Original jurisdiction in case of The General State Authority v. Lawrie and Green and John McShain, Inc., a Delaware Corporation.
Linus E. Fenicle, Assistant Attorney General, with him Theodore A. Adler, Chief Counsel, Vincent X. Yakowicz, Solicitor General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for plaintiff.
Luther E. Milspaw, Jr., with him Edward C. First, Jr. and McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for defendant, Lawrie and Green.
Joseph P. Hafer, with him James K. Thomas, and Metzger, Hafer, Keefer, Thomas and Wood, for defendant, John McShain, Inc.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 568]
Presently before us are the preliminary objections of both defendants Lawrie and Green and John McShain, Inc. (McShain) to the General State Authority's (GSA) third amended complaint in this matter. This Court previously disposed of preliminary objections of these same defendants to the original complaint, see General State Authority v. Lawrie and Green, 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 407, 356 A.2d 851 (1976), resulting in the filing by GSA of a second and now third amended complaint.
Briefly summarizing the factual matrix underpinning the litigation, Defendant Lawrie and Green had contracted with GSA to provide architectural service for the construction of the William Penn Memorial Museum eventually undertaken by McShain.
Preliminary Objection of Lawrie and Green
1. Briefly stated, Lawrie and Green has reinstituted its objection previously posed to the original complaint that it is unable to prepare a valid defense because GSA has again failed to plead the times and dates of discovery of defects in the structure and the date of final acceptance of the building by GSA in contravention of Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(f).
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 569]
No useful purpose would be served by again detailing the law as it relates to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1019(f),*fn1 but suffice it to say that we have reviewed the third amended complaint for the amendments ordered by our prior opinion and conclude that Lawrie and Green is now in a position to defend the complaint based upon the amended averments. That the amendments could have been more artfully drawn and more specific is not the question presently before us. Lawrie and Green should now know sufficiently the approximate times and dates of the events underlying this ...