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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. G. WEINBERGER CO. (03/09/82)

decided: March 9, 1982.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, PETITIONER
v.
G. WEINBERGER CO., INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Board of Claims in case of G. Weinberger Co., Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of General Services v. Valverde & Franco and Joseph Valverde, Jr. and Horace R. Franco, Docket No. 537.

COUNSEL

Henry J. Costa, Jr., Assistant Counsel, with him Thadeus A. Tanski, Chief, General Litigation Unit, and Anthony P. Krzywicki, Chief Counsel, for petitioner.

Joseph A. Murphy, with him Jerry J. Weinberger, Tellie, Durkin, Weinberger, Murphy and Piazza, P.C., for respondent, G. Weinberger Co., Inc.

Harry W. Reed, Jr., Davis, Katz, Buzgon, Davis and Reed, Ltd., for respondent, Plotkin & Son.

Jonathan M. Crist, with him Thomas A. Beckley, Beckley & Madden, for respondents, Valverde and Franco.

Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 65 Pa. Commw. Page 202]

The Pennsylvania Department of General Services questions a decision by the Board of Claims which awarded $35,023.68 plus interest to respondents G. Weinberger Company, Inc. (contractor) and Jack Plotkin & Son (subcontractor) under a contract for the installation of a fire safety sprinkler system at Clark Summit State Hospital.

During excavation for the installation of a water line, the subcontractor's workmen had struck an underground 12,500 volt electrical cable with a jackhammer, causing a violent explosion. Another company charged the state $35,023.68 to repair the damage.

The contractor initiated its action before the board when the department withheld that sum from its contract

[ 65 Pa. Commw. Page 203]

    payments. The subcontractor petitioned for, and was granted, leave to intervene because the contractor had, in turn, withheld the same amount from the subcontractor.

The department then filed a complaint against Valverde & Franco (V & F) -- an architectural firm hired to provide all necessary design, review and inspection services for the improvements -- as additional defendants, alleging that its failure to indicate the electrical cable on the contract ...


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.