Richard E. Genter, Esquire Attorney Identification No. 30419 LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD E. GENTER 610 Old York Road, Suite 200 Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 884-8190 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Bradley J. Stoll, Esquire KATZMAN, LAMPERT & STOLL 121 North Wayne Avenue, Suite 205 Wayne, PA 19087 (610) 686-9686 David Casey, Esquire Robert J. Francavilla, Esquire Jeremy Robinson, Esquire Scott Cummins, Esquire Jason Evans, Esquire CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 238-1811 Counsel for Plaintiffs MITCHELL S. SCHULTZ, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of SAMUEL ABRAHAM SCHULTZ, Deceased 1021 Old Ford Road Huntingdon Valley, PA 19007 : : : : : : and : : MICHAEL PHILLIPS, Individually and as : Executor of the Estate of SAMUEL PHILLIPS, : Deceased : 121 Surry Circle N. : Pinehurst, NC 28374 : : and : : ANDREA DAWN CONRAD, Individually and as : Guardian of A.L. CONRAD, a Minor, and as : Administratrix of the Estate of : TAYLOR CONRAD, Deceased : 711 Riverview Drive : Baton Rouge, LA 70816 : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY _____ TERM, 2020 No. _________________________ and : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : KASEY LEE HOLLEY, Individually and as Guardian of D.R. HOLLEY, a Minor, and as Personal Representative/Executor of the Estate of DERIK R. HOLLEY, Deceased 111 Sawgrass Drive Maple Hill, NC 28454 Plaintiffs, vs. KAMPI COMPONENTS CO., INC. 88 Canal Road Fairless Hills, PA 19030 and DIAMOND RUBBER PRODUCTS CO. 4000 50th Street, SW Birmingham, AL 35228 Defendants. NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 or 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 OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. LAWYER REFERENCE SERVICE Philadelphia Bar Association One Reading Center Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-6333 TTY (215) 451-6197 2 AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suyasin previo aviso o notification. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATMENT. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTAENCIA LEGAL. Asociacion De Licenciados De Filadelfia Servicio De Referencia E Informacion Legal One Reading Center Filadelfia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 238-6333 TTY (215) 451-6197 3 Richard E. Genter, Esquire Attorney Identification No. 30419 LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD E. GENTER 610 Old York Road, Suite 200 Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 884-8190 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Bradley J. Stoll, Esquire KATZMAN, LAMPERT & STOLL 121 North Wayne Avenue, Suite 205 Wayne, PA 19087 (610) 686-9686 David Casey, Esquire Robert J. Francavilla, Esquire Jeremy Robinson, Esquire Scott Cummins, Esquire Jason Evans, Esquire CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 238-1811 Counsel for Plaintiffs MITCHELL S. SCHULTZ, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of SAMUEL ABRAHAM SCHULTZ, Deceased 1021 Old Ford Road Huntingdon Valley, PA 19007 : : : : : : and : : MICHAEL PHILLIPS, Individually and as : Executor of the Estate of SAMUEL PHILLIPS, : Deceased : 121 Surry Circle N. : Pinehurst, NC 28374 : : and : : ANDREA DAWN CONRAD, Individually and as : Guardian of A.L. CONRAD, a Minor, and as : Administratrix of the Estate of : TAYLOR CONRAD, Deceased : 711 Riverview Drive : Baton Rouge, LA 70816 : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY _____ TERM, 2020 No. _________________________ and : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : KASEY LEE HOLLEY, Individually and as Guardian of D.R. HOLLEY, a Minor, and as Personal Representative/Executor of the Estate of DERIK R. HOLLEY, Deceased 111 Sawgrass Drive Maple Hill, NC 28454 Plaintiffs, vs. KAMPI COMPONENTS CO., INC. 88 Canal Road Fairless Hills, PA 19030 and DIAMOND RUBBER PRODUCTS CO. 4000 50th Street, SW Birmingham, AL 35228 Defendants. CIVIL ACTION – COMPLAINT 1. This action arises out of the crash of a Marine CH-53E helicopter on April 3, 2018, which tragically resulted in the deaths, through no fault of their own, of all four (4) Marines on board. The Parties 2. Plaintiff, Mitchell S. Schultz, is the father of Samuel Abraham Schultz, deceased, and resides at 1021 Old Ford Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19007. Mitchell S. Schultz was duly appointed as the Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Abraham Schultz by the Register of Wills in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania on June 13, 2018 and was granted a Certificate of Grant of Letters of Administration on that date, thereby authorizing him to bring this Wrongful Death and Survival Act lawsuit. 2 3. Plaintiff, Michael Phillips, is the father of Samuel Phillips, deceased, and resides at 21 Surry Circle N, Pinehurst, NC 28374. Michael Phillips was duly appointed Executor of the Estate of Samuel Phillips by the General Court of Justice Superior Court Division of the State of North Carolina on July 11, 2019 and was granted Letters of Administration on that date, thereby authorizing him to bring this Wrongful Death and Survival Act lawsuit. 4. Marine Lance Cpl. Taylor J. Conrad, deceased, is survived by his minor daughter, A.L. Conrad, who brings this action through her guardian, Andrea Dawn Conrad, and who has also been appointed Administratrix of the Estate of Marine Lance Cpl. Taylor J. Conrad on May 29, 2018, by issuance of Independent Letters of Administration, Number P104708 Section 23, in the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. 