V. NBGLIGBNCB PLAINTIrpS V. CHARLBS USLANDBR .. Succ...or in Int.r..t of USLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC, CORP. 30. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Complaint. 31. Defendants Charles Uslander purchased the assets of Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. and/or was a successor in interest thereto. 32. Defendants Charles Uslander continue to operate Uslander/Eide Corp., designing, manufacturing and distributing the same products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 33. Defendants Charles Uslander assumed and are responsible for the liabilities of Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 34. Defendants Charles Us lander as successor in interest to Uslander/Eide Corp. has at all times material hereto, have been engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans and/or roof trusses and/or have been engaged in a continuing enterprise. 35. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments of Count II of the Complaint, to the same force and effect as if set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney 10 fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT VIa BREACH OP BXPRBSS AND IMPLIBD WARRANTIBS PLAINTIPPS V. CHARLBS t1SLANDBR Succ...or in Int.r..t to USLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 36. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 of this Complaint. 37. Defendants Charles Us lander purchased the assets of Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. and/or was a successor in interest thereto. 3B. Defendants Charles Us lander continue to operate Structomatic, Inc., and/or Us lander Eide Associates Corp. designing, manufacturing and distributing the same products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 39. Defendants Charles Us lander assumed and are responsible for the liabilities of Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 40. Defendants Charles Uslander as successor in Interest to Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, have been engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans and/or roof trusses and have engaged in a continuing enterprise of substantially the same business. 11 VBRIPICATION I, FRANCES PRIBULSKY, state that I am familiar with the facts and allegations set forth in the foregoing document. I have read the foregoing document and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made pursuant to 1B Pa.C.S. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: ~,.&.1'Ua.1.y, v II, /9?f bn,)L"H..} 4~...(.L.Je~ FRANCES PRIBULSKY v 14 . IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS, CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA FRANCBS PRIBULSKY, Invidividually and t/a SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTH, NO. 96-291 - Civil Term Plaintiffs - v. - USLANDBR/EIDB ASSOCIATBS CORP., and CHARLBS USLANDBR, SucceBBor- In-IntereBt to UBlander/Bide ABBociateB, Corp., DefendantB CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DBMANDBD 1. PRlLINI...Y OBJ.CTIO. OP D.p..D~a laBufficieat aD8cificitv ia a Pleadiaa - Pa. ..C.P. 1021Ia)13) ParagraphB 2 and 3 of the Amended Complaint aver, in concluBory Btyle, that the defendantB are BucceBBorB in intereBt aB more fully eet forth therein. 2. DefendantB are unable to admit or deny theBe concluBionB without Bupportinq factB to Bupport the concluBions. 3. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint iB inBufficiently Bpecific becauBe it fails to aver any factB reqarding the nature, Bubject matter or BpecificB of the alleged BucceBBor in intereBt of three different partieB defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant. reque.t Your Honorable Court to direct Plaintiff. to file a more Bpecific Complaint. 8T.T~R , aR1881. DATE a , /., /,y- .. p BYa l3B E. Market Street PO Box 2588 York PA 17405-258B (7171 854-9506 ~SRTlrICAT. or I.RVles I, LBO B. GRIBBIN, E.quire, hereby certify that I .erved a true and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objection., by fir.t-cla.. mail, po.tage prepaid, on the following I Dougla. B. Marcello, E.quire 305 Front Street PO Box 999 Harri.burg PA 17l0B .T.T~R , ORI88I. OATS I ~/~l1.r BYI re '07390 l38 E. Market Street PO Box 25B8 York PA l7405-2588 (717) 854-9506 I;: (', ,., . . ("; f.; ..~: lul (.: ;-, ..' ( ). Ii: . " t.!... -,- H. . : (1):-, , :'J Fiie .:t :!:} , itl,' I '. (,,:: ,11:,,,': F; ~.: ".1,1.1 1.'.- ~- !::~j~ CJ (",., :,... en <-l z Iii $ ! ; ! ~ ~ ~ ~IIJ IIC~ ! ~ ~ <!! ~ l! II) WHEREFORE, Defendant. reque.t Your Honorable Court to direct Plaintiff. to .et forth .ufficient factB from which Defendant. can determine whether there i. a ba.i. for coneolidation. .'.~R 6 OR1881. DATBI BYI Leo E. Gribbin, E.quire Attorney for Defendant Attorney I.D. .07390 ~ N G ''I " I-" .. f.:; ~"'" ~n M ()...