HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-00768
"
"
,'I
I"
I ~ J
; ~
, I
I~ ;
~
J
,
,
il
I
!, ,,_J;,
,
'If
" ,
I,
"
If
"
"
,'t
"
"
-1'-,1
'iI
,1
"
q
!.
I, I
"
II)
,
, ,
d
, .. ., , "
LI ,
, , ,
;1' , ,
,
, .
"
, , ,
" II
"
I' ',I
,
,
,
,il;
Ii';
I,
,
1..1
'I
,
, '
Lj
()O
~
r-
'II
,1
"
" ,
" d
,
,
, ,
I' 'I
,
, ,
"
".1 " "j
, Ii ,
1'\
II,
I
"
...5
CTI
)
~I
I,
Ii
I <\1,
,
II.
,
~j
-.)
, ~:~,
.l.~.ll - _ i
"
"
"i,
'I,
,-I,
,
"'".'\
>\ ! )
'I '
"
j.'I,
"
j"
().
IAUY A. 1lIlOIITIAL, .'QUIU
'a. 'up~". court I.D. Mo. 55672
UYIIOLD. laVA.
101 .iD. Itnat
.oat Offlc. lox 932
.arri.burg, 'aoo.ylyaDia 17101-0932
T.l.pbooa.
'a..
(717) 236-3200
(717) 236-6863
AttO~D.Y for 'l.iDtlff.
ITATe 'ARM IIU'l'IIIIL AUTONOIIILIl 1M.. CO.
.. Illbrog.. of IllIRY Mc'JIAIt
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. '/& ](" ~ (I, Ill' l "..),1
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Ii'\.'
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY as Subrogee I
of MARY McPEAK,
Plaintiff
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and
BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAl. DEMANDED
NOTICE
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 eerved by entering a written appearance personally or
by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or
objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned
that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered 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 TAIl THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCI. IP YOU DO NOT
RAVI A LAWYIR OR CANNOT APPORD ONE. GO TO OR TELIPHONE THE OFFICI
SIT FORTH BILOW TO rIND O~ WHERE YOU CAN GET L.mmL HELP.
Court Administrator
4th Floor, Cumberland county Courthouse
Carliale, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 240-6200
I'!Q.TI C IA
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. 8i usted quiere
defender8e de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguiente8,
u8ted tiene viento (20) dias de plazo al partir de le fecha de la
demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe prescntar una apariencia
e8crita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en
forma escrita sus defensas 0 BUS objectiones alas demandas en
bu.ine._ located at Poet Office Box 448, Route 61, Mount Carmel,
Northumberland county, pennsylvania, 17851.
4. At all times relevant hereto, Mary McPeak (ilKs.
McPeak"), who il now deceased, wae insured under a state Farm
automobile insurance policy, Policy No. 6499-173-A27-38C.
5. on or about August 17, 1991, Ms. McPeak purchased
a 1991 Ford ~.cort, bearing Vehicle Identification No.
1FAPP14J9MW102831, which is manufactured by Ford (lithe vehicle"),
from Bullseye Ford.
6. At about the time of the purchase of the vehicle,
Ford gav. to Ms. McPeak a written warranty for the vehicle (lithe
Ford Warranty"). state Farm is not in possession of a copy of
the Ford Warranty, but believes and, therefore, avers that Ford
and/or Bullseye Ford are in possession of same.
7. On or about August 22, 1994, at approximatoly 5100
p.m., Ms. McPeak parked the vehicle and shortly thereafter, smoke
starting coming out from beneath the dashboard as a result of a
defect and/or malfunction with the vehicle's electrical wiring
and associated circuitry.
8. As a relult of the fire, state Farm, as MI.
McPeak'1 insured, was required to pay Ms. McPeak $1,926.74.
9. Following the accident, a demand was made upon
Ford to reimburse state Farm for the damages caused by the fire,
but to date, it hae refused to do so.
I'
.. '
COUJf'1' II
u.,axa TRADI PRACTICI8 AND CON8UMIR PROTICTION LAW VIOLATION.
8TATI 'ARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILI IN8URANCI COMPJdIY
V.
Bull.eve .ord AND .ORD KOTOR COMPANY
15. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 14
inclusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein ae if set
forth in their entirety.
16. Ford and/or Bullseye Ford committed unfair or
deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Act of November 24, 1976,
P.L. 1166 No. 260 Sl, 73 Pa. Cons. stat. SS201-2 ~ ~. by inter
AliA: (a> failing to comply with the terms of the Ford Warranty
given to Ms. McPeak at, prior to or after the agreement for the
purchase of the vehicle; (b) making repairs, improvements, or
replacements on the vehicle of a nature or quality inferior to or
below the standard of that agreed to in writing; and (c) engaging
in other fraudulent conduct which created a likelihood of
confusion or of misunderstanding.
17. As a result of Ford's and/or Bullseye Ford's
violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law', state Farm sustained damages in the amount of $1,926.74.
18. The Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law authorizes the award of treble damages and
attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, state Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company demands judgment in its favor and against
Detendants, Bullseye Ford and Ford Motor Company in the amount ot
$1,926.74, plus interest, costs, treble damages, attorney's fees
and any and all other relief this Court deems proper and just.
COUNT III
AUTOMOBILE LBHON LAW VIOLATIONS
STATE rARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
V.
Bull.eve rord AND rORD MOTOR COMPANY
19. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 18
inolusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as if set
torth in their entirety.
20. Ford and/or Bullseye Ford committed violations ot
the Automobile Lemon Law, Act of March 2B, 19B4, P.L. 150, No.
28, S1, 73 Pa. Cons. stat. S1951 ~ ~., by, ~X AliA: (a)
failing to repair or correct at no cost to Ms. McPeak, a
nonconforming part of the vehicle which substantially impaired
the use, value or safety of the vehicle during Ford's warranty;
(b) failing to replace the vehicle with a comparable motor
vehicle of equal value; and/or (c) failing to refund to Ms.
McPeak the full purchase price of the SUbject vehicle, plus all
collateral charges.
I
I
f
I
,
f
I
21. All a result of Ford's and/or BUllseye Ford's
violation of the Lemon Law, State Farm sustained damages in the
amount of $1,926.74.
22. The Automobile Lemon Law authorizes the award ot
I'
,
reasonable attorney's fees and all court costs.
WHERBPORE, Plaintitt, stat. Farm Mutual Automobile
In.uranae company demande judgment in hie tavor and againlt
Detendante, Ford Motor company and Bulleeye Ford in the amount ot
$1,926.74, pluI lnterest, costs, treble damagee, attorneY'e tee.
and any and all other rellef this Court deems proper and juet.
COUIfT IV
)lIGLIGIHCI
'TAT. 'ARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE IHSURANCE COMPANY
V.
'ORD MOTOR COMPANY AND BULLSEYE I'ORD
23. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 22
inclusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as if set
forth in their entirety.
24. Ford and/or Bullseye Ford were negligent in that
they, their employees, servants and/or agents, individually or in
concert, inter AliA: (a) manufactured and/or sold a vehicle with
defectively manufactured parts; (b) failed to properly inspect
the subject vehicle prior to the subj~ct accident; (c) tailed to
properly correct tho malfunction and/or defect in the vehicle,
which caused the sUbject fire; (e) failed to otherwise prevent
the subject fire; (f) failed to repair or replace the vehicle;
and/or (g) failed to refund to Ms. McPeak the purchase price of
the vehicle and otherwise compensate her for the damages.
25. As a result of the negligence of Ford and/o~
Bullseye Ford, state Farm sustained damages in the amount of
$1,926.74.
"
,I' "
" "
" ,-I"
, , ,
, "
,-!
'f
"
,
,
.'
,I
", , ,
, ,
" ,
,
',1
"
" ,
:,
"
,
.1,1
ii,
,
'I)
, ,
u
,
",
"
HI
"
,
"
1
I d i
ii'
IJ "
,
"
,
"
"
0;\' '
~~~'
-
I..l.J
\j,j
"
'1
"
"
"
It
" "
Hi
,
j) ,
'I; ,
,
.
"
\.N
'~
~
,
"
'I
"i
Ii
.'
!
,
"
~
-,
(',
,~J
v,\
-j
c
i'
"
"
'J',j'l
"
,
"I
~.~,
,.~,:~~/
~
c...::
,
,
~
(). c:-.....,
, , '
,
,
,
~
,
"
"
iI
"
"
"
"
'/
,
"
('
,
,
,
"
,
,
,
.
I,
) ~\ - I
to,'H, ;
.~ . . 'I"
't"
"
"
I;~) ; I;.~.
t.
,l"
I,"
1,1
(1
Ll
I '~l
I..,'
,
"".
~
1,1,
,
'1:1
, ,
,
" ,
, , "
(J
,.
" ,
, 11 ,
,
" ,. ,
,
,
,
-'1
H
".\~~
'1
,I .
;'I:.q .....-
." 'j
"'1,'.1'
,',.1
I ':1 ~l\
. ~')
t')!ll
,,1
2l
-
J'-..)
ooot'".,!
~:'l
,. '
t.)
W
"
,
,
"
I'
I,
,It'
),1. I';
',I :\
1,1 L
111
,
rj
"
"
,1'
II,
.,
"
"
,
1;1'
,"
, ,
, ,
"
,
,
11:1
"
"
'1
I; t'
,
"
, "
d'
.1,,1
",
,
,
,
1,"lllf!
j'l,
"
"
"
.1
',1,1;
"
. ,
",
,
,
,
"
I-I
'1
, ,
,
, , ,
,
"
, " ,
,
" I,
"i
I ,
"
, , "
, , , ,
,
"
Ii , ,
,
, ,
"'I ,
"
,
,
d'l
'Ii
,
"
1',
"
"
, ,
'I
,
,
,
,.
"
" ,
, ,
.11 I 1'1
I
,
,
,
.,
.",
,
,j'I'1
'J!;
"
"
"
'"
"
"
I,
,:)
,
,
"
"
,
,
<I
,
/,
',' , ,
I' .,
,
I ~ I , ,
, -II
" ,
, , -I,
:, I'll
"
I' 'I
1,\
I' .,
"
,
,
,
') Ij
"
I
1 Ii
01;'1
,
'"
" ,
',1"
.,
1/1'/1
, '
I llj'!
,- \
J','I
I;'
:,
',,-,i
,:'1
,
"
",
II I'
\,
.,
"
"
"
" "
, , ,
,
,
it
" , I,\! I
, , "
,
'1
. I...
"I! ~~
""'11'
I'~' "I';:
i . ~ ,.._
~ II':
011'
,..'- .
r,7.:l"
~:~ t'r'
,'"-.,
f.;: r._~,
iii 1.",
"I "-,.'
"-J
l~
,
"
,
,
1.1
"
'1
"
,,'
, "
, '
,,,
..'r,1
.n
'~l;
\~'j
J"o,)
,\,Ill
1-"
10.':
'1
1;1,
"
'.