5. Marine Gunnery Sgt. Derik R. Holley, deceased, is survived by his wife, Kasey Lee Holley and his minor son, D.R. Holley, who brings this action through his Guardian, Kasey Lee Holley. Kasey Lee Holley has opened a probate estate in Probate Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, Case No. 2020EST00559, and all materials needed to appoint Kasey Lee Holley as the Executor of the Estate of Marine Gunnery Sgt. Derik R. Holley have been filed with the Probate Court. No other party has an equal or superior right to commence probate proceedings in relation to the Estate of Marine Gunnery Sgt. Derik R. Holley. Kasey Lee Holley, as duly qualified both in fact and law, brings this action as Personal Representative/Executor of her decedent’s estate. 6. Plaintiffs Schultz, Phillips, Conrad and Holley join in this action, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2229(a) and applicable law, since their claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and common questions of law and fact affecting their rights to relief will arise in this 3 action. Plaintiffs Schultz, Phillips, Conrad and Holley are hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”. 7. Defendant KAMPI COMPONENTS CO., INC. (hereinafter, “Defendant KAMPI”) is a domestic corporation, created and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business and headquarters located at 88 Canal Road, Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania 19030, and, as more particularly set forth herein and at all times material hereto, did and does regularly transact and conduct business in Philadelphia County. Upon information and belief, Defendant KAMPI is, among other things, in the business of selling and supplying aircraft and/or helicopter component parts and providing related services and support to various branches of the United States military. Upon further information and belief, Defendant KAMPI sold and supplied component parts to the United States Military pursuant to a military contract awarded to Defendant KAMPI relating to the subject model helicopter known as the CH-53E. 8. Defendant DIAMOND RUBBER PRODUCTS CO. (hereinafter, “Defendant DIAMOND”) is believed and therefore averred to be a foreign corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, with its principal place of business and headquarters located at 4000 50th Street SW, Birmingham, Alabama 35228. Upon information and belief, Defendant DIAMOND did and does conduct and transact substantial, continuous and regular business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by, among other things, manufacturing and/or contracting to manufacture and supply goods, products and services to vendors or suppliers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, such as Defendant KAMPI, and/or by shipping said good and products and/or other merchandise directly or indirectly into and through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Upon further information and belief, Defendant DIAMOND 4 manufactured, sold and supplied component parts to Defendant KAMPI pursuant to the aforesaid military contract awarded to Defendant KAMPI. 9. Upon information and belief, and at all times material hereto, Defendants KAMPI and DIAMOND, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, and/or joint venturers of and with each other, and at all times material hereto, acted within the course, scope, and purpose of said agency, employment, and/or joint venture. 10. Upon further information and belief, and at all times material hereto, Defendants KAMPI and DIAMOND were acting as the ostensible agents of and for each other and were doing so at the behest of and with the approval of each of the said Defendants. At all times material hereto, Plaintiffs’ decedents reasonably relied upon the acts and/or representations made by these Defendants about the agency, employment and/or joint venture of said Defendants, all to Plaintiffs’ decedents’ detriment. Jurisdiction and Venue 11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over both of the Defendants. 12. Specifically, Defendant KAMPI is a Pennsylvania domestic corporation, which maintains its principal place of business and headquarters in Pennsylvania, and is registered to do and does conduct substantial business in and from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As such, Defendant KAMPI is subject to the general jurisdiction of this Court. 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant DIAMOND conducts and transacts substantial, continuous and regular business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by, among other things, availing itself of business opportunities here, advertising, performing services, and/or shipping goods, products, parts and literature into the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by sending DIAMOND personnel and other DIAMOND employees and 5 representatives into the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in furtherance of said business, and by receiving substantial sums of money from persons and/or entities located in Pennsylvania that order and pay for such goods, services, products and parts from DIAMOND, thus giving rise to a reasonable expectation that Defendant DIAMOND would be hailed into the courts of this Commonwealth to answer for its tortious conduct under Pennsylvania's long-arm statute. 14. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ cause(s) of action against Defendant DIAMOND alleged herein arise out of the Pennsylvania business transacted and conducted by Defendant DIAMOND by and through its affiliation, agency, business dealings, and/or joint venture with KAMPI which resulted in the delivery, procurement, distribution, and/or sale of a defectively designed and/or manufactured product to KAMPI in Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, this transaction was one of many between DIAMOND and KAMPI which constitutes the requisite minimum contacts between DIAMOND and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to satisfy all due process requirements. As such, this Court can and should exercise specific jurisdiction over this Defendant. 