Filed and Attested by the Office of Judicial Records 23 MAY 2018 04:34 pm A. SILIGRINI Case ID: 180502581 and RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC 3509 Capri Court Philadelphia, PA 19145; and FRANK MAZZIO 29 Jasmine Way Sewell, NJ 08080; and HARMAN DEUTSCH CORP. 432 Sedgwick Street Philadelphia, PA 19119; and HARMAN DEUTSCH ARCHITECTURE 631 12tll Street, 1St Floor Philadelphia, PA 19123, DefendantsNOTICE TO DEFEND NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint of for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. You should take this paper to your lawyer at once. If you do not have a lawyer or cannot afford one, go to or telephone the of?ce set forth below to ?nd out where you can get legal help. Lawyer Reference Service Philadelphia Bar Association 1101 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 238-6333 AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda la notificacion. Hace falta ascentar una comparencia escrita 0 en persona 0 con un abogado entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decider a favor del demandante requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero sus propiedades otros derechos importantes para usted. lJeve esta demanda a un abogado immediatamente. Si no tiene abagado si no tiene el dinero suficiente de pagar tal servicio. Vaya en persona a Home par telefono a la oficina cuya direccion se encuentra escrita abaja para averlguar donde se puede conseguir asistencia legal. Lawyer Reference Service Philadelphia Bar Association 1101 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 238-6333 Case ID: 180502581 HORN WILLIAMSON LLC Jennifer M. Horn, Esquire PA ID 79721 Rachel E. Jeanes, Esquire PA ID 320025 Two Penn Center 1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19102 P: 2 1 5-987-3 800 F: 215-334-7336 jhorn@hornwilliamson.com Attorneys for Plaintijj? rjeanes@hornwilliamson.com6 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARGARET JACKSON OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY 1851 Blair Street Philadelphia, PA 19125, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AGA DEVELOPERS, LLC 32 Mill Road Havertown, PA 19083; and AGAF HOLDINGS LP 13 Springhouse Lane Havertown, PA 19083; and AGAF HOLDINGS GP, LLC 13 Springhouse Lane Havertown, PA 19083; and SOKO DEVELOPERS, LLC 13 Springhouse Lane Havertown, PA 19083; and RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC Case ID: 180502581 3509 Capri Court Philadelphia, PA 19145; and FRANK MAZZIO 29 Jasmine Way Sewell, NJ 08080; and HARMAN DEUTSCH CORP. 432 Sedgwick Street Philadelphia, PA 19119; and HARMAN DEUTSCH ARCHITECTURE 631 12th Street, 1?t Floor Philadelphia, PA 19123, Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiff Margaret Jackson, by and through her attorneys, Horn Williamson LLC, hereby ?le this Complaint and avers as follows: I. PARTIES AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff Margaret Jackson owns and resides in a home located at 1851 Blair Street, Philadelphia, 19125 (the ?Home?) in the housing development known as Frankford Square (the ?Development?) in the ?Fishtown? neighborhood of Philadelphia, which is a planned residential community subject to Uniform Planned Community Act, 68 5101, et. seq. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant AGA Developers, LLC Developers?) is a corporation that operates as a developer, builder, and/or seller of residential Case ID: 180502581 homes whose principal place of business is located at 32 Mill Road, Havertown, 19083. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP is a corporation that operates as the Seller of the Home, with a principal place of business located at 13 Springhouse Lane, Havertown, 19083. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC is a corporation that operates as the Seller of the Home, with a principal place of business located at 13 Springhouse Lane, Havertown, 19083. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant SoKo Developers LLC (?SoKo?) is a corporation that operates as a developer, builder, and/or seller of residential homes whose principal place of business is located at 13 Springhouse Lane, Havertown, 19083. 6. Upon information and belief, Defendant RGD Construction LLC is a is a corporation that operates as a developer, builder, and/or seller of residential homes whose principal place of business is located at 3509 Capri Court, Philadelphia, 19145. 7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Frank Mazzio is an adult individual residing at 29 Jasmine Way, Sewell, New Jersey, 08080. 8. Upon information and belief, Frank Mazzio is the principal owner, founder and/or President of AGA Developers. 9. Defendants AGA Developers, AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and RGD are collectively referred to herein as the Defendants? or the Entities.? 10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Harman Deutsch Corp. is a corporation with a principal place of business located at 432 East Sedgwick Street, Philadelphia, 19119. Case ID: 180502581 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Harman Deutsch Architecture is a corporation with a principal place of business located at 631 North 12th Street, 1St Floor, Philadelphia, 19123. 12. Defendants Harman Deutsch Corp. and Harman Deutsch Architecture are collectively referred to herein as the ?Harman Deutsch Defendants? or the ?Harman Deutsch Entities.? 13. Upon information and belief, the Harman Deutsch Defendants were the architects that designed the Plaintiff?s Home. II. FACTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT 14. Upon information and belief, the Development consists of fourteen (14) directly contiguous townhomes with seven (7) located on Blair Street and seven (7) located on Frankford Avenue. A true and correct copy of the site plan depicting the layout of the Development is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15. Upon information and belief, the AGA Entities developed the property on which the Development is situated, advertised, marketed, and constructed, and warrantied the Plaintiff?s Home. 16. It is believed and therefore averred that the AGA Entities built, advertised, marketed, constructed, sold, and/or warrantied the homes in the Development, including Plaintiffs Home. 17. It is believed and therefore averred that the AGA Entities sold the Plaintiff? Home to Plaintiff. 18. Upon information and belief, Frank Mazzio is the principal owner, founder and/or President of AGA Developers. Case ID: 180502581 19. It is believed and therefore averred that Frank Mazzio was directly and personally involved in conducting business on behalf of the AGA Entities, including but not limited to, purchasing and developing the property, advertising, marketing, promoting, selling, and warrantying residential homes, including Plaintiff?s Home. 20. Plaintiff further avers that, at all times relevant hereto, Frank Mazzio directed, controlled, and/or participated in the actions and/or inactions of the AGA Entities through their representatives, employees, and/or agents, including but not limited to, purchasing, developing, building, advertising, marketing, promoting and selling residential homes, including Plaintiffs Home in the Development. 21. It is believed and therefore averred that Frank Mazzio acted in his individual capacity and speci?cally and personally participated in tortious conduct alleged in this Complaint. 22. It is believed and therefore averred that, at all times relevant hereto, Frank Mazzio treated the AGA Entities as a common enterprise and/or single entity in all aspects of their business, such that the AGA Entities and Frank Mazzio, individually, were ?alter egos? or mere instrumentalities of one another, and that piercing of the corporate veil is appropriate to hold the AGA Entities and Frank Mazzio individually, jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for their individual and collective activities in connection with the Development, and more speci?cally, the Plaintiff?s Home. 23. By way of example only, Frank Mazzio, the President, owner and/or founder of AGA Developers, executed documents, speci?cally, the Sales Agreement, on behalf of the AGA Entities, speci?cally AGAF Holdings LP, and Frank Mazzio personally made representations to homebuyers, including the Plaintiff speci?cally, regarding the quality and characteristic of the Case ID: 180502581 Home, and the AGA Entities? representatives, employees, and/or agents made similar representations in connection with the Development, and more speci?cally, the Plaintiff?s Home. 24. The Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the corporate and business structure of the AGA Entities are intertwined in such a way that they share common ownership and/or common owners, principals and/or of?cers and directors, have a relationship as parent and subsidiary and/or af?liates, such that AGA Developers, AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and RGD ultimately were ?alter egos? or mere instrumentalities of one another, and/or acted as a common business enterprise and/or single entity in all aspects of their business, and that piercing of their respective corporate veils is appropriate to hold these companies, the AGA Entities, jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for their individual and collective activities in connection with the Development, and more speci?cally, the Plaintiff?s Home. True and correct copies of the Registration Pages from the Department of State Website are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 25. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the following characteristics apply to the AGA Entities and justify piercing their respective corporate veils: Absence or inaccuracy of corporate or partnership records; Concealment or misrepresentation of members; Failure to maintain arm?s length relationships with related entities; Failure to observe corporate or partnership formalities with regard to behavior and documentation; Failure to pay dividends; Intermingling of assets of the entities and of the partners or shareholders; Manipulation of assets or liabilities to concentrate the assets or liabilities; Non-functioning corporate or partnership of?cers and/or directors; Signi?cant undercapitalization of the business entity; Siphoning of corporate or partnership funds by the dominant shareholder(s) or partner(s); k. Treatment by an individual of the assets of the corporation or partnership as their own; and 999-9: Case ID 180502581 1. Using the corporations or partnerships as a facade for dominant shareholder(s) or partner(s)? personal dealings. 26. Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant hereto, each and every one of the preceding twelve characteristics apply to the AGA Entities, collectively, such that, the AGA Entities are ?alter egos? or mere instrumentalities of one another, and therefore, it is necessary to pierce the respective corporate veils of these business enterprises and hold the AGA Entities jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for their individual and collective actions in connection with the Development, and more speci?cally, the Plaintiffs Home. 27. By way of example only, all of?cers and/or agents who operated under the name of AGA Developers, including but not limited to Frank Mazzio, were also of?cers and/or agents of the other AGA Entities, and represented themselves as of?cers and/0r agents of AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and/or RGD, even when acting on behalf of AGA Developers. FACTS RELATING TO AGA MARKETING, ADVERTISING, AND DEVELOPMENT OF FRANKFORD SQUARE 28. In or around October 2014, the time when AGA Developers was advertising and marketing the Development, AGA Developers was advertising itself on the internet as ?Old Fashioned Craftsmanship, Contemporary Designs.? A true and correct copy of the ?AboutAGA page of AGA Developers website from October 27, 2014 is attached hereto as Exhibit C.1 29. AGA Developers also touted its craftsmanship on its website and represented as follows: AGA is a boutique builder specializing in high-end urban living in the Philadelphia area. From the foundation to the ?nishes, every aspect of our homes is built with a meticulous attention to detail and craftsmanship. Building a home is more than just putting up four walls and slapping down hardwood ?oors and granite countertops. It's our responsibility to provide a safe, comfortable home that you can feel proud about living in for decades. Although our designs tend to be contemporary, our craftsmanship is old?fashioned. 1 Exhibit is available at: aga. Case ID: 180502581 See id. 30. Frank Mazzio was speci?cally advertised as ?The Builder? on AGA Developers? website. A true and correct copy of the ?About AGA page of AGA Developers? website from February 2, 2015 is attached hereto as Exhibit D.2 Frank Mazzio?s pride in his work was speci?cally advertised on AGA Developers? website as follows: From as early as he can remember, if he wasn't in a classroom or on a football ?eld, Frank Mazzio was probably working on a house. A Philly native, Frank brings over 20 years of experience building homes to the AGA Developers team. His work spans from custom beach houses to 4000+ square foot homes in the suburbs. There's nothing more satisfying for Frank than building homes in the city that he loves. Frank works hand-in-hand with home buyers during the build and after settlement to ensure everything is perfect. He takes great pride in his work and reputation. See id. 32. AGA Developers in its written brochures, marketing materials, and advertisements represented the high quality of design and construction. 33. Upon information and belief, in or around the time that the Plaintiff bought the Home, written materials did not distinguish between AGA Developers, AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and/or RGD. IV. FACTS SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE HOME A. The AGA Defendants? Construction and Sale of the Home 34. On or about March 6, 2014, Plaintiff entered into an Agreement of Sale (the ?Sales Agreement?) for the purchase of the Home located in the Development. A true and correct copy of the Sales Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 2 Exhibit is available at: aga/builder Case ID: 180502581 35. A Certi?cate of Occupancy for the Home (the was issued by the City of Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections on or about May 28, 2014. A true and correct copy of the 00 is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 36. On or about May 30, 2014, Plaintiff took possession of her Home, at which time a deed was executed transferring title to the property to Plaintiff (the ?Deed?). A true and correct copy of the Deed is attached hereto as Exhibit G. B. Plaintiffs Justi?able Reliance on the AGA Defendants? Misrepresentatioys About the Home and Development. 37. Plaintiff began looking for a home in or around the middle of 2012. 38. Plaintiff was speci?cally interested in purchasing a high-quality home built by a reputable and skilled builder of quality homes. 39. Plaintiff reviewed the speci?c ?oor plan of the Home online and researched AGA Developers and the Development. 40. During the course of construction of the Home, Jackson met in person with Frank Mazzio several times, when he touted his expertise in home-building, the expertise of his crew and subcontractors, and the high quality of the home and its materials. 41. Frank Mazzio made himself visible and accessible to homeowners, which led Jackson to believe that Mazzio stood behind the quality of his homes and closely oversaw their construction, and would remain available to address any concerns she may have regarding the Home. 42. Jackson was aware that the Home was warrantied and relied on the fact that the Home was warrantied when deciding to purchase the Home. Case ID: 180502581 43. The Seller provided Jackson with a Limited Warranty Agreement (?Jackson Limited Warranty?). A true and correct copy of the Jackson Limited Warranty is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 44. Jackson received a copy of the Jackson Limited Warranty shortly after purchasing the Home. 45. Jackson justi?ably relied upon the Jackson Limited Warranty as additional evidence that the Home had been constructed properly, and in compliance with the building code, local ordinance, and industry standards. 46. Pleased with the apparent quality of the Home as built and advertised, and relying upon the promises and representations made by Frank Mazzio with respect to the quality and construction of the Home, Jackson justi?ably believed she was purchasing a well-constructed, luxury home. 47. In justi?able reliance on the promises and representations made by the AGA Defendants, Jackson took possession of the Home on May 30, 2014. C. Plaintiff Learned of Systemic Latent Defects with Their Home. 48. Because of issues her neighbors in the Development were experiencing with regard to systemic building envelope water intrusion, coupled with active water intrusion at her home, Plaintiff hired Kevin B. Thompson of The Green Valley Group (?Green Valley?) to perform a Moisture Inspection of the Home on March 13, 2017 (the ?Inspection Report?). A true and correct copy of the Inspection Report is attached hereto as Exhibit]. 49. Green Valley preliminarily found numerous construction defects with the respect to the Home, including, but not limited to: a. Inadequate caulking around window frames; b. Adhesive caulk failures on the windows and doors; 10 Case ID: 180502581 See id. 50. Windows are not properly ?ashed; D- .0 Inadequate caulking around utility penetrations; The stucco is not adequately sealed around some of the utility penetrations; No deck ledger ?ashing installed; Inadequate control joints installed at ?oor lines; Adhesion failure was noted on the expansion joints in between the housing units; i. The Tyvek apron on the windows was not pulled up in order to properly lap or shingle the weather resistant barrier; j. The Barricade roo?ng underlaying does not ?t the parameters of a weather resistant barrier; k. Openings on the roof seams; l. Glazing on windows is defective; m. Stucco ?nish coat was applied over window and door joints; 11. Front cladding and windows heavily caulked; and o. Improper application of stone caps on parapet wall. Green Valley found preliminary evidence of the following damage to the Home as a direct and proximate cause of the above-referenced construction defects, which include: See id. Elevated moisture levels; a b. Soft and wet sheathing; .0 A bulge in the wall on the rear of the home near the deck; PH Active water staining on the framing lumber in the master bedroom on the front right corner of the home; e. Visible water staining at the head of the second ?oor window at the front of the home; f. Staining at the head of the basement window; g. A step crack at the front wall has some separation; and h. Cracking of stucco ?nish coat around windows and doors. 11 Case ID: 180502581 51. On or about November 16, 2017, due to staining on the third-?oor bedroom ceiling and wall of the Home, Green Valley tested the rear elevation of the Home and updated the Inspection Report (the ?November 2017 Inspection Report?). A true and correct copy of the November 201 7 Inspection Report is attached hereto as Exhibit J. 52. Green Valley found saturated sheathing under the scupper and elevated moisture levels on the rear elevation. See id. 53. Upon information and belief, the construction of the Home violated the applicable building code that was in effect at the time. 54. Jackson did not know, nor did she have reason to know, that there were systemic latent defects with the design and/or construction of the Home?s building envelope until she received a copy of the Inspection Report. 55. In addition to building envelope issues with the Home, Jackson also has experienced issues with the Home?s plumbing and HVAC system. D. Plaintiff Submitted :1 Good Faith Claim to the AGA Defer?m. 56. Plaintiff subsequently retained counsel to seek relief against the AGA Defendants. 57. Plaintiff, through counsel, made a demand upon the AGA Defendants to remediate the construction defects. 58. Plaintiff submitted a mediation request through the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors pursuant to the Sales Agreement, but the AGA Defendants have refused to mediate. A true and correct copy of the GPAR Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit K. 59. To date, the AGA Defendants have refused to remediate the Home. 12 Case ID: 180502581 E. Plaintiff Have Sustained. and Continue to Sustain, Damages. 60. Plaintiff anticipates that to fully remediate the Home it will cost in excess of $200,000.00, in addition to other damages caused by the defective construction of the Home. 61. Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of $200,000.00 as a direct and proximate result of the AGA Defendants? unlawful, fraudulent, negligent, unfair, deceptive, and/or misleading actions and/or inactions. 62. Plaintiff has sustained or will sustain damages to other property, parts of the Home that were not originally constructed and sold by the AGA Defendants, and other aspects of Plaintiff? 3 property including, but not limited to: the landscaping and hardscaping around the Home that was erected/planted post-closing will incur damage and will need to be repaired during the cladding remediation project; (ii) the air quality within the Home that is contaminated with mold and/or will be contaminated with mold when the exterior envelope is repaired; and other post-closing modi?cations that are or will be impacted and/or damaged as a direct and proximate result of repairs to the Home?s exterior cladding. 63. Plaintiff believes the presence of mold in the Home directly and/or proximately caused and/or exacerbated her nasal and sinus issues. 64. Plaintiff has sustained and will further sustain (during future repairs of the Home) loss of use and enjoyment of the Home. 65. Plaintiff has sustained damages with respect to the diminution in value of her home and her inability to sell her home without incurring further monetary damages. 66. Plaintiff has satis?ed all conditions precedent to ?ling this action. 13 Case ID: 180502581 V. FACTS RELATING TO THE AGA VIOLATIONS OF APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 67. The defects identi?ed in the Inspection Report demonstrate that construction of the Plaintiffs Home did not comport with then-existing requirements in the applicable building codes and standards and/or local ordinances. 68. Upon information and belief, permit applications, submittals, drawings, plans, and/or applications for certi?cate(s) of occupancy submitted to the local code enforcement of?ce for the Home and/or the Development identify AGA Developers and/or AGAF Holdings LP as the builder and applicant. 69.? The COO issued by the local code enforcement of?ce identi?es the building code applicable to the construction of the Home to be 2009 International Building Code (?2009 (the ?Applicable Building Code). 70. As such, upon information and belief, 2009 IBC was the building code applicable to the construction of the Home and/or Development. 71. However, it is possible that another, more current, building code applied, which would have been more stringent with respect to the AGA Entities? construction and building practices. This issue will be the subject of discovery and expert report(s). 72. As such, Plaintiff is unable to fully ascertain the building code and/or variances in the building code that applies to the construction of the Home. Upon information and belief, the AGA Defendants are in possession, custody, and control of documents and information that identify the building code applicable to the design and construction of the Home and/or Development. 73. In this regard, Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery into the building code applicable to the construction of the Home and the Development. 14 Case ID: 180502581 74. Upon information and belief, regardless of the speci?c code in effect at the time of the construction of the Home and other homes in the Development, the AGA Entities constructed the Home, and other homes in the development, without regard to the nuances of the building code. 75. The allegations herein concerning violations of building code and local ordinance are made at any early stage of litigation and are subject to discovery con?rming the Applicable Building Code and the existence of additional building code violations in the design and/or construction of the Home. 76. Plaintiff intends to supplement, modify, and/or further develop allegations and averments relating to or concerning the existence of building code violations during the course of and at the conclusion of discovery. 77. Plaintiff further intends to conduct destructive testing of the Home and produce expert report(s) for the purpose of developing evidence substantiating the existence of building code violations. 78. The AGA Entities knew or should have known that the Home was constructed in violation of the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 79. Upon information and belief, the AGA Entities willfully, knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently unlawfully constructed the Home in violation of Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 80. Upon information and belief, the AGA Entities willfully, knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently marketed, advertised, and represented that the Home was of quality construction and built pursuant to the Applicable Building Code, when they knew or should have known that the Home was unlawfully constructed in violation of Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 15 Case ID: 180502581 81. Upon information and belief, the AGA Entities, individually, will?illy, knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently failed to supervise, oversee, and/or inspect the implementation of the design during the construction of the Home. 82. Upon information and belief, the AGA Entities, individually, willfully, knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently failed to supervise, oversee, and/or inspect the construction of the Home with regard for compliance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 83. Upon information and belief, the AGA Entities, individually, willfully, knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently sold and warrantied the Home when they knew or should have known that the Home was not adequately and properly inspected for compliance with the Applicable Building Code and the Home?s construction did not comply with Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 84. As such, the construction of the Home was unlawful and performed in violation of Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. VI. FACTS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT 85. The same underlying series of transactions the Development, construction, marketing, and design of the Frankford Square complex give rise to the Plaintiff?s claims and claims by Plaintiffs in some similar matters, all of whom are asserting nearly identical claims against the same group of Defendants. 86. Since the claims of the Plaintiff, and other similarly-situated Plaintiffs in other actions, involve the same underlying factual matters, and transactions and will involve nearly identical and co-extensive subject matters for pre-trial discovery, these individuals intend to seek 16 Case ID: 180502581 consolidation of their claims for the sake of the ef?ciency and economy of all parties, as well as the ef?cient administration of justice. 87. The Frankford Square Development and each of the townhomes owned by the Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs in other actions, consist of numerous shared and common elements, including but not limited to, a shared and connected roo?ng system and shared exterior water drainage system g. gutters, ground water drainage). See Exhibit A. 88. Further, all of the townhomes in the rankford Square Development share a single, uni?ed exterior envelope, which consists of stucco, brick, and metal siding. 89. Not only do the Plaintiff?s claims, and other Plaintiffs? claims, all arise out of the same series of transactions, the defective construction, marketing, and design of the Development - but the repairs to their townhomes must be undertaken collectively. Therefore, consolidation of these actions after ?ling is justi?ed and appropriate. 90. Discovery and expert testimony will demonstrate that it is not adequate or proper just to repair one townhome but not an adjoining townhome. Rather, experts will opine that repairs must be performed to the entire building envelope and roo?ng system, which is comprised of shared, continuous walls and elements spanning ?'om one unit to the next. 91. The Plaintiff anticipates relying upon the same expert testing, inspections and expert report, which will examine not just each townhome individually, but also the entire Frankford Square development together (since repairs must be done on all townhomes to ensure that the shared exterior walls and roo?ng systems are properly repaired). 92. It serves the interests of judicial economy for this matter to consolidate this action with other highly-similar actions involving Plaintiff who own other homes in the Development. 17 Case ID: 180502581 COUNT I BREACH OF CONTRACT PLAINTIFF AGA DEVELOPERS, LLC, AGAF HOLDINICS LP, AGAF HOLDINGS GP, LLC, SOKO DEVELOPERS, LLC, RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and FRANK MAZZIO 93. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 94. The Plaintiff purchased the Home pursuant to the Agreement of Sale, whereby the AGA Entities and Frank Mazzio agreed to sell the Home that was properly constructed in a reasonably workmanlike manner, free of construction defects, and that were habitable, and in compliance with industry standards and local building code requirements and the requirements of the Uniform Planned Community Act. 95. The Plaintiff?s Home, in fact, was not properly constructed in compliance with industry standards or local building code requirements and the Uniform Planned Community Act. Nor is the Plaintiff?s Home habitable, free of construction defects, and/or built in a reasonably workmanlike manner. 96. The AGA Entities and Frank Mazzio have materially breached the Plaintiff Agreements of Sale. 97. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Entities? and Frank Mazzio?s material breaches of the Plaintiff?s Agreement of Sale, the Plaintiff has suffered damages because: a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; 18 Case ID: 180502581 c. the Plaintiff?s ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; d. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the full use and enjoyment of her Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. COUNT II BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY PLAINTIFF AGA DEVELOPERS, LLC, AGAF LP, AGAF HOLDINGS GP, LLC, SOKO DEVELOPERS, LLC, RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and FRANK MAZZIO 98. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 99. The various components comprising the exterior envelope of the Plaintiff?s Home, consisting, inter alia, of framing, sheathing, weather barrier, windows, doors and other 19 Case ID: 180502581 fenestrations, ?ashing, stucco, manufactured stone, and ?eld stone, were designed and installed by the AGA Entities and/or its agents, with the intent that they serve as protection to the occupants of the Plaintiff?s Home against the elements of weather, including heat, cold, wind, and precipitation. 100. However, as set forth above, the various elements of the exterior envelope of the Plaintiffs Home was defectively constructed and improperly installed. 101. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio impliedly warrantied that the Plaintiffs Home, which the AGA Entities marketed, constructed, supervised construction, and sold, would be constructed in a reasonable workmanlike manner, free of construction defects and suitable for habitation. 102. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio knew, or should have known, that the Plaintiff would rely upon this implied warranty. 103. The Plaintiff did in fact rely upon this implied warranty, and her reliance was reasonable. 104. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio?s defective construction directly and proximately caused substantial water in?ltration into the Plaintiff Home, and resultant water and/or mold damage to the Plaintiffs Home. 105. The water damage and/or mold damage to the Plaintiff?s Home, which was caused by the AGA Entities? acts and/or omissions, render the Plaintiff?s Home uninhabitable. 106. The AGA Entities breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to properly construct the Plaintiff?s Home in a reasonable workmanlike manner and free of defects, thereby rendering the Plaintiff?s Home uninhabitable. 20 Case ID: 180502581 107. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio?s breaches of the implied warranty of habitability, the Plaintiff has suffered damages because: a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; c. the Plaintiff? ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; d. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the full use and enjoyment of her Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. 21 Case ID: 180502581 COUNT BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF WORKMANLIKE CONSTRUCTION PLAINTIFF AGA DEVELOPERS, LLC, AGAF HOLDINICS LP, AGAF HOLDINGS GP, LLC, SOKO DEVELOPERS, LLC, RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and FRANK MAZZIO 108. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 109. The Plaintiff?s Home, built and sold by the AGA Entities, contained, as a matter of law, an implied warranty that the Home, which the AGA Entities marketed, developed, constructed, and sold, would be built in a reasonably workmanlike manner and free of construction defects. 110. The Plaintiff reasonably and justi?ably relied upon this implied warranty. 111. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio knew that the Plaintiff would reasonably and justi?ably rely upon this implied warranty. 112. The Plaintiff?s Home, as built and sold by the AGA Entities, exhibits construction defects in that they allow water to in?ltrate the Plaintiff?s Home and it was not built to the applicable building codes, industry standards nor the contemporary community standards, and do not meet the de?nition of reasonable workmanship under law. 113. As a result, the AGA Entities have materially breached the implied warranty of workmanlike construction. 1 14. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio are liable to the Plaintiff for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike construction, and for substantial damages and costs incurred, and to be incurred, by the Plaintiff, which include, but are not limited to, 22 Case ID: 180502581 a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; c. the Plaintiff? ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; d. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the ?ll use and enjoyment of her Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. 23 Case ID: 180502581 COUNT IV GENERAL NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFF AGA DEVELOPERS, LLC, AGAF HOLDINICS LP, AGAF HOLDINGS GP, LLC, SOKO DEVELOPERS, LLC, RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and FRANK MAZZIO 115. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 1 16. The AGA Entities and Frank Mazzio had duties to the Plaintiff under common law, contractually through the Warranty, and statutorily through the Applicable Building Code. 1 17. The AGA Entities and Frank Mazzio owed a social common law duty of care to the Plaintiff as the builders of a structure likely to have multiple owners. 118. The AGA Entities and Frank Mazzio owed a contractual duty to the Plaintiff to construct the Home in accordance with the speci?cations of the architecture plans and in accordance with the terms of the sales agreement and warranty. 119. The AGA Entities had a statutory duty of care to the Plaintiff as the: developer, marketer, builder, seller, and warrantor of the Home, and (ii) the entities that were obligated to properly construct the Home in compliance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 120. The AGA Entities and Frank Mazzio owed a duty of care under common law to build the Home in compliance with Applicable Building Code and local ordinance and without construction defects such that the Home was to be built to minimum regulations that are essential to ensure that the structure is safe, sanitary, and ?t for occupation and use. 121. The AGA Entities owed a statutory duty pursuant to the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance to construct the Home in compliance with minimum regulations that are essential to ensure that the structures are safe, sanitary and ?t for occupation and use. 24 Case ID: 180502581 122. The AGA Entities breached their common law, contractual, and statutory duties by negligently designing and/or constructing the Home by using subpar materials, inadequate methods, inexperienced and unskilled contractors and subcontractors, failing to construct the Home within minimum regulations, Applicable Building Code, and local ordinances that are essential to ensure that the structure is safe, sanitary, and ?t for occupation and use, and/or (0) negligently selling the negligently designed and/or constructed Home. 123. As found by Green Valley, the Home exhibits material construction defects. See Exhibits I and J. 124. As averred above, averments that are fully incorporated herein, the AGA Entities failed to construct the Home pursuant to the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 125. As a direct and proximate result of these (and other) defective construction practices and violations of the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance, the Plaintiff have sustained damages to Home, as averred above. 126. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Entities? negligence and unlawful construction and sale of the Home, Plaintiff have incurred, continue to incur and/or will incur damage to the following property: the landscaping and hardscaping around the Home that was erected/planted post-closing will incur damage and will need to be repaired during the cladding remediation project; (ii) the air quality within the Home that is contaminated with mold and/or will be contaminated with mold when the exterior envelope is repaired; and other post-closing modi?cations that are or will be impacted and/or damaged as a direct and proximate result of repairs to the Home?s exterior cladding. 127. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Entities? negligence and unlawful design and construction of the Plaintiff?s Home, the Plaintiff has suffered damages because: 25 Case ID: 180502581 a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; c. the Plaintiffs ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; d. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the ?ll] use and enjoyment of her Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. 26 Case ID: 180502581 COUNT NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION PLAINTIFF AGA DEVELOPERS, LLC, AGAF HOLDINIOS LP, AGAF HOLDINGS GP, LLC, SOKO DEVELOPERS, LLC, RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and FRANK MAZZIO 128. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 129. The AGA Entities and/or their representatives and Defendant Frank Mazzio, individually, made material misstatements and misrepresentations to the Plaintiff about the quality features and construction of homes, and speci?cally the Plaintiff?s Home. 130. The AGA Entities made these negligent misrepresentations in writing, including in advertising and marketing materials. 131. The AGA Entities, and/or their representatives, and Defendant Frank Mazzio made these negligent misrepresentations orally during showings of model home(s) with the Plaintiff. 132. The AGA Entities are liable for the others? negligent misrepresentations as they were ?alter egos? or mere instrumentalities of one another and/or acted as a common business enterprise and/or single entity and that in order to avoid injustice, it is necessary to pierce the respective corporate veils of the AGA Entities and/or hold them jointly and severally liable for their above stated collective actions in connection with the Plaintiff?s Home and/or the Development. 133. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio made material misrepresentations of fact under circumstances in which they knew or should have known that their material statements and representations were inaccurate, incorrect, untrue, and/or false. 27 Case ID: 180502581 134. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio made material misrepresentations of fact under circumstances in which they failed to make a reasonable investigation of the truth or veracity of their statements and representations. 135. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio made material misrepresentations of fact with the intent to induce the Plaintiff to buy the Home. 136. The Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon the Defendant Frank Mazzio and AGA Entities? misrepresentations when entering into the Sales Agreement to purchase their Home. 137. The Plaintiff materially and reasonably relied upon Defendant Frank Mazzio and AGA Entities? misrepresentations when they received, reviewed, and relied upon the written marketing and advertising materials for the Home, and relied on communications and misrepresentations made by Frank Mazzio and/or an agent or representative of the AGA Entities when the Plaintiff toured the model Home. 138. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio?s negligent misrepresentations relating to the unlawful construction and sale of the Home, Plaintiff has incurred, continue to incur and/or will incur damage to the following property: the landscaping and hardscaping around the Home that was erected/planted post-closing will incur damage and will need to be repaired during the cladding remediation project; (ii) the air quality within the Home that is contaminated with mold and/or will be contaminated with mold when the exterior envelope is repaired; and other post-closing modi?cations that are or will be impacted and/or damaged as a direct and proximate result of repairs to the Home?s exterior cladding. 139. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio?s negligence and unlawful design and construction of the Plaintiff?s Home, the Plaintiff has suffered damages because: 28 Case ID: 180502581 a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; c. the Plaintiff ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; d. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the full use and enjoyment of their Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. 29 Case ID: 180502581 COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE PER SE PLAINTIFF AGA DEVELOPERS, LLC, AGAF HOLDINGS LP, AGAF HOLDINGS GP, LLC, SOKO DEVELOPERS, LLC, RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC 140. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 141. The AGA Entities all had statutory duties to the Plaintiff to adhere to and fully comply with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 142. By applying for Certi?cates of Occupancy on the Home, the AGA Entities owed a statutory duty of care to the Plaintiff as the builders of structures likely to have multiple owners. 143. The AGA Entities owed a statutory duty to the Plaintiff to construct the Home in accordance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 144. It was speci?cally foreseeable by the AGA Entities that Plaintiff would justi?ably rely upon the AGA Entities representations and statutory obligations to comply with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 145. The Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon the AGA Entities? representations that the Home were designed and constructed in compliance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 146. The AGA Entities had a statutory duty of care to the Plaintiff as the developers, marketers, builders and sellers of the Home. 147. The AGA Entities owed a statutory duty pursuant to the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance to construct the Home in compliance with minimum regulations that are essential to ensure that the structures are safe, sanitary and ?t for occupation and use. 30 Case ID: 180502581 148. The AGA Entities had a statutory duty of care to the Plaintiff as the entity that constructed and warrantied the Home and was obligated to properly construct the Home in compliance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 149. The AGA Entities owed a duty to the Plaintiff to construct, supervise construction, and sell a Home that was constructed in a reasonable workmanlike matter, free of construction defects and suitable for habitation. 150. The AGA Entities further owed a duty to warn the Plaintiff of any latent defects in the Home at all times, including during the construction of the Plaintiff?s Home, prior to the sale of the Home, at closing and settlement, and at all times since, including the times when the AGA Entities discovered the defects in the building envelope and stucco systems and remediated other homes in the Development. 151. The Plaintiff, as foreseeable owner, occupant, and inhabitant of the Home is part of the class contemplated to be protected by the Applicable Building Code. 152. The AGA Entities breached their statutory duty by negligently constructing the Home by using subpar materials, inadequate methods, inexperienced and unskilled contractors and subcontractors, failing to construct the Home within minimum regulations, Applicable Building Code, and local ordinances that are essential to ensure that the structures are safe, sanitary and ?t for occupation and use, and/or (0) negligently selling the negligently constructed Home. 153. As found by Green Valley, the Home exhibits material construction defects. See Exhibits I and J. 154. As averred above, averments that are fully incorporated herein, the AGA Entities failed to construct the Home pursuant to the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 31 Case ID: 180502581 155. As a direct and proximate result of these (and other) defective construction practices and violations of the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance, the Plaintiff has sustained damages to their Home and other property as averred above. As such, under law, the AGA Entities have committed negligence per se by violating the speci?c provisions of the Applicable Building Code governing their conduct and breaching their duty to the Plaintiff, who are part of the protected class of persons speci?cally contemplated by the Applicable Building Code, and directly and proximately causing Plaintiff?s injuries and property damages. 156. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Entities? negligence and unlawful construction and sale of the Home, Plaintiff has incurred, continue to incur and/or will incur damage to the following property: the landscaping and hardscaping around the Home that was erected/planted post-closing will incur damage and will need to be repaired during the cladding remediation project; (ii) the air quality within the Home that is contaminated with mold and/or will be contaminated with mold when the exterior envelope is repaired; and other post-closing modi?cations that are or will be impacted and/or damaged as a direct and proximate result of repairs to the Home?s exterior cladding. 157. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Entities? negligence and unlawful design and construction of the Plaintiff?s Home, the Plaintiff has suffered damages because: a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; 32 Case ID: 180502581 c. the Plaintiff? ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; d. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the ?ll] use and enjoyment of their Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. COUNT VII VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (73 PS. 201-1 ET. SEQ.) PLAINTIFF v. AGA DEVELOPERS, LLC, AGAF HOLDINGS LP, AGAF HOLDINGS GP, LLC, SOKO DEVELOPERS, LLC, RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and FRANK MAZZIO 158. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 159. The Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, codi?ed at 73 201 -1 et seq. provides for a private right of action for anyone who 33 Case ID: 180502581 suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of any method, act or practice deemed unlaw?il by the 160. 161. they have: The provides that unfair methods, acts, or practices include: Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certi?cation of goods or services (see 73 . Causing likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding as to af?liation, connection, or association with, or certi?cation by another (see 73 Representing that goods or services have characteristics, uses, bene?ts or qualities that they do not have (see 73 . Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade, if they are of another (see 73 Making repairs, improvements, or replacements on real property of a nature or quality inferior to or below the standard that was agreed to in writing (see 73 and Engaging in fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding (see 73 The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio have violated the in that a. Caused confusion and/or misunderstanding as to the source corporate entity responsible for and/or obligated pursuant to the Agreement of Sale and Warranties; 34 Case ID: 180502581 b. Represented that the Plaintiff?s Home had characteristics, uses, and/or bene?ts that they did not have; c. Represented that the Home was of a particular standard, quality or grade when it was of another; and/or (1. Failed to comply with the terms of a written agreement or warranty given to the Plaintiff; 6. Made repairs to the Plaintiff?s Home of a nature or quality inferior to or below the standard of that agreed to in writing; and f. Engaged in fraudulent and/or deceptive conduct creating the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. 162. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio violated 73 201- by making misrepresentations in marketing and advertising materials, in its warranty, and in other documents provided to, and, upon information and belief, relied upon by the Plaintiff that the Home and services had characteristics, uses, bene?ts, and qualities, when the AGA Entities were reckless and knew or should have known that the representations were untrue, acted in conscious ignorance of the truth or falsity of its misrepresentations, and/or suppressed the truth of the misrepresentations. 163. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio violated 73 201- 2(4)(vii) by making misrepresentations in marketing and advertising materials and its warranty that its homes (including by implication the Plaintiffs Home) and/or construction services were of a particular standard, quality, or grade, when in fact the Home and construction services provided, marketed, and/or sold by the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio were of an inferior and defective standard, quality, or grade. 35 Case ID: 180502581 164. The Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio?s misrepresentations in marketing and advertising materials and in other documents and representations made to or provided to the Plaintiff that the Home was free from material defects and designed and constructed in accordance with Applicable Building Code and worth the purchase price. 