Original jurisdiction in case of The General State Authority v. Lawrie and Green and John McShain, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
John L. Sweezy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard D. Holahan, Assistant Attorney General and Michael A. Madar, Chief Counsel, for plaintiff.
Luther E. Milpower, Jr., with him Edward C. First, Jr., and McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for defendant, Lawrie and Green.
James K. Thomas, with him Metzger, Hafer, Keefer, Thomas and Wood, for defendant, John McShain, Inc.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 24 Pa. Commw. Page 408]
Preliminary objections of Defendants, Lawrie and Green and John McShain, Inc., have been filed to Plaintiff, General State Authority's complaint in assumpsit which seeks damages in connection with an alleged breach of contract in the construction of the William Penn Memorial Museum.
Briefly summarizing the respective objections of each Defendant, the following issues emerge with respect to the various specificity and compliance with rule of Court objections:
1. Has Plaintiff stated a cause of action as to each Defendant in a separate count pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1020(a)?
[ 24 Pa. Commw. Page 4092]
. Has Plaintiff, in failing to incorporate copies of plans, specifications, bids, and shop drawings, violated Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(h) with regard to McShain?
3. Has Plaintiff met the strictures of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(a)?
4. Is the statute of limitations to be considered in assessing the specificity of the complaint, i.e., must Plaintiff plead the date of final acceptance of the building, the dates of the first appearance of all alleged defects, commencement dates of construction and dates on which the initial reports of defects were received?
5. Has Plaintiff pleaded with requisite specificity the defects allegedly caused by Lawrie and Green?
6. Has Plaintiff pleaded special damages with sufficient specificity?
7. Did Plaintiff fail to meet the requirements of Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(h) with regard to Lawrie and Green by failing to attach a complete copy of the construction contract to the complaint?
McShain's Preliminary Objections
In response to McShain's initial preliminary objection that Plaintiff has not stated its individual causes of action against the two Defendants in a separate count, demanding separate relief in violation of Pa. R.C.P. No. 1020(a), we hold that, at least as to Defendant McShain, this complaint is indeed defective.
Our review of the complaint as pleaded reveals that Plaintiff's initial count is in assumpsit with averments five through thirteen alleging facts supportive of breach by Lawrie and Green of their contract with Plaintiff, while averments fourteen through twenty concern Plaintiff's contract with McShain and alleged breaches thereof. Plaintiff's demand for relief which accompanies this count demands a judgment against ...