, ,
"
, ,
,
,
~r
,ft'"
(::I
'.-')
h1
-\
:.\~~.ll '
., ,I
,
'!'1~
".,'
~jr
,,~
;'1)'
"
-,
"
",
"
:,
,
"1,'
,
. '
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, as sub~ogee
of MARY McPEAK,
1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
1 OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
I
1
1
I NO. 96 - 768 CIVIL TERM
I
1
I' CIVIL ACTION - LAW
1 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff
vs.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and
BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC.,
Defendants
9ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
DAVID F. WILK, Esquire, of Casale & Bonner, P. C., Attorney
for Defendant, Bullseye Ford Mercury, Inc., hereby certifies that
a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections has been served, Yfon
Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire, Attorney for plaintiff, this ~ day
Rb,
of
, 1996, by placing a certified true and correct
copy of same in the United States mail at Williamsport,
Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
, ,
BARRY A. KRONTHAL, ESQUIRE
REYNOLDS & HAVAS
101 PINE STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 932
HARRISBURG, PA 17108-0932
::~AL~~~'E;i/.~;/
(~.-../<:..., / I/~//
'{;;/ "" . ..f!."f'/ J ~ '('
DAVID F. WILK, Esquire
Attorney I. D. No. 6~992
Attorney for Defendants
Concord Towers - Second Floor
10.1 West Third Street
Williamsport, FA 17701
Telephone I (717) 326-7044
I '
( ,.""1 f ,~ II' lNNt' I~ I' ~ "11l)IHll' )', I~ ")t)N',.- I Il)'~" '" I."W '.,1' f. ,1"'0 1'111l.l1~ cIlf'l( '1I~f) l'jWr H", t,}\ WI!',T l"flltU) <; I'Ilf:f ,
WII j I"M',.'ql~ t 1'/1 \/ '.)1
"
, ,
, " "
" In
, ,
,I
, ,,', ii,
",
" " , I
\,! ,
" , , ,
, , "
i\
'it
, ',\j
,
,
, "
!/
, ,
, ,
,
i' " " "
,
,
,
" I ,
, Ii
i'
'II ,I
, ,
" " ,
, , II
,
" "
, , 'I
" I'
,
" , I
,
, I ;1
" , "
, , ,
, ,
, ,
, , " .,
(
, ,
l' '.' ,:i
( "
" ,
i1 I;
Ii
,Ji ,)1
<I , h
,'1
,-,
>/'
I,
,
II -,
, I ~
.j-l
',)
"
'I
"
"
,
,
\I
",
,
11
I!'
I! 'I,'
,
Iii
"
Il,
,
. ,
,
-1,1' ,/
"
"
:,
,/
"
,
'1'1
,
"
, ,
"
1 d
,
jl
"
r') 1\'" ()
-', 1/'
" ~-l , 'q
~Jlj\) h'/:t !
'-"';-f'
1.1"/;/::'11 ~;') . 'P,]
;c, , "
r..-'l " , ,I.> '/I)j
.';',- ) '~
r:/I ,-" ,f;~
,,-
jtH:~c.i , ~1
";;1
'"}!"l) I' ~.jt' !~"
P,';I'l ,
" ~r <1' '
"';;',' J':i~
, .~" ;i(... l~,_ I
'~ Q :'l
".
, , ,
'f
;1 I;,'
..
"
IIAaIlV A. UONTIIAL, .IQUIU
P.. lupr... Court I.D. No. 55672
laVNOLD. , KAVA'
101 Ploe .treet
POlt Oll1ce 10. '32
..rr1lburg, PeDD.ylv.D11 1710'-0932
TelepboD"
P..,
(717) 236-3200
[7171 236-6163
Attorn)' lor Pl.iDtUI.
ITA'll! ,AJUI IIII'1'l1IU. AU'IIOIIOIILl XI.I. CO.
.. lubrolJ.' 01 lIMY "cP'U
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY as SUbrogee
of MARY McPEAK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 96-768 civil Term
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and
BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BOTICB
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 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 UPBR TO YOUR LAWYElR AT ONCE. l'- ~~~ ~~ ~~T
HAVB It LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONB. GO TO OR TBLI!lPHONI!l F B
SRT FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHBRB YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Court Administrator
4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse
CarliSle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 240-6200
ImTllU
Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere
defenderse de sstas demandas expuestae en las paginas siguiente8,
usted tiene viento (20) dias de plazo al partir de le fecha de la
demanda y la notificacion. Usted de be presentar una apariencia
escrita 0 en pereona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en
forma escrita IlUIl defensas 0 sus objectiones alas demandas en
IlAUY A. 1Ut01lT1IAL, .IOU IU
... lupra.. Court I.D. No. 55672
UnoUlS II SAVAS
101 'iDa It:&'.at
'o.t: Offio. Bo. 932
.arri.burg, 'ann.y1venie 17101-0932
Talephone.
..x.
[717 J 236-3200
[717 J 236-6163
Attornay for .1.iDtiff.
ITAU .AIUl NII'1'IIIIL AU'l'OMOSU.l1 INI. CO.
.. lubrog.. of IlARY MOnK
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee
of MARY McPEAK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 96-766 civil Term
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and
BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC.
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AM!ND!D COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff, state Farm Mutual Automobile Insuranoe
company (" state Farm"), as Subrogee for Mary McPeak, is an
insurance company licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and with a regular place of. business located at 115
Limekiln Road, New Cumberland, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania,
17070.
2. Defendant, Ford Motor company ("Ford") is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Delaware, which does business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
and hall a registered agent for service in Pennsylvania located at
CT corporation System, 1635 Market street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 19103.
3. Defendant, Bullseye Ford Mercury, Inc. ("Bullseye
Ford") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and with a regular plaoe of
-..". .
business located at Post Office Box 448, Route 61, Mount Carmel,
Northumberland county, pennsylvania, 17851.
4. At all times relevant hereto, Mary McPeak ("Ms.
Mcpeak"), who is now deceased, was insured under a state Farm
automobile insurance policy, Policy No. 6499-173-A27-38C.
5. On or about Aug\lst 17, 1991, Ms. McPeak purchased
a 1991 Ford Escort, bearing Vehicle Identification No.
1FAPP14J9MW102831, which is manufactured by Ford (lithe vehicle"),
from Bullseye Ford.
6. At about the time of the purchase of the vehicle,
Ford gave to Ms. McPeak a written warranty for the vehicle (lithe
Ford Warranty"). state Farm is not in possession of a copy of
the F'ord Warranty, but believes and, therefore, avers that Ford
and/or Bullseye Ford are in possession of same.
7. On or about August 22, 1994, at approximately 5:00
p.m., Ms. McPeak parked the vehicle and shortly thereafter, smoke
starting coming out from beneath the dashboard as a result of a
defect and/or malfunction with the vehicle's electrical wiring
and associated circuitry.
8. As a result of the fire, state Farm, as Ms.
McPeak's insured, was required to pay Ms. McPeak $1,926.74.
9. Following the accident, a demand was made upon
Ford to reimburse state Farm for the damages caused by the fire,
but to date, it has refused to do so.
- ,
10. AI a result of the oonduot of Ford and/or Bull.eye
Ford, whioh is more specificallY set forth herein, state Farm
sustained damages in the amount ot $1,926.74.
COUlfT 1
BRIACH or WARRANTY
'TATZ rARK MUTUAL AUTOKOBILI IN8URANC! COMPANY
V.
BULLSBY! rQRD AND rORD MOTOR COMPANY
11. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 10
inclusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as it set
forth in their entirety.
12. It is believed and therefore averred that the Ford
Warranty covered the damages sustained by state Farm as a result
of the electrical wiring defect and/or malfunction.
13. Ford and/or Bullseye Ford failed to repair or
replace the vehicle or in other words, materially breached Ford's
Warranty.
14. As a result of Ford's and/or Bullseye Ford's
material breaches of Ford's Warranty, state Farm sustained
damages in the amount of $1,926.74.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, state l-'arm Mutual Automobile
Insurance company demands judgment in its favor and against
Defendants, Bullseye Ford and Ford Motor company in the amount ot
$1,926.74, plus interest, costs and any and all other relief this
Court deems proper and just.
COUNT II
UHr~la ,lAD. 'IACTICII AKD COHIUHIR 'ROTICTIOH L~. VIOL~TIOH.
IT~TI FARM KUTU~L ~UTOMOBILI IHIURAKCB COK'AKY
V.
Bull..y. lord AKD~ORD MOTOR COM'AKY
15. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 14
inclusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as if Ilet
forth in their entirety.
16. Ford and/or Bullseye Ford committed unfair or
deceptive acts and practices in violation of thp Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Act of November 24, 1976,
P.L. 1166 No. 260 51, 73 Pa. Cons. stat. 55201-2 ~~. by inter
AliA: (a) failing to comply with the terms of the Ford Warranty
given to Mil. McPeak at, prior to or after the agreement for the
purchase of the vehicle; (b) making repairs, improvements, or
replacements on the vehicle of a nature or quality inferior to or
below the standard of that agreed to in writing; and (c) engaging
in other fraudulent conduct which created a likelihood of
confusion or of misunderstanding.
17. As a result of Ford'll and/or Bullseye Ford's
violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law, state Farm sustained damages in the amount of $1,926.74.
lB. The Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law authorizes the award of treble damages and
attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, state Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance company demands judgment in its favor and against
, -..A i
Detendants, Bullseye Ford and Ford Motor Company in the amount ot
$1,926.74, plus interest, costs, treble damages, attorney's tees
and any and all other relief this Court deems proper and just.
COUNT III
AUTOMOBILI LBMON LAW VIOLATIONS
STATZ PARK MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
V.
Bull.eve Pord AND PORD MOTOR COMPANY
19. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 18
inclusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as if Ilet
forth in their entirety.
20. Ford and/or Bullseye Ford committed violations of
the Automobile Lemon Law, Act of March 28, 1984, P.L. 150, No.
28, 51, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. 51951 ~ .!!.!l9., by, inter jlfu: (a)
failing to repair or correct at no cost to Ms. McPeak, a
nonconforming part of the vehicle which substantially impaired
the use, value or safety of the vehicle during Ford's warranty;
(b) failing to replace the vehicle with a comparable motor
vehicle of equal value; and/or (c) tailing to refund to Ms.
McPeak the full purchase price of the subject vehicle, plus all
collateral charges.
21. As a result of Ford's and/or Bullsoye Ford'll
violation of the LeMon Law, State Farm sustained damages in the
amount of $1,926.74.
22. The Automobile Lemon Law authorizes the award of
I
"
reasonable attorney's fees and all court costs.
WHEREFORE, P~aintiff, state Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company demands jUdgment in his favor and against
Defendants, Ford Motor company and Bullseye Ford in the amount of
$1,926.74, plus interest, costs, treble damages, attorney's fees
and any and all other relief this Court deems proper and just.
COUNT IV
NIlGLIGIlNCI
8TATIl .ARK MUTUAL AUTOMOBILI IN8URANCIl COMPANY
V.
.ORD MOTOR COMPANY AND BULL81YIl .ORD
23. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 thr.ough 22
inolusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as if set
forth in their entirety.
24. Ford and/or Bullseye Ford were negligent in that
they, their employees, servants and/or agents, individually or in
concert, .inter sU.iA:
(a) manufactured and/or sold a vehicle with
defectively manufactured and/or designed parts; (b) failed to
properly inspect the subject vehicle prior to the subject
accident; (c) failed to properly correct the malfunction and/or
defect in the vehicle, which caused the SUbject fire; (e) failed
to otherwise prevent the subject fire; (f) failed to repair or
replace the vehicle; and/or (g) failed to refund to Ms. McPeak
the purchase price of the vehicle and otherwise compensate her
for the damages.
25. As a result of the negligence of Ford and/or
Bullseye Ford, state Farm sustained damages in the amount of
$1,926.74.
.-..6\
,
!
