No. 01337 PITTSBURGH, 1982, Appeal from an Order in the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, No. 6997-82.
Robert V. Campedel, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Amy S. Cunningham, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Brosky, Watkins and Hester, JJ.
[ 334 Pa. Super. Page 446]
This is an appeal from an order of the lower court which struck appellant's counterclaims on the ground that they involved actions separate from that included in appellee's complaint.*fn1 For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
Appellee instituted an action against appellant to recover the cost of electrical services which it provided to appellant. In its answer, appellant did not deny that electrical services were received; rather, it counterclaimed for rental value of telephone poles wrongfully placed on its property and for damages resulting from improper installation of said poles. In addition, appellant counterclaimed for loss of rent resulting from appellee's failure to provide electrical services to appellant's tenant.
Appellee filed preliminary objections and moved to strike appellant's counterclaims as violations of Pa.R.C.P. 1031. This rule permits a defendant to raise by counterclaim any cause of action:
[ 334 Pa. Super. Page 447]
(1) which arises from the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences from which plaintiff's cause of actions arose or
(2) which arises from contract or is quasi-contractual.
The lower court agreed that appellant's counterclaims did not fall within the purview of Rule 1031 and sustained appellee's preliminary objections.
Appellant seeks our review of this decision, asserting that the lower court erred in striking its counterclaims. The foundation for appellant's argument is that its counterclaim arose from the same series of transactions or occurrences from which appellee's cause of action arose. In the alternative, appellant asserts that one of its counterclaims arose from a ...