decided: April 13, 1977.
THE GENERAL STATE AUTHORITY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PLAINTIFF
GEORGE M. EWING COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS. FRED LOFFREDO ET AL., ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS
Original jurisdiction in case of The General State Authority, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. George M. Ewing Company and George M. Ewing, Sr., George M. Ewing, Jr., William C. Joyce, Harry R. Fox, Robertson H. Short, Jr., M. Paul Brott, Defendants, v. Fred Loffredo, General Roofing and Insulation Company and The Dow Chemical Company, Additional Defendants.
Michael A. Madar, General Counsel, with him Arnold L. Wainstein, Assistant Counsel, and Richard D. Holahan, Assistant General Counsel, for plaintiff.
Edward E. Knauss, III, with him Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss & Erb; Robert W. Maris; John M. Elliott ; and Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Levy, for defendants.
Walter W. Wilt, with him Hepford, Zimmerman & Swartz; Warren S. Radler ; and Saperston, Day & Radler, for additional defendant, Dow Chemical Co.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.
Author: Per Curiam
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 524]
The parties agree that the primary question argued before the Court on March 11, 1977, on these preliminary objections is whether the statute of limitations can be asserted to bar a claim by the General State Authority.*fn1 On March 11, 1977, the same day this case was argued, this Court filed its decision in General State Authority v. Kline, 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 232, 370 A.2d 402 (1977), a case that raised the identical question and held, with an opinion by
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 525]
Judge Blatt, that the statute of limitations does not apply to actions brought by the General State Authority.
Accordingly, we will enter the following
Now, April 13, 1977, the preliminary objections of Dow Chemical Company to the complaint joining it as an additional defendant are overruled.
Preliminary objections overruled.