I
I'
I
I
i,
I
.,.~
"HEREFORE, plaintiff, state Farm Mutual Automobile
Insuranoe company demands judgment in its favor and against
Defendants, Ford Motor Company and Bullseye Ford in the amount of
$1,926.74, plus interest, costs, treble damages, attorney's fees
and any and all other reliet this Court deems proper and just.
COlJ1lT V
BRIACH OF WARRANTY
STATI ~ARX KUTUAL AUTOKOBILI IHSURANCI COKPAIY
V.
~ORD KOTOR COKPANY AND BULLSIYI FORD
26. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 25
inolusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as if set
~
forth in their entirety.
27. Ford and/or Bullseye Ford breached their aale.
agreement with Ms. McPeak and the implied warranty ot
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, as stated
under 13 Pa. Cons. stat. 552314 and 2315, in that they, thei~
employees, servants and/or agents, individually or in concert,
1o~ AliA: (a) manufactured and/or sold a vehicle with
defectively manufactured and/or designed parts; (b) tailed to
properly inspect the subject vehicle prior to the subject
accident; (c) failed to properly correct the malfunction and/or
defect in the vehicle, which caused the subject fire; (e) failed
to otherwise prevent the subjeot fire; (f) failed to repair or
replace the vehicle; and/or (g) failed to refund to Ms. MoPeak
thQ purchase price of the vehicle and otherwise compensate her
tor the damages.
i' ~
, "
'I
,
"
,
!i ,
,
,J
II
L'i
"
,
"
;,
" ,
"
"
,
I,
"
"
"I'
1;/
11.1
"
il
"
"
H
!
"'.'~ '
i"'"
rj".
"r:
"1.1
~r.,. :\1"
"'J'F..' II.'
'_'~I!, ,:,1 i
, f'! ill'
(i"
'I
, ,
,
,I,
!,; '\:
":"{i'i
I'
..'.
'i.. 1
,I ~..t
, I~,):'
.,
d
,
,',
,
,
,'!I
"
'Iii
I, i"
\~l
, ,I,~ i"J!
-
,
,
I
,
"
"
,<
",
;',
"jl
"
!..'
,
If!
,
~/1 ,
1;\
, ,
) I')
'i)
" J
r'~ '::,
~'hpf
I"it)
,!dJ.
",~'
-:,. ;I~
,'I
q
;~
.
/:.Ji'.i
't.",
-".
;,1.:;
1'1.1
..~
\J!{
,"I'.,
...,
l'l
.
J
.
"
,
,
,
,
"
"_I',
'\VILLIOIl"IIOI~C"I'LO _., '"'III """1
"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
~, Manuel Villegas, Jr., Esquire, hereby cer~ify that
true and correct copies of the foregoing Praecipe for Appearance
have been served this ~ day of March, 1996, by U.S. first-
class mail, postage prepaid, to all counsel of record.
DICKIE, McCA-~EY & CHILCOTE, P.C.
By ;Vl
Manuel
l~.
~...,.
J.
Villegas,
Jr., Ellquire
Attorneys for Defendant, Ford
Motor Company
'j 11
"
"
"",
ii,
" ,
"
",',
I
"
II
,
, , ,
,
I'
'.' , ,
F I I"
I
,
.,
,
"
"
,
, '
"
,
,
,
I
,,'1
I
, ,
"
,
,
"
"
,"
,1,1,
'"
,
"
"
,I,
.....~~....,_'~_~._m_.' ._~_._...
,I"
}j
" 'J
" "
, 'Ii
I
j]
;j
" " ,1
"
"
, ,
"
I
I,
, ,
",
:1
",
'I
,
, ,
"
Ii'
11:,
I-!
,il
I"~
',l
,Ei
"
""
i,!i
,
"
,;J I.,
, 'I
, "
'j;
"
''',
"
, ,
" qi " I,
" ';1
,
,-I
ill I
"
'.1\
,
, ,
"
1"1,
I.'
'."
i ,1;1
11
1\,,1 I
~"''''''''-''''''_l~'._"~",,,~_
J I
<I
'I
"
:,
'. j
q
,
"
'}
I'
"
,
"
"
"
'I,
'I'
,
,
! I,
'"
"
,
(~:I
\ "
,,'~
M[j'!.'l
t ~)
~;it I
(r,i
I' ~' ,
'j"::
;-~:~'
"
,
'n
"
'1,'
"i
, '
1-'
, ,
"
,I
1;1
;-',
, ,
"
1:':/
~.
" "
,,"
';'~ ')
(,i, .~}
;'1-11 , -;j
. 171
.,J
I,' ""11
t-,..J 'c,
'~(i)
::.~ ,: ~Il
~--- . ') ~..'
W' ,l)
'0 ")fl1
" 1
,,1 :I}
"'.
~ .,,;.
"
, '
,
"
\1
,I
"
,
,..
Count I . Preliminary Objedion
in the ~ature of a Demurrer
4. Ford incorporates by rderence herein the avennents contained in Paragraphs
I through 3 hereof.
S. In Plaintiffs CPI. coulltllguinst Ford. Pluintiff contends that it is entitled
to relief due to Ford's ulleged vlolution of the CPI.. In its Compluint. however. Pluintiff admits
that Ms, McPeuk wus the purchlL'iCr of the vehicle und thut Pluintiff initiated this suit os subrogee
for Ms. McPeuk.
6, The CPL contemplates as u protected class only those who purchase goods
\1
or services; us stated in its Complaint. Pluintiff is not u purchaser and. therefore. has no private
7. As a matter of luw. Plaintill's CPi. claim is legally insuflicient and should
1(,1
,
,
right of action against Ford.
WHEREFORE. Ford Motor Compuny, respectfully requests this Honorabie Court
,
i;
,,1
,\ I I
I
:,\
t
be dismissed with prejudice.
to enter un Order dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law claim against this Defendant.
Count II . Preliminary Objection
in the Nature of a Demurrer
,.
"
8. Ford incorporates by reference herein the avennenls contained in Paragraphs
I through 7 hereof.
9.
In its CPL count. Plaintlll' also attempts to ussert a claim for treble dlll11ages
and attorney's fees.
, \ ~
2
,~
'.
.-
t'lOTlCE TO PLEAD
TO:
PLAINTIFF
"
You are hereby nolit1ed to me a written
response to the enclosed PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS within twenly (20) days from the
dntc of service hereof or Ii Judgment may be entered
against you. '
, ,
,
,
u
"
il
,
"
\ /.
V,
t
;,'
ByjA
Manuel Villegas, Jr" Esquire
"
"
,
,
'j.'..,
"
"
"
LI
"
"
",
"
"
I';
i,'
"
q
r'
"
"
','I
,
,
,
,.,
, ,
,
, ,I,
, , "
, ,
, ,
, I
11'
, '
,I,
,
,
"
"
,
"J"
.-1
, ,
,(I
, , ,
'"
" ,
, ,
,
"
, , .',
,
" , ,
"I
i'l
,
'"
"
"
,
,
6
.- '
, .
. .
1\\II~~IllM\tnIOI_CIPlP\O _I, '''''lApml
. .
C~RTIFICATB OF SBRVICB
I, Manuel Villegas, Jr., Bsquire, hereby certify that
have been served this
true and oorrect copies of the foregoing Preliminary Objeotionll
"
day of March, 1996, by U.S. first,"
class mail, ,polltage prepaid, to ,all counsel of record.
DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C.
Ey M
Manuel
-I/"
Villegas,
-J
Jr.
Bsquire
"
Attorneys for Oefendant, Ford
,Motor Company
, ,I'
, ,
,
"
',J;\
, ,
"
I
"
,
I,
"
,
"
, ,
"
'1/
1,1
"
"
,I
,
, , Ii' , ,
,
,.
" "
,
" , ,
, , ,
,
" "
"
, , :1
.....-...H..... _._~_.
-.---..
, ,
, , ,"
, " ,
, ,1 "
" '\
" 'I , , {1
"
" " " "
, , '" / , , , .,
,,' , 'j "1 , "I " I ,
'1,1 lil-: , , ,
, , ,
, , ,
, I
I r,1 " ,I
,
, , , ,
, , , I,' , ,
" , " " 1'1
,I',; " , , I,
" I,
" , 1\" , , , , , ,I
, I ,I' ~ ,I,
, 'Ii'
I , , "
,
Ii! " "
" " "
" " " , 'I
, " , " , " ,
,
, , "
"
II " , , , ,
, , , , "
' ' , , " jJ ,'I
, "
"
, , 'I
,
" , ,
I" I "
, " , , ,
, ,
.,
, ,
.... '" n
, , I " J' I~i LJ\ 'il
I ,",I
1<". n,. J
, , " -lj ,\
" ~:11 , "1
" L';~ ' ,'1' J
,/ " : 'J
" 1;,,', I
, ri,ll,11
, " ~I ' I'
I i'.')
" \ l , ~~: ;1
" '" , " "
, , i' , f \.1 " ,
, rlill,' ~!J '11I1
" , " '1'1 " ',' !
" . .
, , , (, , t'-J "I
'" '\ , , I"'~ $' ",
, " , " .
" i " f)
" ,'il , , "
'i ,
, " "1 , ,
" " , I
" , "
, ,
" , " ,
,,'
, 'l 1,1 i' ,
, ,
, , "
"
" " ,
",l "
" " ,
" " ii! I " " , "
" 'II ,
" , -01 I"
II 'I " ,
, 1\
,
" " ,
, , ,,(.
, il'l "
" ,. rl , "
, "
i , , " Ii .j'
,,'
,; " " ,
" "
I,
'.',
PR~_ES11!_~ I'~t)~.Ll~'I:_I_~C;__~A~~;_ r.~~~ AR9!1MJ!:NT
(Must be typo,written and subnitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBER1.AND COUN'ry I
Please llst the within matter for the next Arg\Inent court.
--......----- ---... ----- - - - - - -.... -... --.., - - - - - - - - --... - -...... - --... -----....-------..----.....-----..........-..-.....
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption 1IllSt: be atated in full)
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee of
Mary McPeak
w.
( Pla.intiff)
, "
,
I, ,
'I""
"I
"
~...
)
,
,
,
, , ," , "
,
",
I' .,
,
FORD MOTOR CO~PANY and BULLSEYE
FORD MERCURY, INC.
( Defendant)
No. 768
Civil
1996
1. State matter to be argued (Le.. plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's
dBrurrer to ~laint. etc.):
Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Ford Motor Company
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff: Darry A. Kronthal, Esq.
Address: R,:,ynolds & Havas
101 Pine Street, P.O. Box 932
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0932
(b) for def~t: Manuel Villegas, Jr., Esq.
Address: Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.
Two PPG Place, Suite 400
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
3. I will notify all pllrties in writing within tl<<l days that t:hia case lIII8
been listed for argIJnent.
4. ~t Court Date: April 17, 1996
Deted: March 6. 1996
--LJd
Attorney
4~ _I
for Defendant, Ford Motor Company
~
,
"
..'
'1II.li11'1"
,
A~.iE Hl."f I 1 ~.:j~I(, 1/}lJrUt~j; F
",l/1MIINWLAI,TII 'iW.' 'l"ENN:!'~U'i\l1 r Ii I
'JIUNT'I 1]1; ,CIJIHwrLMjl) , ,
ijTIITlC fM,~ 11'JrllAt,. ~ltJ;':J~nljiLl~,
I ,,' II
"
"
V ~r_;.
, !
