Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BROCKER MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. UNITED BONDING & INSURANCE COMPANY (03/09/73)

decided: March 9, 1973.

BROCKER MANUFACTURING & SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.
v.
UNITED BONDING & INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.



Original jurisdiction in case of Brocker Manufacturing & Supply Company, Inc. v. United Bonding & Insurance Company, Doral Construction Company, Inc. and Department of Forest and Waters.

COUNSEL

Peter D. Solymos, with him Lewis H. Markowitz and Markowitz, Kagen & Griffith, for plaintiff.

Arthur L. Pressman, with him Kenneth M. Cushman and, of counsel, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, for defendant, United Bonding & Insurance Company.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 8 Pa. Commw. Page 111]

This is an action by plaintiff subcontractor, Brocker Manufacturing and Supply Company, Inc., seeking to recover reimbursement for steel reinforcing bars allegedly supplied to the prime contractor, Doral Construction Company, Inc. who used same in the construction of the Pine Creek Inflatable Dam. The defendant surety, United Bonding and Insurance Company, has raised Preliminary Objections to plaintiff subcontractor's complaint asserting that (1) the Board of Arbitration of Claims is the only forum before which a claim of such a nature can be initially presented against the Commonwealth, and (2) that the statute of limitations for the presentation of such a claim against the Department of Forest & Waters and the surety have lapsed for failure to sue within the times prescribed by the relevant statutes. We agree with the defendant surety's first contention concerning jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore find it unnecessary to discuss the second allegation.

The Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970 provides that:

"(a) The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of:

"(1) All civil actions or proceedings against the Commonwealth or any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity. . . ." Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, Article IV, § 401, 17 P.S. § 211.401(a)(1).

The repeals and savings provision of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970 provides at 17 P.S. § 211.509(e)(2) that:

[ 8 Pa. Commw. Page 112]

"(e) Nothing in this act contained shall repeal, modify or supplant any law insofar as it confers authority, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.