15. Based upon the foregoing, general and/or specific jurisdiction is proper under both the Pennsylvania Long Arm Statute and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution against both of the Defendants herein. 16. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. § 1006 and Pa. R.C.P. § 2179 because Defendant KAMPI regularly conducts business in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Specifically, and upon information and belief, Defendant KAMPI, among substantial other business conducted in Philadelphia County, has been awarded numerous military contracts by the Defense Industrial Supply Center and/or the Naval Supply Center, located in Philadelphia County. 6 Background Facts 17. Plaintiffs’ decedents were all members of Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron (HMH) 465, Marine Aircraft Group 16, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, MCAS Miramar, San Diego, California. Plaintiffs’ decedents were all killed on April 3, 2018, about 2:35 P.M. (PST), while in the line of duty with the United States Marine Corps. On that date, Plaintiffs’ decedents were part of a four-Marine flight crew aboard a Marine CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter, call sign War Horse 41, Bureau Number (BUNO) 164367, (hereinafter, the “subject helicopter”). The subject helicopter departed the Strategic Expeditionary Landing Field at Marine Corps. Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, CA, to conduct squadron training consisting of aircraft landings in unimproved zones. The subject helicopter was destroyed when it impacted terrain and thereafter burst into flames during a flight exercise near El Centro, California. 18. Plaintiffs are informed and therefore allege that the root cause of the crash was the failure of a component part known as a bypass valve “button”, which part was manufactured, sold and supplied by Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally. The failure of this component part caused what is known as a “hydraulic lock” condition, resulting in a loss of flight control of the subject helicopter. When this condition occurs, the pilots can do nothing to bring the subject helicopter back under control and are blameless in this crash. 19. Plaintiffs are further informed and therefore allege that the bypass valve “button” is contained within the Aft Main Rotor Servo, and that the “button” was manufactured from and with a material that was not in compliance with and non-conforming to the engineering design specifications required by the military. 20. Upon information and belief, the non-conforming “button” was likely incorporated into the Aft Main Rotor Servo during recent maintenance performed by and/or on 7 behalf of the United States Marine Corps and said “button” is not subject to any applicable statutes of repose with respect to aviation products. 21. Upon further information and belief, Defendants KAMPI and DIAMOND knew, or by reasonable testing and/or inspection should have known, that the non-conforming bypass valve button was defectively designed and/or manufactured, and was unreasonably dangerous and defective for use in the subject helicopter, and in particular with the Aft Main Rotor Servo, which could and would ultimately cause a tragic crash resulting in the death of the pilots and passengers onboard. 22. Upon information and belief, the subject helicopter had a crew of two (2) pilots; with Captain Samuel Schultz being designated the Helicopter Aircraft Commander (“HAC”). 23. Upon information and belief, the Helicopter Second Pilot (“H2P”) was First Lieutenant Captain Samuel Phillips, who was posthumously promoted to the rank of Captain. 24. Upon information and belief, the subject helicopter also had two (2) additional crewmembers assigned to the flight; that being Gunnery Sgt. Derik R. Holley (occupying crew position right gun door) and Lance Cpl. Taylor J. Conrad (occupying crew position left gun door). 25. As stated above, post-crash investigation and analysis has determined that the loss of control and crash of the subject helicopter resulted from the use and installation of a nonconforming bypass valve button which was defectively designed, sold, supplied and manufactured with materials that were non-compliant with the engineering design specifications required by the United States Military as part of the military contract awarded to Defendant KAMPI and/or were otherwise unsuitable and unreasonably dangerous for use in components using hydraulic fluid. 8 26. Post-crash investigation and analysis further revealed that: (a) Upon disassembly of the Aft Main Rotor Servo, a sticky, grease-like substance was found in the hydraulic system which caused a blockage at the bypass filter entrance to the bypass valve spool; (b) The bypass valve “button” was found to be manufactured from a material known as Ethylene Propylene Di Monomer (EPDM) and not with BUNA-N rubber as required. EPDM rubber material is incompatible with hydraulic fluid and does not comply with any Class 1 rubber specified by MIL-R-6855; (c) The EPDM “button” material degraded after being exposed to hydraulic fluid causing a blockage in the hydraulic system resulting in a “hydraulic lock” condition, causing the flight control system from the subject helicopter to become uncontrollable, unresponsive and/or inoperative leading to the crash. 27. Post-crash investigation and analysis further revealed that after discovery of the non-conforming EPDM, all batches of the non-conforming buttons were analyzed in an attempt to find the non-compliant supplier and/or manufacturer and through those efforts the source of the non-compliant “button” was identified as being sold and supplied by Defendant KAMPI and manufactured of Defendant DIAMOND. 