I"rm~' .11',,1TI,W n:J 'W[ ^k ",
"
"
Lj
,
n, ,Tlil/m'Hl iU,Jfll,:
,
nl'
hl'.Tllhti
i ' - '" I
]1,
"
'_;,-h-'~'r-,,:f f i
,
VIii,') 'fH:c'llfq'
).1 :,'J t'/ ' qll'll:J t~n
, .' I
j: ~:Jr
tll
l:.hnt
,
tilt?
Jllildt} !-} dl,j!HPifTlt tP,:~i'~n:h o1nd ifntlJ 1.1 y
I'," I ,
J;'(j';I,~J )1In:u1j ';.IJI'II"Mlt!~ (T, crmn,.,
I.d\ll,
IJU '/iJ,
"
td' wt t l
n"J!fIl~',J df'fHlld~illt,
\""""'r-
bl..11'. W.J(;! un~tjbl\t.1 1',IJ LIJGJ,jl~lt;
,
l!~ 'r'c~Tli"1\'1
.'''_ ,r; '",,'_ __~ _:..,
d(,lp'J t)L~,.,'tj:
t_lJ nl_~lr ,VI~l
"
Un
...-,
,
.M_~Ll,'SJ}I-
,
t'_),\i(~,:
-I"~
"'i
thO:f,'
<:/ii',tW::hl},_'j
I 'l! I' '
":.''_IJ,!____
,
r't,turrl :_fl'oryl'
FI1l.~I.t 1. f t "'Ill CI:I~t U(,I
j ..
[l i) I;: l-:..:", t~ i 1'1q
U\J~~ fJ.t: C(nJnty
':-::-;UJ'I:hrll:~1:11.!." "
PliLli'jiJ"tphl!J
,
10. v:lfb I
;'J.'ll1W, I,
.1', ,,~V)>
Ij~~j. (;:let
,
(01'
:~__i ';I iJ 'f' 'J
t.hl'ri
\'1
,,11,. .
, ,
II. D..
, , I
(ll'- a"~I'1 .'it""" 4!&f.. ' J
'''f1 I"r '.I,'liJl1f'I,.Jifr ,
I,
,.', I,;
,'!'h','III
ill' hJ.ii!",b:,II"I.,W).,::I\,.
, (,qUJ},t y,
I
,
,',
.,_1> ,....
'; '1.'. hJ
, ,
i) " :~ ,tl~" ~.','
\Ji1!~ U,II
,
"
;rIjJI~.(\I!k;L.P l!.i'f'.
, I 1'1
"
---"I-,
1;:,UtlJit.'1,F
"
, ,
:~ip n,f'\:i~) ,',. // .
.~:1.~;::;'~/{;;:;'7(') . / '~.'
r~'. /'rhT:;,iJI"Ij"ti:1' T\'lT\';ii:.';', ,/'tlfl',':!Y'
IIIIVMi,
, "
, '
, "
'I.'
"
"
,
,
"
"
'"
I',
.,,'
,
,
"
.,
"
rp':\ec,rd I:nll
,j Ii'
IJlll\1 W l1)d. 1'1
,
lt~: t:h(?rl~~1__(H- ~.:'
P/[IIHtli:;Y l Villi ~ d.
, " ", I
,"'.I;
-;".,,,t!,I,
I:~f
,
"
-"'J"""
"'1',-
'~i1lt\jini'}r 1i1',:nj"'lt,I:i~',; ".
" !fJ, 4" it' :I... \ ,:I II, 'J'W, '
, N 1).,.I'r
,'jrJl,f ,:JHbf!';;Jl~\l.ht,ld tf.j' b\;~(()~l;;' Jill,'."
j, ,tIw ' , ; '.
,jQ- '1.')' ,'J' /yr4....I.,J "',
,
.,. d !
l~ li_II'~q;,l J.1p l: ':' f
, ,
" 'I '
F'jiflpn~)'y,lvl)r) l'U I
,
,
.,
I"..
;> 1
, , "
,
, , ,
'. ,
'i >I
"
I,i
'I'
,.
~ :111 h li'1
I:' ^::i[ tli'): 1 't)':,H:, 'li~I;J"I~,n F
,
1:'.Jfll'it)II\WAL1.'11 '..W PI~nrI'T/L'Iidl!l, r
en JIlT',. ill" 1'; ,J/'jII/i:IH,AllI;,,: , '
UJ ItT/:': 1" M1l'! " 11\)T'\I~.i'i) 1IJ9,119 ~J I,!;;!,
, ,
'I ~~: f'
,
r:")I\!' l'I!Jrqii. ,!;'L,I;;1'.'Mi:'
"
"
, .!
'i. TI""",,,\! ,lqj,II"L""
, ,
t,ll li)~, '.-~i;ji'H~ thut
.,
1\"0'1
III IH~ I~r, n
1~!J\.!,::i1,Y,F.; \';Imp \'H~li.c1 Ir1.1 ,J/~',:
I ,',.'
..~. ,." _'_'."" ,,, .; _, upl "".. "-"..'"
tl;J/H(!t-j !h:el~rllJ~n~.t., tb
,
If 1. I, ;
,
Inr!; \'/1'.1:'", IHlllb 11;.1 t"'l loc~.l t::~\
f-,jC;PI') i:. 1.:::Ir.I.t (h0 rah(rf,ifli \',J
,
hi
r!.t.;
,
'tJlj( I
jH'1 1\1
il
"
,
,
, I ,
,
Ii )
,
, ,
,
"
;,'
"
"
,
, ,
1'1
,
, '
" 1
, ,
,
,
mht~t' 1 t f-~ whl,l
'..j'
111,11i.' n En I!~;,j r l:~ 1\
,unl1
lH/PI" \' ',. 'Ift~l~
i
hluJ.n,J d\J,J.,y H\HH'/l. 'i)f:-~.i~I'JIl'!Jl.n~lr
IIHtlin
dj
;-1 :~ 1J,.iJ. t." 11::11;.
1.:I:Junt;y/'
. Th'~~m l,Ii III
. JIOh J I) Ib:IJ~J~j~L.ANl,'.
I ., I
CI'JNPLA C li'r
'_'T r _; __ ~ T 2'" ,-" -, .,.-- 4~' _~._a
,
',,:.' 13i:?1 '.l'Ll
. t,hIV ~'i tl'Iii'1
I ,"
'-]:'
. ",p'..,."._, .. ='_'~"''" Iw,._.__
.,
I; h~'
\)n M ax..'L:tl. P;I.I;JU
Ilttrldl'\I]d L'lr',I: I)rn t_l"dm
.lrrW
,
!"..:;h";'j;-JI~Jr;!, CI:}.~1:t!i,t
, ,
6n;.:I',I,';;tinn I'
1)1)1: "I C,)dnl:Y,
~:;' ut.':~lll;1 r-qur
IYI:)~'I-,hIJlllr;\Jr i:arl,i
, '
1_'(1
Ei,'lJ)I(J
'_~) I I)) l(J I
:_. '~-; '; Il}i;.l
,J:,1,' 41'1
I-,'~'J'~'
1~1J.~ I
::;~(; f fl
,
qr/l;t '::.t,ubi:;;qrtbi,(ld 1:b, b\-:"!f(H'I'2
tb~. d:")' (1.( ~.:t"~,f::.J
1\;\:'.
I "I (~~
^. I),
~' '.,
t-<--' ~. .~. ~' I\Q
. .'. ..... rS:ifhijii,:~&".;t'f!f!
, ,
'_I
:1
44
...'1..,
"
,I
, ,
,
"
"
,
fl,
"
,
Lh'~
,
, ,
Ij-;'
,
101).. ith''':'''l''l::<ifJll:~
};!(~nnnl>'JI"Ji.ln,l il.'
,~; ,.,
,
. 'WIlTB\!I1111~J11,^JjP
,
C dun 1,-, 1'/
,
wa\'.~ '1.0 i'''-f.1lJ1idp.t', I)t
th'I.lii I;'f_f.tdr}
~Hu
:::lnt1-W1ill' d.!
--2' ,
.--<., :,
"_< _(.o:}.;f~~-~'-"'" -...;~:/
:hfh',ji/;j:j};' rf,l)nl!',;;;
; d-' )
I . .,........
'.1~' ."1. f: It,. ,-,
, ';1 ~1 1. 1: , ,
"
n,
HE:\'IWLP!' 1. \jAVli:;
~,' :1 /' 1 ~',l / 11:ljJ{~"
.,
T!10
ii,
,
1;1'
.,
"
ii,
, ,
,
Ilj
,
,
I'Pr:qnr:5y.lv:\..r,l.i. .I,
il
:1
, ,
"
'I,
,
"
"
,
I',: 'I'
,
,
I
.
.
'!iI Tnt:) Court CT C.::mmc~\ ?!a::s ci C:J:..:..:.;,c'i:.,d (,~u:-;':,/, ?-=rtnsyl'l~rdo
State l;'arm Mutual AutOJ!lob1 l(l Ins. Co. ot al
'is.
Uullucyo Ford M,,;clIry Inc.
...-0llL
,~
----. ... ...---.
~o, _'16-7611
~OW, Fcbruarv 13
~g--2.!>!. SE:::?~!I' O? C~t3ZR!..A.'ft) COt..~':Y. ?..\... co
'96 ftB \~o~~~~~beI'land C.:lWlq' II:) c.'m'Jlll :::is W':!:.,
==by c!:;:u= r.!:.: Sl='.5 01
...:. ::pUI:=- b=c == :l' :!:: ~ ::d. :Uk of :!:.C ?!~=.
~")/
("" ,
.
,-/.?1
,':.,........~..1
-
SDe..~ ot C=uWlci CJWln'. :':1.
.
AScila.vit or Se:"'7i=
~ow, Fridav. February
16
~9 96
10:45
o'dea ,'A
~(. lc:".-ri
..
. ...
:::: ~c!:in NOTICE & COMPLAINT
'JF"1l BULLSEYE FORD/MERCURY, INC.
u Bullseve Ford/Mercurv. Inc.. RT 61, MT. CARMEL. County o,f North'd.: State of Pennn.
::,r ~~ :.0 CHET STlMES. ns nllent for Bullseye Ford/Mercury, Inc.
~ TRUE AND ATTESTED
c:py of :::= o~~ '-,I NOTICE & COMPLAINT
-
"
md :wie Q.oWU:O Ch~t St:{mIHI
:he .:::::1tc::.:s ':..~c::-:i.
So 1I.tISW~
{JL A ~.
Shai8 01 .
A, /?~~1.
CoWlrr. l'~
Swar:l =c! Nbsc-:cd be!c
..,
com
SD.VICZ
~m.v.q:c:.
.-\.:'"TIDA ..-rr
s
10~
..-
......---.
5
r_ ---,
~", ... l
5. In i'tll anlllnded complai.nt, Plaintiff' has not alleged it has
had any contact with Defendant, Bulllleye Ford, outside of
Northumberland county.
6. This cause of action did not arise in Cumberland County
and no transaction or occurrence out of which this cause of action
arose took place in Cumberland County.
Therefore, pursuant to
Pa. R. C. P. 1006, venue is not proper in Cumberland County.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Bullseye Ford Mercury, Inc., requests
. this Court to sustain its Preliminary Objections to venue and
transfer this action to Northumberland County, Pennsylvania,
pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 1006(e).
COUNT II - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW VIOLATIONS
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
vs. BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC.
7. The averment.s set forth in paragraphs 1 through 6
inclusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as if set
forth in their entirety.