~ ", :r. ~~;t} F-~' ~~~ u. n c.?_~ M -"1:) I.',. N ,'10 .:~ fi,:fi n~ IIHlJ I!:: ....1; :l.lL.\.. ;c "." 11- ro :.; 0 c" U ~ ~ ~~llf J "; · ~ ji~1 J1'i1 I ~ . . FRANCEB PRIBULSKY, Individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTH, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 96-291 CIVIL TERM v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLES UBLANDER, Successor-In-Interest to USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., Defendants NOTIC. YOU HAVK 8.~ SU.D 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 attorney and filing in writing with this 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. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 NOTICIA L. HAH DDCANDO A UST.D ~ LA CORT.. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la demand a y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrito e en persona 0 por obogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objectiones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 ostros derechos importantes para usted. 1 Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER By: Dou'gl 305 rth Front Post Office Box Harrisburg, PA (717) 255-723B Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 FRANCES PRIBULSKY, Individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTH, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COlJRT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 96-291 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-In-Interest to USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., Defendants AImND.D COMPLAINT 1. Frances Pribulsky individually and t/a Silks & Tweeds at all times in question owned and operated a business at Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 2. Charles Us lander as Successor-in-interest to Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. which is believed to be a Successor-in- interest to Structomatic, Inc., and/or successor to the product line and/or was at all times relevant hEreto engaged in the business of selling, planning, designing, fabricating and/or manufacturing trusses. J. Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. is believed to be a Successor-in-interest to Structomatic, Inc., and/or successor to the product line and was at all times relevant hereto engaged in the business of selling, planning, designing, fabricating and/or manufacturing trusses and/or assumed and is responsible for the liabilities and/or purchased the assets of Structomatic and/or continued its business and enterprise. 4. Defendant, Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. purchased the assets of Structomatic, Inc. sometime prior to January 21, 1994. 5. Defendant, Charles Us lander purchased the assets of Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. sometimes prior to January 21, 1994. 6. Defendants Charles Uslander and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. continue to operate Structomatic, Inc., designing, manufacturing and distributing the same products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by Structomatic, Inc. 7. Defendants Charles Uslander and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. assumed and are responsible for the liabilities of Structomatic, Inc. B. Defendants Charles Us lander and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. at all times material hereto, have been engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans and/or roof trusses and have engaged in a continuing enterprise of substantially the same business and/or continuing the same product line. 9. Plaintiff incorporates the averments of this Complaint against Structomatic as if set forth in full. 10. Structomatic designed and/or fabricated the roof trusses which supported the roof at 5216-5220 East Simpson Ferry Road, which collapsed on January 21, 1994. 11. Said wood trusses were planned, designed, sold, constructed and/or fabricated by Defendant, Structomatic, Inc. 12. Defendant Structomatic sold and/or placed in the stream of commerce drawings and/or certain hardware for use in the manufacture of roof trusses and/or which were used in the construction of the roof trusses of the subject building. 2 13. By correspondence dated May 10, 1974, Structomatic, Inc. stated that the trusses were sufficient to support the placement of air conditioning units on the roof. 14. On or about January 21, 1994, the roof of the Windsor Park Shopping Center collapsed, causing substantial damage to Plaintiffs' leasehold and personal property and substantially interrupted the operation of Plaintiffs' business and caused a loss of business income and created a hazard of injury to the occupants of the building. COUNT II PRODUCT LIABILITY PLAINTIPPS V. t1SLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 15. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 14 of this Complaint. 