28. As a result of the post-crash investigation and analysis, all non-conforming buttons installed on the entire fleet were removed pursuant to the issuance of a fleetwide Accessory Bulletin (AYB-1657) mandating their removal and replacement with new “buttons” from a known compliant supplier other than Defendant KAMPI. 9 Background Facts As To KAMPI And DIAMOND 29. Upon information and belief, Defendant KAMPI is, among other things, a military contractor for various branches of the United States Military and was issued a military contract to provide aviation parts and related services for the fleet of CH-53-E helicopters operated by the United States Marine Corps and other branches of the military. 30. The design and manufacturing specifications of the bypass valve button were created or developed by the United States Military, and/or agencies or departments thereof (hereinafter, “the government”), which design specifications both Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND know full well must be adhered to, with no exceptions or deviations permitted. 31. Based on the post-crash analysis and investigation, the bypass valve button manufactured, sold and supplied by the Defendants did not conform to the precise and mandated specifications provided and required by the government. 32. Based upon the post-crash analysis and investigation, the Defendants, jointly and severally, failed to warn the government about possible dangers or defects in the non-conforming bypass valve button, which defects were either known or should have been known by the Defendants, but not the government. 33. Based upon the post-crash analysis and investigation, the bypass valve buttons were defective, such defects consisting of defects in material and manufacturing which are or might not be detectible during normal and/or special inspection and/or maintenance procedures conducted by maintenance facilities and/or mechanics in the field, military or otherwise. 34. Upon information and belief, the Defendants knew, or should have known, that an in-flight loss of control and failure of the flight control systems could and would result in 10 hazardous and dangerous flight regimes from which even the most skillful pilot could not recover. In fact, post-crash analysis and investigation has confirmed that the crash of the subject helicopter was NOT due to or caused by any negligent act, omissions or misconduct by any of the flight crew. 35. As more particularly set forth and described herein, the subject helicopter experienced a loss of flight control from which it could not safely or successfully recover, as a result of which it crashed with the terrain resulting in fatal injuries to the entire crew. Background Facts Regarding The Defendants’ Fraudulent, Willful And Wanton Conduct 36. Upon information and belief, the military contract awarded to Defendant KAMPI required that Defendant KAMPI provide the government with various certifications and/or representations that, among other things, all terms, conditions, requirements, including all design and manufacturing specifications, set forth in the contract are fully, completely and accurately complied with and/or adhered to. 37. Upon information and belief, one of the applicable design specifications relating to the component parts sold, supplied and manufactured by Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, is Military Specification (Mil Spec) MIL-R-6855, Class 1. 38. Upon information and belief, MIL-R-6855 dictates specific test conditions and inspection criteria at the time of manufacturer relating to product verification known as First Article and Conformance Inspection. In short, the representations made in such certifications must confirm that the manufactured component part conforms to that Mil Spec. Here, a certification under MIL-R-6855 should have confirmed the use of BUNA-N rubber material in the bypass valve “button”. 11 39. Upon information and belief, Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, provided such First Article and Conformance Inspection certifications and/or representations to the government in connection with the performance of the subject military contract at issue. 40. Post-accident laboratory testing and analysis has demonstrated and confirmed that the presence of the non-compliant EPDM “button” material would have and should have resulted in a failed First Article and Conformance Inspection verification testing under MIL-R6855. 41. Stated differently and simply put, any First Article and Conformance Inspection representations, certifications and/or reports provided by Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, to the government in connection with the military contract at issue demonstrating or claiming to demonstrate compliance with MIL-R-6855 were false, fraudulent and intentionally and deliberately designed to misrepresent the results of the tests and inspections performed and to otherwise mislead and/or deceive the government. 42. Upon information and belief, Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, by providing false, fraudulent and intentionally and deliberately misleading First Article and Conformance Inspection test reports, certifications and/or representations acted willfully and wantonly. 43. Long prior to the accident that fatally injured Plaintiffs’ decedents, the Defendants had actual knowledge of the critical importance of complying fully and completely with the material specifications and requirements called out for by the United States Military contract and were also aware of the defects alleged herein, by virtue of their fraud, intentional misrepresentations, and willful and wanton conduct. 