8. In Count II of its amended complaint, plaintiff sets forth
a claim against Defendant, Bullseye Ford Mercury, Inc., pur.suant to
the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
2
, ^",/II ~ I~ l't)NN~j. 1'1 ^,rljlll'tfY', I~ ,,)llth~IIOI~'i ^' ,-^,'" ""-'1.:.:"'''0 1ft ()tJJ1 CQNr~(]Rn lOWIR'!> Illl WI"" nlllio '\Tf~"lr
WI' IIAJ'.l';Pl)IH PA 177,)1
13. contrary to the allegations contained. 'in count I I I
of plaintiff's amended complaint, the Automobile Lemon Law, 73 Pa.
C. S. A. 51951 et Iileq. .does not provide for relief against an
automobile dealer.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Bullseye Ford Mercury, Inc., hereby
respectfully requests the court to enter an Order sustaining its
Preliminary Objections and strike Count III of plaintiff's amended
complaint as it relates to Bullseye Ford Mercury. Inc.
COUNT IV - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
REQUEST FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
NEGLIGENCE
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
VS. BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY INC
14. The averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 13
,
inclusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as if set
forth in their entirety.
15. In Count IV of its amended complaint. plaintiff alleges
negligence on the part of Defendant, Bullseye Ford Mercury. Inc.
16. pursuant to 42 Pa. R. C. P. 1019(a), the material facts
on which a cause of action is based shall be stated in a concise
and summary form.
17. Contrary to the provisions of Pa. R. C. P. 1019 (a) .
plaintiff has failed to state with specificity the facts upon which
4
",'"", " HUN"'" H' """..,> ", " ,OON"" ,"A'. .. ',AW .'CONO "QO" CONCO.o row'" 101 WI" T"'"o ""liT
Wl~I.I...M"'PORr...... !',7t}l
,"'"., ,. ...,... f
it is claiming t~at Defendant, Bullseye ForQ Mercury, Inc., acted
negligently.
~8. Without a more specific pleading, Def'i'ndant, Bullseye
Ford Mercury, Inc., ill unable to formulate an' intelligent response
to the averments contained in Count IV of Plaintif.f' s amended
complaint.
WHEREFORE,
Defendant,
Bullseye
Ford
Mercury,
Inc. ,
respectfully requests this Court to sustain its Preliminary
Obj ect ions and dismiss Plainti f f' s amended complaint or, in the
alternative, direct that Plaintiff file a further amended
complaint.
COUNT V - PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
FAILURE TO ATTACH WRITTEN AGREEMENT
19. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 18
inclusive hereof are incorporated by reference herein as if set
forth in their entirety.
20. In Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's amended complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that its insured purchased a 1991 Ford Escort
from Defendant, Bullseye Ford.
21. Pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act,
68 Pa'. C. S. A. ~601 et. seq., 'contracts for the purchase of a
motor vehicle must be in writing. See 69 Pa. C. S.' A.' 5613 'a) .
5
'. "'"AI ~ I~ H'l"'tH II" ( ^ 'llllfN~ )", 1\ '~'llJ"'hl; II ur.'~ A' IIlW "f ':'O"",J '" UOlt c.ONCOFln rOWIR!i Illl Wl.!S T THrRO "'119111: T
WH.1 '''''M'-,Ff)Rr "A ""11
. '
,
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee
of MARY McPEAK,
Plaintiff
l IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
l OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
l
I.
l
l NO. 96 - 768 CIVIL TERM
I
:
l CIVIL ACTION - LAW
l JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
vs.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and
BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC.,
Defendantll
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
DAVID F. WILK, Esquire, of Casale & Bonner, P. C., Attorney
for Defendant, Bullseye Ford Mercury, Inc., hereby certifies that
a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Obj ections to Amended Complaint
has been served upon Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire, Attorney for
Plaintiff, and upon Manuel Villegas, Jr., Esquire, Attorney for
Defendant, Ford Motor Company, this 2nd day of April, 1996, by
placing certified true find correct copies .of same in the United
States mail at Wi lliamsport, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid,
addressed as followsl
BARRY A. KRONTHAL, ESQUIRE
REYNOLDS & HAVAS
101 PINE STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 932
HARRISBURG, PA 17108-0932
~UEL VILLEGAS, JR., ESQUIRE
TWO PPG PLACE, SUITE 400
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
CASALE & BON,ER, J. .9.':,~/
"" -' ,.... ..,/ .._":.'/,,./~~::,;>',!;?7 I
By: "..,., / ",/?,%V
'-.S"..,- =;....... ......""1~~'-J
DAVID F. WILK, Esquire
Attorney I. D. No. 65992
Attorney for Defendant Bullseye
Concord Towers - Second Floor
101 Wellt Third Street
Williamsport, PA 17701
Telephone: (717) 326-7044
',11''"'''1 ~ 1\ I1I)1i~H It I'l' .\ r rnl~I"H"1 I~ '__'-'IIi';"J~ I I ql~'~ AT I AW '.1".1 JNn ';1 'lllH IllN._ (JIIIl rlJw~ ...., "JI Wf... r TlII'~() 'iflH' If T
WIIII^M'lI'Of~1 PA 11)1,1
"
'/
, .
"
it'
,
"
,1
)"
,
"
t:.,
;',1
I'J
,11,1
ill
.
"
"
. Ii
I' "
, fl
,"
",
" 1'{ "
,
Ii
"
il
"I
t" ,
"
Iii
, ,
"
,
J'i
"
,',l
21.1
I,
,
"
" ,
"
I! J
, ,
I'
,I,
, ,
,
1,'1
Ii
"
1,1
, '
,
"
"
;J
,
'.r..I,
I i..J}
~. M_.
;':1
j, \_~
I'
")
',,"
,,'
!';'Ir;1
'I,' t]
, \.,
ItlL)
j"..i:'il
r'"
, ;~~
'-i
:1
",
"
"
, ,
("~
",t
, 1
..,.i l;~ f;
"lb'
~'r': '
11.>,,1
r> ",
t~.; 1_.Li
r'" ,~,
! t' ~ i_~'
~';'c t
~ "I,
"~
......
"
,
Ii'
'1'1
,
10"
.'
-~"J
,,,'
....'!
,t','-'
..
,,)
c:;)
'I'l
.t'il
,
,
i"
II
I]
"
"
....1
,
"
11
.,
,
,
1,
",
1;'
",I
d'
, ,
"
'I
\,
"
",
,
.,
" ,
,,'11_,
"
"
1
,
ojl ~\'
',Ii
"
,
;j I"
1\
Lt!
,
,
,
'd
,
J,
, '
"
.
," Ii!
\"
,
"
',I
'I
,,:.,
'1,
11 i'J
,
"
",
I I,
"
, .
I
",
"
~ 1\Vll.Lf~12M06\PtlAlC'PIPLD kJnl:lrt, 'MItt IUII"l
'CBRTIFICATE OF SERVICB
I, Manuel Villegas, Jr., Esquire, her~by certify that
true and correct cophs of the foregoing J?raecipe to Wi,thdraw
\~
Case from Argument List have been served this
;oS
day of April,
1996, by U.s, first-class mail, postage prepaid, to all counsel
of record.
D~CKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, J?C,
BY' ??2..-"Jl1)~ l
Manuel Villegas, Jr" squire
Attorneys for Defendant, Ford
Motor Company
,I
"
I,
'I
,I
,
, ,
I,
'il
"
:i
,',
,
,
,
, I
"
. "
" , "
. ,.
-II , . ,
I .
,
L,
I' I ,
'I
I , ,;,
j.'
"I
"
,
"
,
"
I ii'
I 'hi
\,
'"
"
i'
'1
"
.'
Ii
I I
-Ij
" I
I'
;'1
I'
....-- ..,_.~.._-,. .~' ~n ._~..;-~. ~ t._....._....t._. _".. __,.,'~. __._~_. ,_.~ _ _. L.
'-~~---_._--............-,.......-'-.
....-_........-.......-.....-.....,._..-tl,~ ~......_._,. ...~.._.....
"
,
,
,
"
"
"
(I
''I:
I'
,;P
;1
i!
;.f
,
"
.
'Ii
"
"
,
,,1
1 !.jtl
il
, ,
!J
Ii
'I'!
"
,
"
ii,
'll
i"
"
"
, I
:t,
'I
! '
jl)
"
, ,
t;,I,
~ -
1\1)-
~J,'
'"1
'II
,
';1':41.
\ ;"1_'
(,'j)
, 1
I' . ~ I
',:\)
, \
,,'
1:1,
..~
11,;
1-1
;1
"
,
"
,'I
,
,\
~".
,;0.
',I
,;:_1
,
f.,'t
;....,,',
.1'1
"
"
'H,_';I','
rUn
~;~ I-'
t I r i~'.
',' L'
....~
;1
Ii;
;1'
I,
I.'
"
J 1"
,I
I-I
'.
!
,
~-.I
(,'~~
\',1
tn
,
1,"1
"
,
'I
,
,
,
i!
,
"
"I
'.
"",
1'1
.
"
)1 j
,
,
,
I'i
,
,
I'
,
,
,
. ,
"
"
",
,
.
'.
,
I'
"
ii;
,
"
,I j
'J ,
'.
"
,I
,
",
"I
,1,1
,
II
;'"
,
.
'III
"
',II
jl
,
,
',I
"
I"
'1,1
,
,
I]'
"
"
;,
,
"
"
"
"
,I
"
"
,
I,
!i
i'
1/;'/
.,
li\
"
'1'
I'"~
'I'
..
1"\',
,
II
, ,
I',
I'
!'j
'I
"
11"'1
i
"
i
1
;','-'
-I,
i'
" , I i, ,
,
" , h " "
, I
, , . ,
. , ,
"
" . " ,
"
"
,
"
\
,
, ,
.'1
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE J?ROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
--~*~----------------*--------------------------------------------
please list the within matter for the next Argument Court,
CAPTION OF CASE f
(entire caption must be stated in full) "
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE IN THE COURT OF COMMON J?LEAS
INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
of MARY McJ?EAK
(Plaintiff)
No,
0.
L.
CIVIL AC'rION - LAw:}:jl;
JURY TRIAL DEMANDEQ::;',:
(j~ ..
~ '
c; ;,",.
l:,:
,"',;1.,
Civil 19~'
7.:
~ ~
it:: .~
'-1 ,:\l
-I
.~! 11'1
.... .:;
_ f.?,
,. '~I'!"
'f1
....
vs.
FORD MOTOR COMJ?ANY and
BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC"
(Defendant)
768
1, State matter to be argued (i,e" plaintiff's motion for
new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc,):
Preliminary Objections of the Defendant, Bullseye
Ford Mercury, Inc, to J?laintiff's Amended Complaint
2, Identify counsel who will argue case:
Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire
Reynolds & Havas
101 J?ine Street, J?O Box 932
Harrisburg, J?A 17108-0932
David F, Wilk, Esquire **(See below)
Casale & Bonner, P.C.
101 West Third St.
Williamsport, PA 17701
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that
this case has ,been listed for argument.
(a) for plaintiff:
Address:
, (b) for defendant:
Address:
**Manueal Villegas, Jr., Esq.
Two J?J?G Place, Ste. 400
J?ittsburgh, J?A 15222
4.
Argument Court Date:
June
26~1996 '/I~~
c l/ "" ';-- / / I/lU/.~'/fY
"""-, c' /[""<.,/' I' ~ /'
- '
Dated: June 3, 1996
Attorney for Defendant, Bullseye
Ford Mercury, Inc,
,I
. ,
Ii
,
'I.