16. Defendant Structomatic, Inc., and/or Uslander Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, has been engaged in the planning, design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans, and/or roof trusses, and related hardware. 17. Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander Eide Assoc. Corp. designed and/or fabricated the roof trusses IIsed in the construction of the subject building. lB. Sometime before January 21, 1994, Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander Eide Assoc. Corp. sold and placed into the stream of commerce drawings, and certain hardware used in the manufacture of roof trusses and/or the actual roof trusses used in the construction of the subject building. 3 19. Defendant, Structomatic, Inc., and/or Us lander Eide Assoc. Corp. designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells truss plans, trusses, and related hardware, expecting those plans, trusses, and related hardware to reach consumers in the condition in which they are manufactured and sold and knowing, or having reason to know, that they will be used without inspection for defects. 20. On or about January 21, 1994, while the above-described roof trusses and related hardware were being used in a manner which was intended or reasonably foreseeable, specifically, to support other elements of the roof assembly, said roof trusses and related hardware failed, causing and allowing the roof of the subject building to collapse. 21. At the time of their manufacture and sale, the plans, roof trusses and related hardware were not fit for their intended or reasonably foreseeable use and were defective and unreasonably dangerous. 22. The plans, roof trusses and related hardware were defective and unreasonably dangerous in that (a) the diagonal web members were undersized; (b) the web members did not have adequate load capacity to support the minimum code required snow and/or live loads; (c) substandard wood species were used in the diagonal web members; (d) bracing for the diagonal web members was inadequate; (e) the plans, trusses, and hardware contained such other defect(s) as to render the roof trusses inadequate for their intended purpose; (f) failing to design, plan, fabricate and/or specify 4 truss for the building sufficient to support the roof, HVAC units, snow loads in the geographical location of the building, live loads, and/or dead loads; (g) violating the applicable national standards with respect to the plan, design, specification, manufacture, construction and/or fabrication of the trusses; (h) violating Restatement (Second) of Torts ~323; (i) improperly performing its contractual obligation to specify, plan, and design the trusses; (j) improperly performing its contract; (k) improperly performing its professional services as engineer and/or architect of the trusses; and (m) failing to specify, plan, design, construct and/or manufacture the trusses that was safe for the occupants and/or property of others. 23. As the direct and proximate result of the defective condition and/or design of the plans, roof trusses and related hardware, Plaintiffs suffered extensive property damages as well as the substantial interruption in their business and resultant loss of profit for which Defendant is strictly liable and/or is liable as to the successor-in-interest to Structomatic. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. 5 COUNT II I NBGLIGBNCB PLAINTIPPS V. USLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 24. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 23 of this Complaint. 25. Plaintiffs' damages were directly and proximately caused by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Structomatic, Inc., and/or Us lander /Eide Assoc. Corp. generally and in the following particulars: (a) In failing to design or to adopt a safe plan or design or the production, manufacture and installation of the roof trusses in the subject building, which conduct this Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, rendered the roof trusses incapable of withstanding the required roof loads, which defect created a highly dangerous condition to the Plaintiffs as well as to the users and customers of the Plaintiffs' business; (b) In failing to design or adopt a safe plan or design for the production, manufacture and installation of said roof trusses; (c) In carrying out the design and plan for the production, manufacture, and installation of the said roof trusses which this Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known would produce a defective and unsafe roof which was unable to sustain acceptable roof loads; (d) In failing to assure a safe and adequate design and plan for the manufacture, assembly, production and installation of said roof trusses; (e) In failing to adequately test or otherwise