Case 2:13-cv-02575-ES-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/23/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY BANKERS STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, a/s/o MARCIE and SCOTT SANDERS 436 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Plaintiff, vs. HAERTSCH AND COMPANY, INC., individually and d/b/a HAERTSCH WELL DRILLING CO., INC. 43 Main Street Montvale, NJ 07645 Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case No:

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, Cozen O’Connor, complaining of the defendant, allege the following upon information and belief: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Bankers Standard Insurance Company (“Bankers Standard”), is a

corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business located at 436 Walnut Street, Pennsylvania, and at all times relevant hereto was duly authorized to issue insurance policies in the State of New Jersey. 2. At all times relevant herein, Marcie and Scott Sanders were the owners of the

property located at 1 Cedarwood Lane, Saddle River, New Jersey (“the Premises”).

Case 2:13-cv-02575-ES-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/23/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 2

3.

Marcie and Scott Sanders were insured through a policy of insurance issued by

Plaintiff Bankers Standard, policy number 267903027, which insured them against, inter alia, damages to real and personal property, as well as loss of use and extra expense. 4. Defendant Haertsch and Company, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with a principal place of business located at 43 Main Street, Montvale, New Jersey, and at all times relevant hereto was in the business of providing plumbing and construction services by and through its d/b/a Haertsch Well Drilling Co., Inc.. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A.

§1332 by reason of diversity of citizenship of the parties. 6. The matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of

$150,000.00. Venue is properly laid in this District pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. §1391. FACTS 7. The Sanders purchased their home new in 2007. At the time, the bathroom in the

basement was studded out, but unfinished. 8. In 2009, the Sanders entered into a contract with the defendant to plumb and

finish the basement bathroom. 9. The defendant ran a PEX water supply line to the bathroom and connected the

PEX water supply line to a copper elbow for the toilet. 10. On or about May 24, 2012, Marcie Sanders discovered water in her basement

leaking from the PEX water supply line and copper elbow connection made by the defendant. 11. The water leak and resulting damage were caused by the negligent, careless and

reckless acts of the defendant.
2

Case 2:13-cv-02575-ES-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/23/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 3

12.

As a result of the water damage referred to above, and pursuant to the aforesaid

policy of insurance, plaintiff Bankers Standard paid the Sanders the fair and reasonable cost of repairing and/or replacing the damaged real and personal property, as well as the additional living and extra expenses incurred by the Sanders on account of the water damage. 13. As a result of said payments, plaintiff Bankers Standard is both legally and

equitably subrogated to any and all claims that the Sanders may have against the defendant. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE 14. 15. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 as if fully set forth herein. The water leak and resulting damage referred to above resulted from the

negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of the defendant, and/or its agents, servants and/or employees, said negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness in failing to make a proper connection between the PEX water supply line and the copper elbow, in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and accepted plumbing industry practices. 16. The defendant’s negligence was the legal, direct and proximate cause of the

damages suffered by plaintiff. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against the defendant, in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, costs and any other relief the Court deems just. COUNT II BREACH OF CONTRACT 17. herein. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 16 as though fully set forth

3

Case 2:13-cv-02575-ES-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/23/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 4

18.

Pursuant to the oral contract referred to above, the defendant was required to

install the water supply line for the bathroom toilet in a prudent and reasonable manner and in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 19. The defendant breached this contract by failing to make a proper connection

between the PEX water supply line and the copper elbow, in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and accepted plumbing industry practices. 20. The breach of contract described above was the legal, direct and proximate cause

of the water leak and the resulting damages suffered by the plaintiff. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against the defendant, in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, costs and any other relief the Court deems just.

COUNT III BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 21. herein. 22. Pursuant to the contract referred to above, the defendant impliedly warranted that Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 as though fully set forth

it would install the plumbing for the bathroom in a workmanlike manner, according to standard practices and in conformity with the manufacturer’s instructions. 23. The defendant breached this implied warranty by failing to connect the PEX water

supply line with the copper elbow in conformity with the manufacturer’s instructions. 24. The breaches of implied warranty described above were the legal, direct and

proximate cause of the flood and the resulting damages suffered by the plaintiff’s insured. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands that judgment be entered in its favor and against the defendant, in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest, costs and any other

4

Case 2:13-cv-02575-ES-SCM Document 1 Filed 04/23/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 5

relief the Court deems just. Dated: March 23, 2013 Respectfully submitted, COZEN O’CONNOR By: s/Matthew F. Noone Matthew F. Noone, Esquire 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665-2192 mnoone@cozen.com Attorneys for Plaintiff

5

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful