Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KRUEGER ASSOCS. v. ADT SEC. SYS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


July 8, 1998

KRUEGER ASSOCIATES, INC., Individually and Trading as National Fulfillment Services, Plaintiff,
v.
ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, MID-SOUTH, INC., and ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, v. EUGENE KRUEGER and SAMUEL MENDICINO, individually and d/b/a/ as HOLMES CORPORATE CENTER and HOLMES INDUSTRIAL OFFICE CENTER, Third-Party Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: KELLY

MEMORANDUM

 R.F. KELLY, J.

 JULY 8, 1998

 Review of the record in this case reveals that Plaintiff's Crossclaims remain outstanding. The Crossclaims encompass the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint by reference. Thus, Plaintiff alleges strict liability (Count I), negligence (Count II), breach of implied warranties (Count III), strict liability - ultrahazardous activities (Count IV), fraud (Count V), and negligent misrepresentation (Count VI). Additionally, Plaintiff includes a separate count seeking indemnification pursuant to the lease agreement.

 I find that the portions of Plaintiff's Crossclaims which incorporate Plaintiff's Complaint by reference are improper and must be dismissed because Plaintiff's Complaint provides no basis for liability from Third-Party Defendant to Plaintiff. FED. R. CIV. PRO. 8.

 Also, Plaintiff's claim for indemnification pursuant to the lease agreement must fail. Nothing in the lease requires Holmes Corporate Center to indemnify Plaintiff. Dipietro v. City of Philadelphia, 344 Pa. Super. 191, 496 A.2d 407, 410 (Pa. Super. 1985). To the contrary, Plaintiff agrees to indemnify Holmes Corporate Center in the lease agreement. Under no circumstances will Plaintiff be entitled to indemnification from Third-Party Defendants in this matter, therefore, Plaintiff's claim for indemnification must be dismissed.

 An Order follows.

 ORDER

 AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 1998, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Crossclaims are dismissed.

 BY THE COURT:

 Robert F. Kelly, J.

19980708

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.