discover that the said roof trusses were designed, manufactured and installed in such an unreasonable and dangerous manner and under such unreasonable and dangerous conditions as to render the roof unsafe for use; (f) In supplying, installing, or causing to be installed in the premises wooden roof trusses which this Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should 6 have known were defective, inadequate, and insufficient for the purpose for which they were used; (g) In using or allowing the use of an inferior grade of lumber in the production, manufacture and installation of the said roof trusses, when this Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known was not the proper grade of lumber; (h) In failing to warn Plaintiffs of the potential dangers resulting from the design, manufacture and installation of the defective roof trusses; (i) In failing to design, manufacture, assemble and install the roof trusses in a professional and workmanlike manner; (j) In failing to provide roof trusses which were adequate and sufficient for the purposes for which they were installed; (k) In failing to accurately calculate the load to which the roof would be subjected; (1) In failing to supply adequate hardware for the manufacture of the roof trusses; (m) Failing to specify, plan and/or design for the building sufficient to support snow loads in the geographical location of the building; (n) Failing to specify, plan, design, construct and/or erect the trusses in a manner so as to provide sufficient and adequate dead load, snow load, and live load; (0) Violating the provisions of applicable national standard with respect to the plan, design, manufacture, construction, and/or erection of the building; (p) Failing to use reasonable care in performing services which care defendant recognized, or should have recognized, as necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiffs and in violation of the provisions of the Restatement of Torts 2d, ~323; (q) Improperly performing its contractual obligation to specify, plan, and design the trusses; (r) Improperly performed its contract; (s) Improperly performed its professional services as engineer and/or architect of the trusses; and 7 Failing to specify, plan, design, manufacture trusses that were safe and/or property of others. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts (t) construct and/or for the occupants and omissions of this defendant, as set forth above, Plaintiffs have sustained damage in that the building collapsed and was consequently demolished, causing extensive real and personal property loss, as well as the lengthy interruption of the Plaintiffs' business and resultant loss of profit. 27. Defendant is liable based upon its negligence and/or as successor-in-interest of Structomatic. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT 1111 BREACH OP BXPRBSS AND IMPLIBD WARRANTIBS PLAINTIPPS V. t1SLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 2B. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint. 29. In selling the roof truss plans, roof trusses and related hardware and placing same into the stream of commerce, Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. expressly and impliedly warranted that the plans, trusses, and related hardware were merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which such items are used and/or that the trusses would be fabricated in a workmanlike manner. B 30. Defendant Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. breached its aforesaid express and implied warranties because the plans, roof trusses, and related hardware were not merchantable, were not fit for the ordinary purposeJ for which such items are used, were not fit for their intendod use and/or were not fabricated in a workmanlike manner. To the contrary, the plans, roof trusses and related hardware were defective in such a manner as to be unreasonably dangerous to the Plaintiffs, which defects were not reasonably discoverable by Plaintiffs at or prior to the date and time of the roof collapse. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid breaches, the roof of the subject building collapsed on or about January 21, 1994, causing Plaintiffs substantial real and personal property loss as well as the substantial interruption of Plaintiffs' business and resultant loss of profits. 32. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff based upon its breach of warranty and/or as successor in interest to Structomatic. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. 9 COUNT IVI PRODUCT LIABILITY PLAINTIPPS V. CHARLBS USLANDBR 8ucc...or in Int.r..t to t1SLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 33. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Complaint. 34. Defendant Charles Uslander purchased the assets of Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. and/or was a successor in interest. 