,
,
"
,
,
",
"
, ,
,ii'
.
'I
fl,
',I
,I
I'
I_j lq,
I,.
i,
t'
,
,
,
jll
d
.
"
'I
II
,
It. I
"
"
"
"
,
';'1'
"
,
,
I,
,I
i.'
,
1'1<
JI
i' q
,
,
" '
'"
I
II
"
,.,
"I
iJ
,
,I
,II
I'
"
:'
.
, ,
.
fi!'
,"
I,
.!
',-I,
,....;'.!
!-I
y,
"
"
'.
,
, ,
"
.
'I
d j d
"
"
"I
'1
,;
,
,
I, ,'j";
, ,
"
ir,
I,
r
i'
"
'I
l'
:r
"
, ,
"
,
,I,'
,11.
"
"
.,-,
"
,
,
,
" ,
,
,-I
,
"
, , ,
, ,
.
,
, !,l
, , I'
II!
" 'I
i'l
, ,,)
,
,
, "
\
"
,
"
,/
I
",
,
,
.
,
110
I;
"
,f
Ii
,-J
'II
,
I,
"If
Ji
,,1
. I
il'
"
rll fTj(J!nc~
""I.' ',-I '" '-" '("'1, "'''.'lY
\,,' .. 'i.' ",'fl..
I'j.!; ,11"/ I :/'
,
I ',Ii! (It
/-.11)
QG
:,
! ' ,
1"'1)' I"! ..' " 'r j'V .
'" ._i~jl..-l_",." ,1<1... hl,;'I", 1 - f I
p~r~SrLYNliJ\. '
,
"1'
"
.
il
.,
, ,
,
/, "
" "
,', I "
, ,.I "
. , ,
, , 1'1 ,"1
, "
,
i:'
"
]"r'
'1
"1 I
., :
',I
'J'!
"
"
1>
!'
"
.'
"
" ,I
I,
~ .1
,I
"
,
'I
,
,
I
I'
,
,
I' 'i
,
1"1
;-1;
'I
'i ,
"
i"
"
,)
. ,
H
"
d,1
.,d
.-J~,
96"()768 CIVIL TERM
and treble damages under both alleged statutory violations. Ford Motor Company
flied preliminary objections to the amended complaint.
Ford Motor Company maintains that State Farm's claims under the Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Automobile Lemon Law must
be dismissed, We agree with defendants that State Farm cannot recover treble
damages and attorney fees under those Acts because such a recovery would exceed
the $1,926,74 the company paid to the subrogee Mary McPeak, In Associated
Hospital Service v. pustllnlk, 497 Pa, 221 (1981), the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania stated that "It is settled that the right of subrogation exists only to the
extent of actual payment to the subrogee," In holding that under the doctrine of
equitable subrogation, a subrogor Is entitled to receive only what it actually paid to
the subrogee. the Supreme Court cited Restatement of Restitution !l162 (1937),
which provides:
"Where property of one person Is used in discharging an
obligation owed by another, ' , , under such circumstances that
the other would be unjustly enriched by retention of the benefit
thus conferred, the former is entitled to be subrogated to the
position of the obligee, , , ,"
However, the court ignored Comment I to that section:
"I. Discharged at a discount, Where the obligation is
discharged by the payment of a sum less than the amount of the
obligation, or by the transfer of property the value of which Is less
than the amount of the obligation, the person discharging the
obligation is ordinarily not entitled by subrogation to recover the
full amount of the obligation, but can recover only the amount he
paid or the value of the property used in discharging the
obligation, Thus, a surety Is entitled by subrogation to recover
-2-
.' ,
96-0768 CIVIL TERM
plaintiff'. amended complaint, ARE DISMISSED.
Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Manuel Villegas. Jr" Esquire
For Ford Motor Company
David F. Wllk, Esquire
For Bullseye Ford Mercury, Ino,
:888
i,1 t
, ,
;-' ;)
!I
j' ,
, , "
;'f
, , ,
I
,
'I ,
'I
'.
"
/
By the Court,
, I
1,1',
'I
;;
'iil,1
, .
,
'I.
, "
,
I
"
"
",'
,
! .. ~ I I", t
,"1
'I , , " ,
,
"
"
,
, "
" '1'1
, : /'
" ", i'
"
)1 "'Iii
" , ,
'-, ,/
'i'
11"
'.1 , ,
! , , ,
li.I, ,
, ,
I
,
.
,
.4-
, , ,
"
'I
"
"
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, as Subrogee of
MARY McPEAK,
PLAINTIFF
V,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND
BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC.,
DEFENDANTS
96-0768 CIVIL TERM .
QRDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 1996, a Rule Is entered against plaintiff to
show cause why an order should not be entered granting tile preliminary objections
of Ford Motor Company by dismissing counts III, IV and V of the amended complaint.
Rule returnable ten (10) days after service by filing an answer in the office of tl,e
Prothonotary which should be forwarded to the chambers of thl~udge,
/"
, By the Court, I
(,
!//
Edgar B. Bayl ,J.
Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Manuel Villegas, Jr" Esquire
For Ford Motor Company
David F. Wllk, Esquire
For Bullseye Ford Mercury, Inc.
.'
:saa
~.",;. 'l"hhl..( '7/QClq~.
.~ .1)"' .
"
"I,'
"
,
,
1 I,
,
, I! I,
,
'II
Ii "
;!
d
'I;
, " ,
, ,':!
"
"
'i
~ ,
:1'
"
"
,
"I
,
"
"
,
,
,
.
'"
"
"
"
"
;1
'j
"
,I
!'
: ~
!i
Ii'
~ ! r
'i
)1",_;
,
,
\'(
1".1
"
,
-'l
-II!
, '
"
"
"I
"
"
;,1
h!
'I
Ii
tlll'l1.(1 '(V::;
Co': 'II,' I
s: ,}/!f. ,11)
,
C 'I I ,
1""\'1"'1""'1 j)
'1':',1' '1'1'''''''/\
'I.. 'if 'I,} ,It'I-I,'
"
"
'I
"I I,
"
, .
"
i-Ij!
1;1'1
I,
ii' ~
"
11,'
,
,
,,',
:;1
"
,
"
"
;,1.
';0
Ii
\
itl
"
""111
I'll
;1
IJ
il
Ii
,
\
:1'
~, '.1./
I". ,j'
"
',.1\
"'..'.
,
,
"
"
1'\
"
]1
'i,
(,
,I,
'1.,
,
iJ
H,
,
, ,
d'
,
"
"
"
,',
if
!I'
i,'
"
i,
, !
"
"
,
j ~
"
, "
Ii
,
"
",
"
il
11
H
i't
"
,\
I
,
,
"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON I'LEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE No, 96.768
INSURANCE COMPANY us Subrogee of
Mary Mel)eak. CIVIL ACTION .I.AW
Plaintiff; 1'f;TITION TO CLARIFY ORDER
FORD MOTOR COMPANY Wld BULLSEYE
FORD MERCURY, INC.. Coul1sclofrecord tilr Ihis purly:
V. Filed Oil behalf of FORD MOTOR
COMI'ANY
Defendant, Mal1uel Villegus, Jr" ES(j,
Pa, I.D. 1176728
; I
. DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE. P.C.
Firm 11067
Two PPc; Place. Suile 400
Pittsburgh. PA 15222-5402
"
(412) 281.7272
"
,JURY TRIAL J)EMANDED
"
"
}i
"
I '
, '
,
"
]'J F
'I
, '
, 'I 1 "")_1
,
,
I:','
, ,
, I}
~. ,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYJ. VANIA
CIVIL ACTION
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE )
INSURANCE COMPANY us Subrugee )
of MARY McPEAK. )
Pluinti ff ) No. 96-76,8
)
v. )
)
FORD MOTOR COM/'ANY und BULLSEYE )
FORD MERCURY. INC" )
Defendunts )
/'clltlon To CIllrifv ()rd~r
AND NOW, comes Ford Motor C'ompuny, by und through its attorneys, Dickie,
McCamey & Chilcote. 1'.('" und Munuel Villcgus. Jr., Esquire, and tiles this Petition to Clarily
Order, in support of which it uvers the I(lllowing:
I. On March 19. 1996 Pluintitl' Hied LUl Amended Compluint contuining claims
for breach of express wllrrunty, Unruh' Trude Pructices and Consumer Protection Law, violation
of the Automobile Lemon Law, ncgligcnce and breach of implied wurrunty,
2, Ford Motor Compuny tiled Preliminary Objections in the nalUl'e of II
demurrer to the following c1uillls cOllluined in Pluintiffs Amendcd Complaint: Count II
(viOlations of the Consumer Protcctioll Law): Count III <Automobile Lemon Luw), COUllt IV
(negligence) and Count V (breach of implied warrunty), Also, Ford filed a motion to strike
concerning Puragruph )6(e) of Pluintiffs Amended Complaint.
3. In its Response Briel: Pluintiff admits the liJllowing: "Stute Farm does not
dispute Ford Motor's Preliminary Objections pertuining to Counts III, IV IInd Vol' Stule Farm's
Amended Compluint." (Brief of Plaintift: Stutc Furm Mutual Automobile /nsurancu Company
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON J?LEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBII,E
INSURANCE COMPANY, as Subrogee
of MARY McPEAK,
No. 768 Civil 1996
Plaintiff
v,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FORD MOTOR COMPANY and
BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC.,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BRIBF or PLAINTIFF, STATB PARK MUTUAL AUTOMOBILB
INSURANCE COMPANY &S Subrogse ot MARY MCPBAK,
IN RBSPON8B TO PRELIMINARY OBJBCTIONS
QF DBFENDANT, FORD MOTOR C~
I. Statement of Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
as Subrogee of Mary McPeak ("state Farm"), commenced th is action
against Defendants, Ford Motor Company ("Ford Motor"), and,
BUllseye Ford Mercury, Inc, ("Bullseye For.d"), by way of a
Complaint filed on February 6, 1996, at Cumberland County Docket
No. 96-76S, state Farm's Complaint set forth claims for Breach of
Warranty (Count I), violations of the Unfair Trade J?ractices and
Consumer Protection Law (Count II), violations of the Automobile
Lemon Law (Count III), and negligence (Count IV). Ford Motor and
Bullseye Ford filed pre liminary objections to J?l.aintiff' s
Complaint.
On March 19, 1996, State Farm filed an Amended Complaint.
State Farm's Amended Complaint added a claim for Breach of Implied
Warranty (Count V). Thereafter Ford Motor and BUllseye Ford again
EXHIBIT
"
I
"
A
. "
.'
filed preliminary objections.
state Farm has voluntarily
discontinued this action as to Bullseye Ford, rendering Bullseye
Ford'S preliminary objections moot. Additionally, state Farm does
.. """
not dispute Ford Motor's preliminary Objections pertaining to
counts.. III" IV and Vof state Farm's Amended Complaint. Therefore,
the remaining issues raised by Ford Motor's preliminary objections
'-."
concern: (1) state Farm's claim under the Unfa ir Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law (Count II of state Farm's Amended
Compli\int); (2) state Farm's claim for treble damages and
attorney's fees as authorized by the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Act (contained in Count II of state Farm'S
Amended complaint); and (3) the allegation of fraudulent conduct on
the part of Ford Motor (contained in Count II of state Farm'S
Amended Complaint), These issues are currently before the Court
for disposition.