165. The Plaintiff, having justi?ably relied upon the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio?s misrepresentations, were justi?ably unaware of systematic, latent defects with the exterior cladding of the Home. 166. The Plaintiff justi?ably and reasonably relied upon the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio?s misrepresentations in its marketing literature about the characteristics, uses, bene?ts, standard, quality, and grade of homes and services, including by implication the Home and services with respect to the Home . 167. In justi?able and reasonable reliance on the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio?s misrepresentations about the characteristics, uses, bene?ts, standards, quality, and grade of homes, including speci?cally her Home contained in marketing materials, Plaintiff expected, by way of example only, high-quality, code-compliant homes that they could use for a lifetime. 168. The AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio violated 73 201- 2(4)(xxi) by engaging in fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion and/or misunderstanding. 169. Speci?cally, the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio are liable for the following fraudulent and/ or deceptive conduct: 36 Case ID: 180502581 Engaging in fraudulent and/or deceptive conduct which created the likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding as to the AGA Entities? relationships with each other and their actual roles in the marketing, sale, construction, and warrantying of the Home; . selling the Home, which were not sold in a condition that satis?ed Applicable Building Code, local ordinances, industry standards, and acceptable building practices and standards; constructing the Home when they knew or should have known, and/or suppressed the truth that, it failed to properly construct the Home in compliance with the Applicable Building Code, local ordinances, industry standards, and acceptable building practices and standards; . failing to advise, warn, or otherwise notify, and/or suppressing the truth that the Home was incurring, or were expected to incur, water in?ltration damage, when the AGA Entities knew or should have known that their construction processes, violations of the Applicable Building Code, materials and/or methods were the cause of said damage to the Home; and denying the Plaintiff?s claims and refusing to repair the Home when the Defendants knew or should have known, and had a duty to warn the Plaintiff before the Plaintiff submitted a claim, that the Home was incurring, or were expected to incur, water in?ltration damage because of the Defendants? acts and/or omissions, failures to comply with the Applicable Building Codes, local ordinances, and industry standards, failures to properly and adequately supervise and oversee the construction of the Home, and failures to properly 37 Case ID: 180502581 inspect the construction of the Home to ensure that it complied with the design drawings for the Home and the Applicable Building Code; f. performing inadequate repairs on the Plaintiff?s Home and refusing to fully and adequately repair the Home when the Defendants knew or should have known, and had a duty to warn the Plaintiff at the time the AGA Entities were making repairs that the Home was incurring, or were expected to incur, systemic water in?ltration damage and that the proposed repairs would not adequately remediate the then-existing damage and underlying construction defects because of the Defendants? acts and/or omissions, failures to comply with the Applicable Building Codes, local ordinance, and industry standards, failures to properly and adequately supervise and oversee the construction of the Home and failures to properly inspect the construction of the Home to ensure that it complied with the design drawings for the Home and the Applicable Building Code; and g. causing the Plaintiff to believe that the Home was of the highest quality on the market, when, in actuality, the Defendants knew or should have known that the Home was not even built to the minimum standard required by the Applicable Building Code. 170. The Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon the AGA Entities and Defendant Frank Mazzio? misrepresentations. 171. The Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon her reasonable belief that the AGA Entities acted in good faith and did not engage in deceptive and/or fraudulent conduct with respect to the Home. 38 Case ID: 180502581 172. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Entities? unlawful acts and practices, the Plaintiff has sustained damages in excess of $200,000.00, the costs to repair the exterior and interior of their Home, related costs and damages, engineering and consulting fees, and legal costs. 173. In addition, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants? unlawful acts and practices, the Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain, damages in the form of loss of use and enjoyment of their Home. 174. Plaintiff, through her counsel, asked the Defendants to remediate their Home. 175. In spite of the construction defects and the Defendants? unfair trade practices, the Defendants have denied Plaintiff?s demands and refused to make adequate and complete repairs to the Home. 176. Further, the AGA Entities performed inadequate repairs on the Home that have resulted in additional water damage in the areas of the targeted repairs. 177. The AGA Entities? failures and refusals to fully and adequately remediate the Home violate the 178. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants? violations of the unfair and deceptive business practices, and unlawful design, construction, and sale of the Home, Plaintiff has incurred, continue to incur and/or will incur damage to the following property: the landscaping and hardscaping around the Home that was erected/planted post-closing will incur damage and will need to be repaired during the cladding remediation project; (ii) the air quality within the Home that is contaminated with mold and/or will be contaminated with mold when the exterior envelope is repaired; and other post-closing modi?cations that are or will be impacted and/or damaged as a direct and proximate result of repairs to the Home?s exterior cladding. 39 Case ID: 180502581 179. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants? Violations of unfair and deceptive business practices, and unlaw?JI design, construction, and sale of the Home, other homes in the Development, and other AGA Builders? homes in the and Delaware region, the Plaintiff has suffered damages because: a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; c. the Plaintiff ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; d. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the full use and enjoyment of her Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, penalties, costs and attorneys? fees, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. 40 Case ID: 180502581 COUNT ACTION TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL PLAINTIFF AGA DEVELOPERS, LLC, AGAF HOLDINYOS LP, AGAF HOLDINGS GP, LLC, SOKO DEVELOPERS, LLC, RGD CONSTRUCTION, LLC, and FRANK MAZZIO 180. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 181. Upon information and belief, AGA Developers is a corporation that developed, planned, advertised, marketed, promoted, constructed, and/or warrantied the Home. 182. Upon information and belief, AGA Developers acted in concert with AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and RGD in developing, advertising, and selling the Home. 183. It is believed and therefore averred, at all times relevant hereto, that with respect to the Home, the AGA Defendants acted together for the purpose of purchasing land, obtaining zoning approvals, installing improvements and infrastructure, marketing, advertising, developing, constructing, obtaining township approval of the construction, selling, and the Plaintiffs Home, and all other homes in the Development, such that the AGA Defendants were ?alter egos? or mere instrumentalities of one another and/or acted as a common business enterprise and/or single entity and that in order to avoid injustice, it is necessary to pierce the respective corporate veils of both companies and/or hold both these companies jointly and severally liable for their above stated individual and collective actions in connection with the Development. 184. Upon information and belief, the assets of AGA, AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and/or RGD are or were sold or transferred to other AGA Entities for below market value, leaving each entity underfunded. 185. Various documents provided by the AGA Defendants to the Plaintiff and also made available to and relied upon by the Plaintiff (some of which are contained within the Exhibits 41 Case ID: 180502581 hereto) name the incorrect entity or refer to the roles of the AGA Entities interchangeably, and in a manner confusing to Plaintiff, speci?cally, the Limited Warranty, Agreement of Sale, and the Addendums thereto, list different entity names. 186. The AGA Entities? website and marketing materials contain representations by AGA that it is the designer, developer, builder and seller of ?luxury townhomes? and does not contain obvious and easily attainable or apparent information and explanation of the rules and identities of any of the other AGA Defendants. 187. Upon information and belief, the owners, shareholders, of?cers, and other agents or representatives of each AGA Entity operate each other AGA Entity in substantially the same role, title and/or of?ce, with no obvious, easily attainable, or apparent distinction between the identities under which each AGA Entity?s behalf the agent is operating. 188. Upon information and belief, Frank Mazzio prepared and submitted Applications for the Exemption of Real Estate Taxes Due to Improvements, on behalf of AGAF Holdings LP, for the construction of Plaintiff Home, to the City of Philadelphia Of?ce of Property Assessment. 189. AGA Developers has disregarded the corporate form of AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and/or RGD to insulate AGA Developers from potential liability for its involvement in the development, design, marketing, construction, sale, and/or warranty of the Home. 190. Frank Mazzio has disregarded corporate form by using AGA Developers, AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and/or RGD as mere instrumentalities to defraud and mislead Plaintiff, as set forth above. 191. Frank Mazzio has disregarded the corporate form of AGA Developers, AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and/or RGD to insulate himself from potential liability for his involvement in the development, design, marketing, construction, sale, and/or warranty of the Home. 42 Case ID: 180502581 192. AGA Developers, AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and/or RGD were corporate vehicles used by Frank Mazzio to commit the violations set forth herein to defraud and mislead the Plaintiff. 193. AGA Developers is liable to the Plaintiff in its own capacity as the entity holding itself out to the public and the Plaintiff as the developer and builder of the Home and the Development. 194. Accordingly, it is just and proper to pierce the corporate veil of AGA Developers arising from the unfair trade practices and negligent misrepresentations of AGAF LP, AGAF GP, SoKo, and/or RGD. 195. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Defendants? intentional, fraudulent, deceptive, confusing, or otherwise misleading conduct with respect to their corporate structures, Plaintiff has incurred, continue to incur and/or will incur damage to the following property: the landscaping and hardscaping around the Home that was erected/planted post-closing will incur damage and will need to be repaired during the cladding remediation project; (ii) the air quality within the Home that is contaminated with mold and/or will be contaminated with mold when the exterior envelope is repaired; and other post-closing modi?cations that are or will be impacted and/or damaged as a direct and proximate result of repairs to the Home?s exterior cladding. 196. As a direct and proximate result of the AGA Defendants? intentional, ?'audulent, deceptive, con?ising, or otherwise misleading conduct with respect to their corporate structures, the Plaintiff has suffered damages because: a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; 43 Case ID: 180502581 b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; c. the Plaintiff ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; d. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the full use and enjoyment of her Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. COUNT IX PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE (THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY) PLAINTIFF HARMAN DEUTSCH CORP. and HXRMAN DEUTSCH ARCHITECTURE 197. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 198. Upon information and belief, an of?cer, employee, or representative of Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture in the capacity of an architect, designed the Home, the models of the of the Home and/or the Development. 44 Case ID: 180502581 199. Upon information and belief, the design of the Home, models of the Home and/or the Development were submitted to the local code enforcement of?ce for approval by Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture. 200. At the time the Home, the models of the Home, and the Development were designed by an architect serving as an of?cer, agent, representative, employee and/or of?cer of Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture, these same entities intended that the purchasers of the Home would bene?t ?'om the design plans and speci?cations prepared by Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture. 201. As the developer, designer, and architect Of the Home and the Development, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture knew and intended for its/their design plans and speci?cations to be used to build numerous homes that were to be marketed, sold, and lived-in by homeowners, including the Plaintiff. 202. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture knew or should have known that homeowners of the homes being built in the Development, including the Plaintiff? 5, would rely upon their design of the homes to be correct, free of error, and Within the professional standards governing the practice of architecture in the Commonwealth of 203. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture owed a statutory duty of care to ensure that the Home was designed and built pursuant to the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance. 204. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture, in their capacity as a design professionals and architects, had a statutory duty to warn the Plaintiff and occupants of the Home, that the Home, homes in the Development, and homes designed and built by the AGA Entities in and Delaware region, were in fact or were likely designed and constructed 45 Case ID: 180502581 in violation of Applicable Building Codes and ordinances or in such a way that could cause potential risk to life, safety and property at the time they became aware of such violations and/or potential risk to life, safety and property. 205. Upon information and belief, a contract and/or agreement exists between the AGA Defendants and the Harman Deutsch Defendants whereby these entities are contracted to design the Home, or the model of the Home. 206. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture intended the Plaintiff to be intended third-party bene?ciaries of any contractual arrangement to design the Home and/or models of the Home. 207. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture owed a duty to all purchasers of the homes in the Development, including, but not limited to the Home, to adhere to the standards of professional conduct expected of architects in the Commonwealth of and to properly and adequately: design the Home, (ii) inspect the Home to ensure compliance with the design drawings, inspect the Home to ensure compliance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance, and (iv) warn the Plaintiff, the Original Purchasers, and/or occupants of the Home of the existence of known building code violations. 208. Since Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture held itself/themselves out as an architect, it/their duties, as set forth in 49 Pa. ADC included the duty to ?exercise due regard for the safety, life and health of the public or other individual who may be affected by the professional work for which [the Architect] is responsible.? 209. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture also had the duty to ?perform their work and produce designs that comply with all relevant State and municipal building laws and regulations.? See 49 Pa. ADC 46 Case ID: 180502581 210. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture also breached duties owed to the Plaintiff, and all occupants of the Home, pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Architect Licensure Law, codi?ed at Section 506 of the Administrative Code (71 RS. 186). 211. Upon information and belief, in contravention of the applicable standard of care, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture?s design plans and speci?cations were defective and de?cient and did not comply with applicable laws and regulations, as the design plans and speci?cations relate to the cladding and building envelope systems, ?ashing and window installation work performed on the Home, and did not adequately design the Home to protect from water in?ltration into the exterior envelopes of the Plaintiff?s Home. 212. Upon information and belief, in contravention of the applicable standard of care, 49 Pa. ADC and common law, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture failed to properly and adequately: design the Home, (ii) inspect the Home to ensure compliance with the design drawings, inspect the Home to ensure compliance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance, (iv) warn the Plaintiff and occupants of the Home that the Home was not designed and/or constructed in compliance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance, and warn the Plaintiff and occupants of the Home that the Home?s non?conformance with Applicable Building Code and local ordinance posed a risk to life, safety and property. 213. Upon information and belief, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture knew that the Home was not designed and/or constructed in conformance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance before the Home was sold to the Plaintiff. 214. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture breached the standard of care required of professional architects in 47 Case ID: 180502581 215. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture breached the standard of care owed when they held itself/themselves out as architects in 216. As a direct and proximate result of the Harman Deutsch Entities? breach of the design contract and/or unlawful design of the Home, Plaintiff has incurred, continue to incur and/or will incur damage to the following property: the landscaping and hardscaping around the Home that was erected/planted post-closing will incur damage and will need to be repaired during the cladding remediation project; (ii) the air quality within the Home that is contaminated with mold and/or will be contaminated with mold when the exterior envelope is repaired; and other post? closing modi?cations that are or will be impacted and/or damaged as a direct and proximate result of repairs to the Home?s exterior cladding. 217. As a direct and proximate result of the Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture? breach of the design contract and/or unlawful design, the Plaintiff has suffered damage because: a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; c. the Plaintiffs ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; d. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the full use and enjoyment of her Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and 48 Case ID 180502581 f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. COUNT NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION UNDER OF TORTS (SECOND) SECTION 552 PLAINTIFF HARMAN DEUTSCH CORP. and HAIRMAN DEUTSCH ARCHITECTURE 218. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 219. Upon information and belief, Hannah Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture were the architect(s) for, and/or held themselves/itself out as the architect and designer of the Home, the models of the Home, and/or the Development. 220. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture prepared and supplied the design plans, speci?cations, and other information to the AGA Entities pursuant to a transaction in which all entities had a pecuniary interest. 221. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture had a duty to exercise due regard for the safety, life and health of the intended homeowners and to perform their work and produce designs in compliance with all relevant laws, regulations, codes, and industry standards. 49 Case ID: 180502581 222. Under Bilt-Rite, in preparing and supplying design plans, speci?cations and other information, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture represented that the design plans and speci?cations were free from de?ciencies and defects. 223. In supplying the information, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/0r Harman Deutsch Architecture also represented that the design plans were suf?cient to permit the AGA Entities to construct all homes in the Development, including, but not limited to, the Home, in accordance with all relevant laws, regulations, codes, and industry standards, and would be habitable and ?ee from water in?ltration. 224. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture made their/its representations with respect to the design plans and speci?cations as being correct, complete, and free from defects or de?ciencies, with the intent to induce others, including the builder of the Home and purchasers of the homes in the Development, including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff, to rely upon and act on that information in constructing and/or purchasing homes within the Development. 225. The Plaintiff, as the purchaser and resident of a home within the Development, and/or a home with the same model as the design plans, justi?ably relied upon Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture and were made to believe that their Home was designed by a competent architect and were safe, habitable, and free ?'om defects. 226. Thus, the Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture?s representations with respect to the design plans and speci?cations being correct, complete and free from defects or de?ciencies. 50 Case ID: 180502581 227. Prior to purchasing the Home, the Plaintiff was aware that her Home had been designed by an architect/design professional and understood that the AGA Entities had developed, built and sold the Home. 228. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture as the architect(s) and/or designer(s) of the Home knew or should have known that the design plans, speci?cations, and information it provided to the AGA Entities were false, incomplete, de?cient, and defective. 229. However, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture failed to exercise reasonable care to determine whether their/its design plans, speci?cations and information, were accurate and in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. 230. Plaintiff intends to support this allegation with facts developed during the course of discovery and expert reports to be produced during the course of the litigation. 231. Thus, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture are liable to the Plaintiff for their negligent misrepresentations with respect to the design plans and speci?cations being correct, complete, and free from defects or de?ciencies and their negligent failure to supervise, inspect and oversee construction to ensure that it conformed with the design plans and speci?cations, pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 552, and as elucidated in Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio. 232. As a direct and proximate result of Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture?s false, incomplete, defective, and de?cient information contained in the design plans and speci?cations and Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture?s failures to exercise reasonable care in designing the Home and in supervising, overseeing and/or inspecting construction, Plaintiff has incurred, continue to incur and/or will incur damage to the following property: the landscaping and hardscaping around the Home that was erected/planted post- 51 Case ID: 180502581 closing will incur damage and will need to be repaired during the cladding remediation project; (ii) the air quality within the Home that is contaminated with mold and/or will be contaminated with mold when the exterior envelope is repaired; and other post-closing modi?cations that are or will be impacted and/or damaged as a direct and proximate result of repairs to the Home?s exterior cladding. 233. As a direct and proximate result of Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture?s false, incomplete, defective, and de?cient information contained in the design plans and speci?cations and Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture?s failures to exercise reasonable care in designing the Home and in supervising, overseeing and/or inspecting construction, the Plaintiff has suffered damages because: a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; b. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; c. the Plaintiff? ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; (1. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the ?ll] use and enjoyment of her Home; e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and f. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. 52 Case ID: 180502581 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. COUNT XI BREACH OF CONTRACT-THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY PLAINTIFF HARMAN DEUTSCH CORP. and HARMAN DEUTSCH ARCHITECTURE 234. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth at length herein. 235. Upon information and belief, a contract existed between Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture and the AGA Entities for the design of the Home, the models of the Home, and/or the Development.3 236. Upon information and belief, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture intended that the purchasers of the Home would bene?t from the design plans and speci?cations they prepared for the Home, the models of the Home, and/or the Development. 237. As the developer, designer, and architect of the Home and the Development, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture knew and intended for its/their design plans and speci?cations to be used to build numerous homes that were to be marketed, sold, and lived-in by homeowners, including the Plaintiff. 4. Pursuant to 1019(i), Plaintiff are not in possession, custody and/or control of this document with respect to their Home. However, upon information and belief, the Defendant(s) are in possession of said contract and/or have knowledge of the terms of any oral agreement. The Plaintiff intend to seek discovery on this issue during the course of this litigation. 53 Case ID: 180502581 238. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture knew or should have known that homeowners of the homes being built in the Development, including the Plaintiff, would rely upon their design of the homes to be correct, free of error, and within the professional standards governing the practice of architecture in the Commonwealth of 239. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture intended the Plaintiff to be intended third-party bene?ciaries of any contractual arrangement to design the Home and/or models of the Home. 240. Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture breached their obligations to the Plaintiff, as third-party bene?ciaries to properly and adequately: design the Home, (ii) inspect the Home to ensure compliance with the design drawings, inspect the Home to ensure compliance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance, (iv) warn the Plaintiff and occupants of the Home that the Home was not designed and/or constructed in compliance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance, and/or warn the Plaintiff and occupants of the Home that the Home?s non-conformance with Applicable Building Code and local ordinance posed a risk to life, safety and property. 241. Upon information and belief, Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture knew that the Home was not designed and/or constructed in conformance with the Applicable Building Code and local ordinance before the Home was sold to the Plaintiff. 242. As a direct and proximate result of the Harman Deutsch Corp. and/or Harman Deutsch Architecture? breach of the design contract and/or unlawful design, the Plaintiff has suffered damage because: a. remediation of water in?ltration and mold damage to the Home, and the repair of the causes of said damage, will cost Plaintiff in excess of $200,000.00; 54 Case ID: 180502581 a. the value of the Home has diminished, and will continue to diminish; b. the Plaintiff?s ability to sell her Home, for the same or similar value that they paid, has been and continues to be signi?cantly limited; 0. the Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, denied the full use and enjoyment of her Home; d. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs to engage inspectors and other experts to evaluate damage and the causes of said damage to the Home; and e. the Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, legal fees and costs to pursue this Action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Margaret Jackson hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant AGA Developers, LLC, Defendant AGAF Holdings LP, Defendant AGAF Holdings GP, LLC, Defendant SOKO Developers, LLC, Defendant RGD Construction LLC, and Defendant Frank Mazzio for all compensatory and incidental damages, in excess of $50,000, diminution in market value of the Home, and for such relief as the Court may deem proper and necessary. Dated: May 23, 2018 HORN WILLIAMSON, LLC BY: is! Kathleen J. Seligman Jennifer M. Horn, Esquire Kathleen J. Seligman, Esquire Rachel E. Jeanes, Esquire 2 Penn Center, Suite 1700 1500 JFK Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19102 55 Case ID: 180502581 VERIFICATION 1, Kathleen J. Seligman, Esq., being duly authorized, have read the foregoing Plaintiff?s Complaint, and verify that the statements made therein relating to or concerning my clients, regarding their home and legal claims relating thereto, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 ?4904, relating to unsworn falsi?cation to authorities, which may subject me to criminal penalties if I make a false statement, which I do not believe to be true. I- .1- Dated: 05/23/2018 2/51/6149?" . Kathi?en J. In Case ID: 180502581