35. Defendants Charles Us lander continues to operate said predecessors, designing, manufacturing and distributing the same products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. 36. Defendant Charles Us lander assumed and are responsible for the liabilities of Uslander/Eide Corp. 37. Defendants Charles Us lander successor in interest to Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, has been engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans and/or roof trusses and have engaged in a continuing enterprise of substantially the same business. 3B. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments of Count I of their Complaint to the same force and effect as if set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant, Charles Us lander and Patricia Reynolds t/d/b/a Structomatic, Inc. in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney 10 fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT V I NBGLIGBNCB PLAINTIPPS V. CHARLBS t1SLANDBR .. Suce...or in Int.r..t of USLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 39. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 of this Complaint. 40. Defendants Charles Uslander purchased the assets of Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. and/or was a successor in interest thereto. 41. Defendants Charles Uslander continue to operate Uslander/Eide Corp., designing, manufacturing and distributing the same products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 42. Defendants Charles Uslander assumed and are responsible for the liabilities of Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 43. Defendants Charles Us lander as successor in interest to Uslander/Eide Corp. has at all times material hereto, have been engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans and/or roof trusses and/or have been engaged in a continuing enterprise. 44. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the averments of Count II of the Complaint, to the same force and effect as if set forth at length herein. 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendant, in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, together with prejudgment interest, costs, delay damages, attorney fees and other such relief as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT VII BREACH OF BXPRBSS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIBS PLAINTIPFS V. CHARLBS USLANDBR Succ...or ~n Int.r..t to t1SLANDBR/BIDB ASSOC. CORP. 45. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 of this Complaint. 46. Defendants Charles Us lander purchased the assets of Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. and/or was a successor in interest thereto. 47. Defendants Charles Us lander continue to operate Structomatic, Inc., and/or Us lander Eide Associates Corp. designing, manufacturing and distributing the same products previously designed, manufactured and distributed by Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 48. Defendants Charles Uslander assumed and are responsible for the liabilities of Structomatic, Inc. and/or Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. 49. Defendants Charles Uslander as successor in Interest to Uslander/Eide Assoc. Corp. at all times material hereto, have been engaged in the design, manufacture, and sale of roof truss plans 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this &JLjt1 day of LfJ' I H/.'~J.IJ , 199B, I, Cynthia D. Byrd, secretary in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby certify that I sent a truo and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following: Michael A. Farrell, Esquire Marshall & Farrell, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite lOB Harrisburg, PA 17110-9347 (Attorney for Kermisch, Kleiman, Brown, Cohen & Lipitz) David S. Brown Enterprises 9183 Reisterstown Road Owing Mills, MD 21117 David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd. 9183 Reisterstown Road Owing Mills, MD 21117 Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC One South Market Square Building 213 Market Street Post Office Box 1248 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Attorney for Pyramid, Cooperman and Berg) Structomatic, Inc. c/o Helen Eagle 233 South Wacker Drive BOOO Sears Tower Chicago, IL 60606-6404 Charles Uslander, t/d/b/a Structomatic and as successor-in-interest to Structomatic, Inc. 927 North Forest Oak Park, III 60302 patricia Reynolds t/d/b/a Structomatic and as Successor-in-interest to 608 E. 92nd Street Chicago, III 60624 Dennis J. Bonetti, Esquire Peters & Wasilefski 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Donald B. Smith, Inc.) Mechaniasburg Oven, Inc. 5 Highgate Road Ligonier, PA 15658 Capitol Ovens, Inc., in its own right and as Successor-in-interest to Mechanicsburg Oven, Inc. The Johnston House HC64 Box 21 Latrobe, PA 15650-9808 Bryan Gaster, Esquire John Churchman Smith & Associates 14 West Second Street Post Office Box 229 Media, PA 19063 (Attorneys for Smith) James Kutz, Esquire McNees, Wallace & Nurick 100 pine Street Post Office Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Attorneys for Firestone/Bridgestone) Deborah Cavacini, Esquire Caldwell & Kearns 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Klein) Robert Ray, Esquire Burns, White & Hickton 2400 5th Avenue Place 120 4th Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3001 (Attorney for Rothschild) 03/2~/199: 09:33 717:919o~8 (s: E',..