The underlying facts of this case are set forth in state
Farm's Amended Complaint and are summarized hereafter, On or about
August 17,199]., Mary McJ?eak ("Ms. McPeak"), who is now deceased,
purchased a 1991 Ford Escort ("the vehicle").
The vehicle was
manufactured by Ford Motor and sold to Ms. McJ?eak by Bullseye Ford.
At the time of the purchase, Ms, McPeak was given a written
warranty pertaining to the vehicle, which is not in the possession
of state Farm, but it is believed that Ford Motor and/or Bullseye
Ford is in possession of the same.
- 2 -
III. 1U.Ioussion
A. stats Farm has standing to pursue a claim pursuant
to the Unfair Trade and Consumer proteotion Act.
Ford Motor asserts in its preliminary objoctions that the
language in The Pennsylvania Unfair Trade and Consumer J?roteotion
Law ("CPLIt) precludes State Farm from pursuing a claim under the
CPL due to lack of standing. The CPL provides in pertinent part:
Any person who purchases or leases goods or services
primarily for personal, family or household purposes and
thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or
property, real or personal, as a result of the use or
employment by any person of a method, act or practice
declared unlawful by section 3 of this act, may bring a
private action, to recover actual damages or one hundred
dollars ($100), whichever is greater. The court may, in
its discretion, award up to three times the actual
damages sustained, but not less than one hundred dollars
($100), and may provide such additional relief as it
deems necessary or proper. 73 J?S,S 201-1 ~ ~
Therefore, any "person who purchases or leases goods" has a private
right of action under the CJ?L. "Person" is defined in Section 201-
2 of the CPL as "natura 1 persons, corporat ions, trusts,
partnerships, incorporated or unincorporated associations, and any
other legal entities.1t
Certainly, Ms. McPeak, as the purchaser of the vehicle,
would have had standing under the plain language of the statute to
maintain a cause of action pursuant to the CPL. It is state Farm's
position that as subrogee for Ms. McPeak, it is essentially
standing in the shoes of the purchaser of the vehicle.
It is
- 4 -
establishad law in Pennsylvania that a subrogee is placed in the
precise position of one to whose rights he is subrogated. Brinklv
v. Pealqr, 341 Pa. Super, 432, 491 IL2d 894 (1985) citina Fell v.
Johnston, 154 Pa. super. 470,36 A.Old 227 (1944). Therefore, state
Farm has standing to bring a cause of action that would be
available to Ms, McPeak.
Ford Motor cites two cases in support of its contention
that state Farm does not have standing to pursue a cause of action
under the CPL. The first, ~uer v. McKean CorD., 2 D&C.4th 394
(1989), is easily distinguishable from the present case. The court
held that the plaintiff in Lauer was not a "purchaser" of a vehicle
simply because he did not buy the vehicle in question. The
plaintiff was a consumer who responded to an advertised sale of
Cadillacs and when he arrived, no Cadillac was available at the
advertised price, Subsaquently, the plaintiff purchased the same
make and model automobile for a higher price from another dealer
and then attempted to bring a cause of action against the original
dealer. The court held that the plaintiff was not a "purchaser"
entitled to the protections of the CJ?L. ~X has no bearing on
the issue of whether a subrogee has a right of action under the
C?L,
The other case cited in Ford Motor's Brief is Gemini
Phvsical TheraDV v. state Farm, 40 F.3d 63(Jrd Cir, 1994),
However, it is clear that Gemini J?hvsical TheraDY is not
dillpositive of the iSBue before this Court. On the contrary,
- 5 -
..,A
Gemini Physical Theraoy is factually dissimilar from the case at
bar. In Gemini Physical Thera.1ll(, the plaintiff, a hei'llthcare
provider, treated several patients who had been injured in motor
vehicle accidents and were insured by state Farm, The plaintiff
claimed it was the assignee of the insureds' rights under the State
Farm POlicies and alleged that state Farm unreasonably refused to
pay the insureds' bills, The plaintiff claimed, 1~ ftllA, that
State Farm had violated the CPL. In our case, State Farm is an
insurance company who expended funds on behalf of ita insured and
is now entitled as a matter of law to pursue a subrogation action
to obtain reimbursement of those funds. Furthermore, subrogation
and assignment of rights are two distinct legal concepts. The
Gemini Phvsical Theraov court did not address the plaintiff's
rights under subrogation, it based its decision to preclude the
plaintiff's CPL claim on the fact that the plaintiff did not
recei ve a complete assignment of rights; "Here, the complaint
alleges that the patients assigned only their rights under their
insurance contracts. It does not follow consequentially that the
patients also assigned their rights to bring suits under the CPL."
Gemini Phvsical The~, 40 F.3d at 66. Also, the court
acknowledged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in Hedlund
ManUfacturina Co. v, Weiser, 517 J?a. 522, 539 A,2d 357 (1988).
Pennsylvania has a "well-established policy of permitting causes of
,action to be assigned." Gemini Physical Theraoy, 40 F.3d at 66.
Therefore, if the assignment of rights had been adequate and
~,
- 6 -
encompassed the right to bring a cause of action, the court in
Gemini Physical Therapv would most likely have permitted the CJ?L
olaim.
Ford Motor has cited no controlling case law. Likewise,
state Farm has found no cases which preclude a subrogee from
pursuing a claim under the CPL. state Farm, as the subrogee of the
purchaser of the defective vehicle, is entitled to pursue a cause
of action against the company that manufactured the faulty vehicle.
B. Ford Motor waived its preliminary objections as to
treble damages and attorney's fees by failing to
include those objections in its brief.
In Count II of its preliminary Objections, Ford Motor
challenges state Farm's claim for treble damages and attorney's
fees under the CJ?L. The CPL authori.zes the award of treble damages
and attorney's fees. However, this issue is moot becausQ Ford
Motor failed to include these preliminary objections in its brief,
Pursuant to Local Rule 210-7; "Issues raised, but not briefed,
shall be deemed abandoned."
C. state Farm has sufficiently pled fraudulent conduct
on the part of Ford Motor.
In Count II of its Amended Complaint, state Farm alleges
that Ford Motor committed unfair or deceptive acts and practices in
violation of the CPL by, inter A.l.iA, "engag ing in other fraudulent
conduct which created a likelihood of confusion or of
- 7 -
96-0768 CIVIL TERM
and treble damages under both alleged statutory violations, Ford Motor Company
flied preliminary objections to the amended complaint.
Ford Motor Company maintains that State Farm's claims under the Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Automobile Lemon Law must
be dismissed, We agroe with defendants that State Farm cannot recover treble
damages and attorney fees under those Acts because such a recovery would exceed
the $1,926,74 the company paid to the subrogee Mary McPeak, I n Associated
Hospital Service v, pustltnlk, 497 Pa, 221 (1981), the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania stated that "It Is settled that the right of subrogation 6xlsts only to the
extent of actual payment to the subrogee,- In holding that under the doctrine of
equitable subrogation, a subrogor is entitled to receive only what it actually paid to
the subrogee, the Supreme Court cited Restatement of Restitution ~ 162 (1937),
which provides:
"Where property of one person is used In discharging an
obligation owed by another, ' , , under such circumstances that
the other would be unjustly emiched by retention of the benefit
thus conferred, the former Is entitled to be subrogated to the
position of the obligee, , , ,"
However, the court ignored Comment I to that section:
"i. Discharged at a discount. Where the obligation Is
discharged by the payment of a sum less than the amount of the
obligation, or by the transfer of property the value of which is less
than the amount of the obligation, the person discharging the
obligation is ordinarily not entitled by subrogation to recover the
full amount of the obligation, but can recover only the amount he
paid or the value of the property used in discharging the
obligation, Thus, a surety Is entitled by subrogation to recover
-2-
96-0768 CIVIL TERM
only the amount which he paid to discharge the obligation. He Is
entitled to be made whole, but he Is not entitled to make a profit.
So also, where a person by mistake discharges the debt of
another, he Is entitled by subrogation to obtain no more than the
amount which he paid to discharge the debt."
As a subrogee, State Farm stands in the precise position of Mary McPeak to
whose rights It Is subrogated, Molltorls v, Woods, 422 Pa, Super, 1 (1992).
Therefore, State Farm may proceed to seek the recovery of the $1,926.74 It paid to
Mary McPeak under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the
Automobile Lemon Law; however, It Is limited to recovering only that amount It paid to
Its subrogee. 1
Defendants further object to the averment In subparagraph (c) of paragraph 16
of the amended complaint that defendants engaged "In other fraudulent conduct
which created a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding,' We will strike that
clause for lack of specificity of the It8rtlculars of the alleged fraud.
For the foregoing reasons, the following order Is entered.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of July. 1996, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Subparagraph (c) in paragraph 16 of count II of plaintiff's amended
complaint, IS STRICKEN.
(2) All other preliminary objections of defendant Ford Motor Company to
1. We are satisfied the definitions of 'purchase'" under both statut~s are broad
enough to include a subrogee.
-3.
'.
96'()768 CIVIL TERM
pl~lntlff's amended complaint, ARE DISMISSED.
,
Barry A. Kronthal, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Manuel Villegas, Jr., Esquire
For Ford Motor Company
David F. Wllk, Esquire
For Bullseye Ford Mercury, Inc.
:saa
, '
, ,
I
','
i'
.,
"
il
,
,
"
,
, ,
,
"
ji
,
,
,
,.
,\
"
I
,
By the Court,. .
I
"
,
'!;
, ,
I,
',I
L,
,
"
.
,"
,
'I ,
,
"
')
"
"
, , ,
, i .
. " ,
I,
q
, "
,
.'
,4-
"
.
'/
,
.'
1','
!I
,
,
/'
;1
f'i
, ,
; I'
"
,
,
"
"
,
,
,
"
"
, '
',!
..
..
"
"
"
,
"
.
"~,I i'
"
I'
.
,I'
I;'
,
'i i',
I"
,fI
"
.
,"
iil -,i'
, ,
"
l'
I
"
J ,j
,
II
(:1
"
"
\)! ,r
"
i,'
I. '
il
~ I,' I
"
Ii
,/
!I
,I
I,
''I
I
'j ,
)' _" H""'.#1'''''o~ ...I"....~..~~ J '
~. w.:'" ;:'1 m\,
1_.--;..-
1:llJ',I:', ",i ",I"'" ~\\:'1'0.~t
, '
, ,
,
.
I
,';
,
.'
,
,
, '
"
"
.
',I
, ,
;,
"
.J! "
,
I.
,
I ,;
,
.'
! :,
.
I iHi ,I
"
I Ii
"
"
H
,
,
i,
, I
.,
,
,",
'~ j'U') SiI
i' ,Qlil
I
~\~/ ,~ :;l
(j!j ~? T11
ill ""
(,p' 1r;J,
W~:,! '..J
iI ~') ~I
" " ;1 "
, ,/ Cr"j 'I ;,\,:i 1. ')- .
~rl'! I""
W .'. r
,"", ~~
';,;' :..l r...
..j ,~
, '".;' ...J
" <::,
',IJ
"
"
"
;J
0'1
"
, '
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON P/.I':AS OF CliMBERLAND <:OUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIl. ACTION
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE )
INSURANCE COMPANY us Subrogee )
of MARY McPEAK. )
)
Plalntif!; ) No. 96.768
)
v. )
)
. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and BULLSEYE )
FORD MERCURY, INC., )
)
Detimdants. )
'F ,
q
I
consideration of the Petition To Make Rule Absolute of Dctcndant, Ford Motor Company, it is
OIWF.I{ OF COlllfr
A~m NOW. this ~ day of _~_. '1996, upon
hereby ADJUDGED. ORDERED und DECREED. that such PetltiOllis Ilran!ed and Counts III,
, IV and Vol' Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.
