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.

AHV PROPERTIES v. COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORP.

November 14, 1996

AHV PROPERTIES
v.
COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION



The opinion of the court was delivered by: KELLY

 R.F. KELLY, J.

 NOVEMBER 14, 1996

 This action was brought by AHV Properties ("AHV") against the Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation ("Columbia") for an alleged violation of Columbia's duties under the Pennsylvania One-Call statute and negligence claims generally.

 According to the Final Pretrial Order, AHV alleges:

 
(a) that Columbia Gas knowingly, intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently acted in violation of the Act of 1972, December 18, P.L. 852, No. 287, 1 et seq., as amended, 73 P.S. 176, et seq. as follows:
 
(i) in violation of 73 P.S. 177(4), Columbia Gas inaccurately and incorrectly identified the actual position of its lines on the Premises;
 
(ii) in violation of 73 P.S. 177(5), Columbia Gas failed to properly mark, stake, locate, or otherwise provide the position of its lines in a timely fashion;
 
(b) that Columbia Gas knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently misrepresented the location of its lines, and AHV justifiably relied thereon, to its detriment;
 
(c) that Columbia Gas was otherwise negligent. *fn1"
 
The section of the Pennsylvania One-Call statute in question in this lawsuit is ยง 177(4) which states:
 
Not more than ten working days after receipt of a request therefor from a designer who identifies the site of excavation or demolition work for which he is preparing a drawing, to initially respond to his request, orally or by mail, for information as to the position and type of the user's possession. If there are no lines at the site, the user shall so advise the person making the request; if there are lines at the site, the user shall follow up such initial response. In either instance, such response shall be in writing when requested by the designer.
 
Based upon this map and on-site observations, Bursich proceeded to design the location of proposed improvements on the property in question. Two years later when these plans were submitted to Columbia, AHV was told that the ...

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.