=....J~.;::.~S F~f-Vt FAoE 01 ~.ac ~l;t (l81~' ~~tnl TMI)"'ti':', "'100,',' "'I:, 7l7.::'--: ;~", T,;., 7l ~'Cll'MC~ "':'~EIOl ~R!F~CA'l'!OH I, FRANCIS PRISur,IlKV, f1tQt~ that r .un !amiliar with the facta and allegatlnn5 ARt forth 1" thR for~goin9 docyment, I have read the (0:e901n9 do~ument and h.~e~y attirm that it i. true and corrOilct to the bllt ot '~y pl~r.ona' knowledgl, intormation and belie" Thll Verification 11 "'ade p\l&"luant to 18 Pa.C.S. .4'04 rel.t1n9 to un.worn talelflcation to luthor1tie.. DATED I m~ .J~ IfY.._ .._, . ':f~~4~~~:t.~ FR1~CIS PRIBU~SKY - '1 . FRANCES PRIDULSKY.lndivldually and tmding as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTI/. Plaintiff v. IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMIlERLANDCOUNTY. PA NO.96-291 CIVIL TERM USLANDERlElDE ASSOCIATES CORP.. and CI/ARLES USLANDER. Successor-In-Interestto Uslander/Eide Associates Corp.. Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LA W JURY TRIAL DEMANDED <''',r''"''':;);'~ . ',',' ,.. . P' i:,"'.")!;:i' . " ", '...........;,~III,," 'IO.......afCa..t"-!',iI'.,';W?;;"" >",'''''' "',," " .. '. . ,- . "_"r"--'!'i'""." l-'~'Y" ,."..,:~}.,~ I. 2. 3. Plaintiff. 4. Litigation In those actions is proceeding, with a'lluments recently having been held on September 28, 200 I. 5. Plaintiff had filed a Petilion to Consolidate these actions wilh the other aetions. 6. A Rule was Issued to which Defendants tiled Objections. 7. Contemporaneous with the tiling of this ObJeetion. the Plaintiff Is requesting the Court consider the Rule to consolidate this action with the other Windsor Park actions presently pending before this Court. Plaintiff obJects to the striking ofthls case and requests that It be kept active. This action arises out of the collapse of the Windsor Park Shopping Center. Other actions have been consolidated arising out of the same accident with regard to the 8. Additionally. there are outstanding I'reliminary Objections of Plaintiff in this malter. 9. Contemporary with Ihe filing of Ihis ObJection, Plaintiff is listing those Objections for a'llument. WHEREFORE. Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court refuse to strike this action as it is pending eonsolidation and Preliminary Objections. Respectfully submllled. THOMAS, THOMAS" HAFER, LLP ~.~ By: ug. 10. Esquire 305 nt Street I/nlTisburg. Pennsylvnnin 17108 (717) 25-7238 Allomey tor ('lninlilYs ~ Dnte: October 23. 200 I CF-RTIFlCATE OF SF-RVICF- AND NOW, this 23'd day of October, 2001, I hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the lbregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following: Daniel M. Taylor, Jr., Esquire Jonut Grell. Creehan " Gerace. LLP 411 7' Ave., Suite 1200 Pillsburgh, PA 15219-1905 (Counsel for Mechanicsburg Oven) Dennis J. Bonelli, Esquire Peten " Wa.lIe1ald 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Donald B. Smith Roofing) James P. Thomas, Esquire Buna. White" Hlekton 2400 Fifth Avenue Place 120 Fifth Avenue Pillsburgh, PA 15222-3001 (Counsel for Rothschild Architects) Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldbe.... Kltzmln " Shlpmln. P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1268 (Counsel for Cory Construction) Howard Kauffman, Esquire John Genrd Devlin" Alloe. Suite 260 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 I (Counsel for Charles Klein & Sons) Marc T. Levin, Esquire Flrrell" Ricci. P.C. 4423 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Defendants Kermisch, Kielman, Cohen, Lipitz, Windsor Park Shopping Centers, and David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd.) .,. .,. C, ..,.. ~r. .", \;~ , ~: ~;... ;~~~ II'C..... " ':\.: <-)~'- ~;'- ~ 't'\ C'- I \...:j 1.\1, .t,_. ,') . 'ill , .1," N . _ 1 ;~~ i':' l,:';,r 1.._'.' r- \.\1l1 '-' I'l'~ i_. c;.l .:~ II. ::) <J t.:_' () " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 23'd day of October. 