BY THE COURT:
, 'I
J.
, J'
"
"
I"
I
'.
.~
,
"
,'I
',-
'rf.~
\.
w'"
~ .
,l, '
\2'\:'
~'l"
,..,1"
.\- ~
I'
l\;,
~-
",,'
o;-~
..
..;1
:-1..-
Lt.>
"
d
I'
1.1
(:'-..-
,
~ ,1(,
",-,
"1,'.-'_'
,. ,
.,r,')
I c~~
j,..
'i,\
.,0
(."
,
,
"
').~ J I
~ ~-,.
!,I)
;--~1)
" \(\1,
\ '\, ~)..
';)
~J '
1..,
;)I,) I
~ J
".
"
,
"
,
"
,\ "I
,
,
"
':-1
"
,I
,
I,'
Ii
Ii
~ i_I
,
r"
I'
,
I ; ,p
, "
FlII'!') .(JFACr:
I"H~ ~I-- ,; I' "I '("i('JTU1'(
.' '''. _ 11
,9(,orl' ..I
rilll; ~ll
.
CUll;. .,',J; ,J 'II)~I~IV
l'I;Nf'j;J;'I.V/'i\::.\ '
"
"
J I,.
"
'II ;1
,I
il:1
!r
,"
I
.
II I
'I'
., .,
" \"1
, I
, "
" "
"I!! ,I
"
!l
It I
,
"
'I
..
ii
'I
',-Ii
,
!
"
,
"
,
"
"
'.
,
,
':1 "I I
"
!I
"
'Of,
"
"
"
I
,
'I
'-III
I
.
"
"
, ,
Ii"
j"
I' ',j
. "
I
"
j!
-ri
,
,
"
"
'I
"
1;1
,-I'
'II
"
/"
,J 1'/
.
,
, ,
Ii
"
I'
"
"
, ,
I'
i I
'II
"
"
,
I,
,
" I
I'H'
'I!
I, I)
"
I,;
"
"II?
~~
~
~
...
1
4
j:"'
"
,
, '
I,'
II"
,f)
"
"
,I
,
. ,
,
ri
"
Ii,
dl
'I
,
Ii'
,,'
1"
, '
".(1
'I
'I
II
I}
.. '
"
"
, I
,
'ii'
d
,
i'
'.1
'Ii
,\
(
,
"
'll 'j
1.1 'I'
1
I
!-i
"
,I
"
,.1
,
,
'I'
:,'
"
,
,
'I'
I"
"
'"I
..,
ii'
"
,
.
"
"
"
'..-11
,
"
+.
"
!.,
I'.
','
,I
"
II -,
1/,
"
,
"
;,
,
,q
"
"
"
"
, '
"
"
Ir,
"
"
;!'
"
il
'I
I,)
,
"
!j
iii"':'
';i
,
.I,
II'
,I j"
,
,
"
"
'Ij
II
" ",',
, , ,
'. '.\ ,
, ,';, "
,
.' "
, "
"
, "I
'I; ,
I'
I
'.
, '
,
I I,~
(J\
'~j 'J
':"oi
"~I'
,..
\:':'1
"
"
, ,
,
,
"
Ii
"
~'r-'I
,.....
i',~i
..
:~)!
";1
.d
'.'i~~;l"
1'1
~ t;1-,
,J:ih~
;''1
iJ
.....
~-..
"
In
"
"
,I
)
"
f: 'r
"
,
L'I
,
,
i. .
10. Parallraph 10 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint sets Ii.mh conclusions of
law to which no responses arc retlulred and arc deemed denied. To the extent a response is
required. the avennents contained in parullraph 10 of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are denied.
COlJNT I
11. 'In responsc to pnrugruph II of Plaintltl's Amended Complaint. Ford Motor
Company incorporates herein by reference the averments set Ii.mh in its answers to parallraphs
1.10 of Plaintiff's Amendcd Complnint. as if set 1i.>rIh herein at length.
12. It is specllically denied thut any Ford warrWlty covered the alleged dwnages
described In Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. By way of further response. paragraph 12 of
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint sets 1(>rIh conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is
required and is therefore deemed denied,
13-14, Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint set forth
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is necessary, the averments contained in
parallraphs 13 and 14 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are deemed denied; accordingly. strict
proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, the defendant, Ford Motor Company, denies any and all liability
to the Plaintiff in this action and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in its favor together with costs.
COUNT II
I S. In response to parugruph 15 of Plulntll1's Amended Complaint, Ford Motor
Company Incorporales herein hy reference thc uvermcnts set forth In Its unswers to paragraphs
1.14 of Plalntifl's Amcnded ('ol11pluint, us if sctli,rth hcrein mlength.
16. Purugruph 16 IInd suhpllrugruphs IU' and (h) of l'luintiffs Amended
t:ornplalnt sctlorth conclusions of luw 10 which no responsive plcudlng is required ure therefore
deemed denied. To the cxlent 1I responsive plellding is neeessury, the uverl11ents contained in
paragraph 16 and suhpurugrurhs (u) und (h) of Pluintill's Amended COl11pluintllre denied in their
entirety; accordingly. strict proof thereof is demunded utthe time of trial.
17-18, Purugruphs 17 und 18 of Pluintiffs Amended COl11plulnt set lorth
conclusions of law to which no respons~' is rcquired and are dccmed denied. To the extent a
response is required. the averments contained In parugruphs 1 i and 18 of Plaintifl's Amended
Complaint arc denied.
WHEREFORE. this defendant, Ford Motor Company, denies any and all liability
to the Plaintifl'in this action und respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in its favor together with costs.
NEW MATTER
19. Ford Motor Company incorporates by reference the averments set forth in
its answers to paragraphs 1-18 of Plaintlll's Amcnded Compluint. us If set forth herein at length.
20, Raised us a complete and totul bar to any alleged liability against. Ford
Motor Company is the contributory negligence and the comparative fault of the' Plaintiff. In the
4
._.,.,.-~ .. ...,-
alternative. if suid negligence docs not UCI as a cOInplete and total bur, then. said negligence acts
as a diminution against uny und all allcged liability,
21. To the extent justilied by Ihe facts developed in discovery or at the time
of trial, raised us a complete Wld lotal bur ugainst W1Y Wld ull alleged liability against Ford Motor
Company is the abuse. misuse and/or abnormal or improper use of the product.
22. To the extent justilied by Ihe lllCIS developed in discovery or ut the time
of trial, raised os a complete Wld total bar against Wly lUld all alleged liability against Ford Motor
Company is the substantial change in the product.
23. To the extent justilied by the fucls dcvelopcd in discovery or at the time
of trial Wld applicable to the theory of liability raised by the Plaintift; then. Ford Motor Company
pleads assumption of the risk as a bar to liability,
24. To the extent justilied by the facts developed in discovery or at the time
of triol, raised os a complete and total bur against Wly Wld all alleged liability against Ford Motor
Company, or in the alternative, as a diminution of any liability on bchalf of Ford Motor
Company, arc the superseding intervcning acts and omissions of third parties of which Ford
Motor Company has no control or right to control.
25. To the extent justilied by the facts developed in discovery or at the time
of trial, raised os a complete and total bur against any Wld all allegcd liability against Ford Motor
Company, if appllcablc. is the doctrine of spoilation of evidence.
26. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted against FordMotor Company.
5
STATE OF MICHIGAN )
) 55.
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
.
II
PNJL 1<, ", i'."'!H". ,Ill.
_, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the
i
I
I
\
\
,
I
deponent Is an authorized agent of Ford Motor Company, and that the deponent verifies the foregoing
Answer and New Matler for and on behalf of Ford Motor Company and Is duly authorized so to do; that
. certain of the matlers stated therein are not within the personal knowledge of the deponent; that the facts
stated therein have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel of Ford Motor Company, and
the deponent Is Informed that the facts stated therein are true,
"
/7,
..' '/
,,/ ~
/j?o/'
\
I
//
SUb.....d~m to b.ro~ m'." I~'
dayof.4 ,~ 1997.
:;c tY;!
.,,'~
I'
, ,
, ,
[,
,
.1 _, ,I "," ',I "I IJirll\n'Jn
1..1 ',1, I ",_')' i ,. ',cU
M~ GUIIIIIII~'I"'II_'I;i'," J.,.\ioIY U. 2000
':,
. ,
....
",
~ I
'ERTIFICAn: OF SERVICE
I, Manuel VlllegB5, Esquire, do hereby certify that I caul\l.-d atNe and correct copy
of the forelloing ANSWER AND NEW MA'ITER to be served this 20th day of Februlll')', 1997,
by U.S, First-elnss Mall. Postagc Prepaid, upon the following counsel of record:
Darry A. Kronlhal. Esquire
Reynolds & \lavas
101 Pinc Strcet
Post Oflicc Box 932
Harrisburg, P ^ 17108-0932
"
Randall 0, Galc, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas & Ilafer
305 North Front Street
Sixth Floor
1'.0, Box 999
Harrisburg, P ^ 17108
"
, ,
, ,
~..f at~ t
Manuel Villegas, Jr.
'I
'i',
,
, ,
.
, ,
\'1,
, '
'"
, '
1;1
, ,
ii I,
,
"
, ,
, '
I! ,
, "
, '
1 ','
,,'
""I
. "
.'
"
"
, ,
,
Ii, .
, ,
, ,
, "
"
"
"
"
Ii
Ii
"
""1 11'\' .'
fr, u;. I .
f'"' I: J,LI'
..
~I\ ~q ';.'J
J ~"~ ,
, , }. ' I.
In', IJ.. i ~.'.! I,
d1' (...l j:Jj,
"
~) ~ , _.1 ! .,;
rl,. ' ,', " Hd
.1.. i , ),n..
I ,. ....,.
.... ;'j
't.' ~~
()
I
i
,
i'
"
"
, ,
,
.
, .
, ,
,
,
. ,
"
N
I'l
! ~
~ I (
~ 8
~ I pal ! ~
H
all en . )
.\ Iii
~ ~;; ~ ~ ~
c
~ (r .
. \ \
"
"
,,!
'i
'f I!,
"
"
Ii
,),
" ,
,
I'
"
"I
"
"
"
,.)'
"
Ill,
'l",i
I'
I,
"
;1'
.,
"
"
"
, .,
".
, ,
. .
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMJ?ANY as subrogee
of Mary McPeak,
Plaintiff
No. 96-768 civil
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
F'ORD MOTOR COMPANY and
BULLSEYE FORD MERCURY, INC.,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER
OF DEFENDANT. FORD MOTOR COMP~
19. Denied.
Plaintiff's Complaint, being in writing,
speaks for itself and the aver.ments of this paragraph are,
therefore, denied.
20. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, therefore, denied.
21- Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, there fore, denied.
22. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, therefore, denied.
23. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, therefore, denied.
24. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments ot
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, therefore, denied.
25. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments ot
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, there fore, denied.
26. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
requ ired and they are, there fore, denied.
27. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments ot
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, therefore, denied.
28. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, therefore, denied.
29. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, therefore, denied.
30. Denied. By way of further answer, the averments of
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, therefore, denied.
31. Denied. By way of fur.t.her answer, the averments of
the Defendant state a conclusion of law to which no response is
required and they are, therefore, denied.
- 2 -
,
"
,',