2001, I hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the s.une in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following: Daniel M. Taylor, Jr., Esquire Jone.t Grell, Creeh.n " Ger.ee, LLP 411 71 Ave., Suite 1200 Pillsburgh, PA 15219-1905 (Counscl for Mechanicsburg Oven) Dennis J. Bonelli, Esquire Peten" W..UeI.ki 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counscl for Donald B. Smith Roofing) Jwnes P. Thomas, Esquire Bum., WhIte" Hlekton 2400 Fifth Avenue Place 120 Fifth Avenue Pillsburgh, PA 15222-3001 (Counscl for Rothschild Architects) Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire Goldbe..., K.tzmen " ShIpmen, P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Box 1268 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1268 (Counscl for Cory Construction) Howard Kauffman, Esquire John Genrd Devlin" Alloe. Suite 260 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Charles Klein & Sons) Marc T. Levin, Esquire Ferrell" Ricci, P.C. 4423 North Front Street Harrisburg, P A 17110 (Counsel for Defendants Kermisch. Kleiman, Cohen, Lipitz, Windsor Park Shopping Centers, and David S. Brown Enterprises, Ltd.) Timothy McMahon, Esquire Menlla", Dennehey, Wamel', Colemaa .. Gouin 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, P A 171 0 t (Counsel for Bert Davis Associates) Stuart S. Smith, Esquire John Churchman Smith" Associates 117-119 North Olive Street Media. P A 19063 (Counsel for Mechanicsburg OvenlVictor Smith) James Kutz, Esquire 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, P A 17108 (Counsel for Firestone/Bridgestone) Samuel L. Andes, Esquire S2S North Twelfth Street Post Office BOK 168 Lemoyne. PA 17043 (Counsel for Ronald Raffensperger) By: ~_. Respectfully :104848,1 [:: 0 G ~~ (" .". .. ,. J., c.., i:if{ I I.' " . ~i:\' :r: ,~.. ;'.'::J '.: I ~ ~. .....~ ,I.; ~ ,aJ ;'f,) t':;:'. '" . 'It; 'l,... -.Jl, 1-- " '}ll IL . Ll 1:/,,- .'. 0 1,[, :5 u f.";> () " . , OCT 2 9 2001~\~ FRANCES PR1811I.SKY.lndlvldually and lmdlnll IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PI.EAS as SII.KS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTlI. CUMBERI.AND COUNTY. PA Plaintiff v. NO. 96-291 CIVIl. TERM lJSI.ANDERlElDE ASSOCIATES CORP.. and CIVIl. ACTION - I.A W CI/ARI.ES USI.ANDER. Succcssor-In-Intcrcslto Uslander/Elde Associates Corp.. JURY TRIAl. DEMANDED Defendants AND NOW. this ~ day of (Q, ~~t ..I.l( ,) .2001. it is hc;~by ORDERED that a erence with the Court is schedulL't/ for the 'TtJ) day of ~t'IILtl. . 2001 in (, R -li- J.I at J, 5{") ~.M. in the Courthouse ofCumberlWld County. nv THE COURT: J. ~~ Q::"" \';/ ";",, "-J ~ FRANCES PRIBULSKY, Individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTH, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ., " .....) NO. 96-291 CIVIL TERM .,oJ '.'1 -" 1 . , , ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED r- " '. I , . , , 0', "j o . ., "..' :,'0'1 , ,.it 0 ::1 ,. -. :1 ,:;, .';, USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-In-Interest to Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. , Defendants PLAINTIFFS' P~ITION TO CONSOLIDATE 1. Plaintiffs commenced this action with regard to a building collapse. 2. There are several other actions arising from this same collapse which have been brought before the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 3. Those actions were consolidated for the purposes of Pre- Trial proceedings pursuant to the Order of September 26, 1997 of Judge Kevin A. Hess. 4. This action arises out of the same incident or accident and should be consolidated for said purposes. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request this Honorable Court issue an Order consolidating this action with those consolidated by the Court's Order of September 26, 1997. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: I 8~ Dou".'as B. Marcello, Esquire 305 North Front Street Post Office Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 1710B-0999 (717) 255-7238 CERTIrICATE or SERVICE AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 199B, I, Cynthia D. Byrd, secretary in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same in the United States, first class mail, addressed as follows: Ualander/Eide Associates Corp. 927 North Forest Oak Park, IL 60302 Charles Uslander 927 Noth Forest Oak Park, IL 60302 ~ tI! OJ ",7 , [J. B;hd.... Cyn . ia D. Byrd .. '-.. HECHANICSBURG OVEN, INC., I et ai, I Plaintiff. I I V I I IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al, I Defendant. I I V I I ROTHSCHILD ARCHITECTS, I et al, I Addl. Defendant. I I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 96-0171 CIVIL TERM I FRANCES PRIBULSKY, et al, I Plaintiffs I I V I I IRENE B. KERMIBCH, et al, I Defendant. I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 96-0272 CIVIL TERM DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et all Plaintiffs I I V I I IRENE B. KIRMIBCH, et al, I Defendant. I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 96-0271 CIVIL TERM HARIA STRICKLER, et al, I Plaintiffs I I V I I IRENE B. KERMIBCH, et a1, I DefendantB I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 95-7385 CIVIL TIRM KANDY CLARK, et al, I PlaintiffB I I V I I IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al, I Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 95-7384 CIVIL TERM DEBORAH C. ESPOSITO, et all Plaintiff I I V I I IRENE B. KERMISCH, et al : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 95-0311 CIVIL TERM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FRANCES PRIBULSKY, et al Plaintiffs NO. 96-29l - Civil Term I I I I I I I I I I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - v. - USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLBS USLANDER, SucceSBor- In-Intere.t to Uslander/Eide A..ociate., Corp., DefendantB CIVIL ACTION - LAW OIJ.CTION 8Y D..NDANTS TO PETITION TO CONSOLIDATE DefendantB reBpectfully object to the conclusory nature of the Petition to Consolidate thiB caBe with otherB. The Petition fails to .et forth .ufficient facts to permit the defendantB to agree on whether there iB a common queBtion of fact or law, or whether the matter iB needleBBly repetitive, prejudicial, or capable of creating jury confuBion. ..~ r. '. ,",: I ....'..'1 ,.,. ". ... .~ ,".~..1 CIRTlrICAT. 0' ..RVIC. I, LEO E. GRIBBIN, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing OBJECTION TO PETITION TO CONSOLIDATE, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the followingl Dougla. B. Marcello, Esquire 305 Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg PA 17l0B 8T.TLIR . ORI881N DATE I BYI Lso E. Gribbin, E.quire Attorney for Defendant Attorney 1.0. *07390 13B E. Market Street PO Box 25BB York PA 17405-25BB (717) 854-9506 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW,Ihis 23'd day ofOctobcr. 2001. 1 hereby certlly that 1 sent a true and correct copy of the foregohlg document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail. first class, postage prepaid. to the following: Daniel M. Taylor. Jr., Esquire Jon"~ Grelll. Creehan & Geraee, LLP 411 71 Ave.. Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PAl S219.190S (Counsel for Mechanlcsburg Oven) Dennis J. Bonetti, Esquire Peten & Wa.Uef.k1 2931 North Front Street Harrlsburg.PA 17110 (Counsel for Donald B. Smith Roofing) James P. Thomas. Esquire Burn.. WhIte & Hlckton 2400 Fifth Avenue Place 120 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PAl S222-300 I (Counsel for Rothschild Architects) Thomas E. Brenner. Esquire Goldbe.... Katzmen & Shipman. P.C. 320 Market Street P.O. Bo" 1268 Harrisburg. PA 17108-1268 (Counsel for Cory Construction) Howard Kauffman, Esquire John Gerard Devlin & A..oc. Suite 260 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Charles Klein & Sons) Marc T. Levin. Esquire Farrell & RIcci. P.C. 4423 North Front Street Harrisburg, I' A 1711 0 (Counsel for Detimdants Kermlsch, Kleiman. Cohen. Lipltz. Windsor Park Shopping Centers, und David S. Brown Enterprises. LId.) I i \' I ~ I 1 "- C') ~ h: . . ~l: .... .. d.J..r 'I.'~' ! ,"': t. )"--:: ( , ! ~'l: .... : L._ ,:-,':j ,0 t . .;) ...., , ,.oJ .~! .,~' I'." ". ;~.. 1" ~, , Jltl ~. I U t ~~ n.. i- c.: H. ~:l t... L:'J '-' FRANCES PRIBULSKY, Individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS and SO FORTI I, Plaintiff IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON Pl.EAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYl.V ANIA 1)6-29) CIVIl. CIVIl. ACTION - l.A W vs. USLANDERlElDE ASSOCIATES CORP., and CHARLES USLANDER, Successor-In-Interest to Uslander/Elde Associates Corp., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDEr ~ C< 6') ,I . t- ') _1 .1 (t ! ((' tit iA (" iJ'(.i() IN RE: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ORDER AND NOW, this It!' dllY llfDecember, 200l,IIt the request of counsel, hearing in the above captioned mailer set for December 7,2001, is continued generally. BY THE COURT, Douglas Marcello, Esquire jhrp.J ~.f) . For the Plaintiff L. fYl Leo E. Gribbin, Esquire /1.. /1' 0 I { A Y.:; For the Defendants If :rlm FRANCES PRIBULSKY, SILKS AND TWEEDS AND SO FORTH, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW USLANDER/EIDE ASSOCIATES CORP. CHARLES USLANDER, DEFENDANTS 96-291 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2001, in the case of Pribulsky versus Uslander/Eide Associates Corp. at No. 96-291 Civil Term, it appearing that docket activity has recently occurred in the case, and that the case is stricken from the purge list and shall remain active. By the Court, Douglas B. Marcello, Esquire 305 N. Front St. Harrisburg, PA 17101 For the Plaintiff Leo E. Gribbin, Esquire 13B E. Market St. York, PA 17405 For the Defendant fl.~>ll\.~ (... A\ .0' \\.w pcb Q t';" n r.. -II ;;:. - mi -urn ~.~ ',. 011'1 _I.: I ,"t":t. .~T' roo -o~l: .Il.W l/~.' ;: II) ,t 2.6 ." -'1' ~:(':' ~... . t ::-.: i_;~ ~-t(') N ~~II ~'('". .. -; ,. :':J fJl ~ ... ,p 0<; 7~& /