12 44. Long prior to the accident that fatally injured Plaintiffs’ decedents, the Defendants knew that the continued use of the subject helicopter with the defective component parts installed therein would inevitably result in catastrophic accidents with the substantial likelihood of serious personal injury and/or death to those occupying the helicopter. 45. In spite of the Defendants’ actual knowledge that occupants of the subject model helicopter would likely be injured and/or killed, and actual knowledge that the subject helicopter component parts were defective, unairworthy, unsafe and unreasonably dangerous, the Defendants nonetheless failed to take any adequate and/or reasonable steps to prevent, warn, eliminate or correct the defects alleged herein or otherwise modify, recall, or retrofit the subject helicopter with non-defective component parts, all of which was in their capabilities and reasonable to accomplish, as a consequence of which the subject helicopter crashed unnecessarily which took the life of Plaintiffs’ decedents. 46. The Defendants willfully, wantonly, knowingly, unjustifiably, outrageously and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs’ decedents and the public at large, failed to take any reasonable steps to avoid fatal injuries to Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position, even though they knew that their failure to do so would result in and/or create an extreme likelihood of serious bodily injury or death, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages. Damages 47. This action is brought pursuant to the Wrongful Death and Survival Statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or any other law deemed applicable by the Court, for all damages which are or may be recoverable under said statutes and laws, including but not limited to loss of past earnings, loss of future earnings and earning capacity, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of life’s pleasures, fear of impending death, conscious and physical pain and suffering, 13 mental anguish, emotional injuries, pre-impact and post-impact fright and terror, as well as the loss of decedents’ care, comfort, companionship, support, society, love, advice, guidance, counsel and services, together with the pecuniary value of the loss thereof, as well as for funeral and interment expenses, estate expenses and such other damages as are or may be provided for by applicable law, as well as for punitive damages to the extent recoverable under applicable law for the outrageous, willful, wanton and reckless conduct as hereinafter described by the Defendants, jointly and severally. 48. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs, and all those beneficially interested in the claims for the wrongful death of their decedents, have suffered severe and devastating grief and emotional distress as a result of the decedents’ catastrophic and fatal injuries, as well as the loss of their decedents’ care, comfort, companionship, support, society, love, advice, guidance, counsel, and services, all for which recovery of damages is being sought. 49. In the moments prior to the crash, as a result of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, jointly and severally, as described more fully herein, the subject helicopter failed in flight, causing Plaintiffs’ decedents to experience unusual G-forces and/or unusual helicopter movements resulting in physical injuries, conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress and other damages and upset to Plaintiffs’ decedents prior to their death. 50. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, jointly and severally, there was a measureable and significant period of time before the crash, as well as before the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, during which they sustained personal injuries including conscious and pain suffering, pre-impact fright and terror, fear of impending death, post-impact fright and terror, mental anguish, emotional distress, and other severe injuries prior to their death. 14 51. As a result of the foregoing and the injury to and death of his decedent, Plaintiff Mitchell S. Schultz brings this action on behalf of his decedent’s estate and for all beneficiaries and/or potential beneficiaries under Pennsylvania law and/or any other law deemed applicable by the Court, including but not limited to: 52. (a) Mitchell S. Schultz, father of decedent; (b) Julie Schultz, mother of decedent; (c) Eric Schultz, brother of decedent. This action is also brought by Plaintiff Mitchell S. Schultz, Individually and in his own right, for all damages recoverable under applicable law by him and/or for all beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of his decedent’s estate. 53. As a result of the foregoing and the injury to and death of his decedent, Plaintiff Michael Phillips brings this action on behalf of his decedent’s estate and for all beneficiaries and/or potential beneficiaries under Pennsylvania law and/or any other law deemed applicable by the Court, including but not limited to: 54. (a) Michael Phillips, father of decedent; (b) Phyllis Phillips, mother of decedent. This action is also brought by Plaintiff Michael Phillips, Individually and in his own right, for all damages recoverable under applicable law by him and/or for all beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of his decedent’s estate. 55. As a result of the foregoing and the injury to and death of her decedent, Plaintiff Andrea Dawn Conrad, Guardian of A.L. Conrad, a minor, brings this action on behalf of her said minor and on behalf of her decedent’s estate and for all beneficiaries and/or potential 15 beneficiaries under Pennsylvania law and/or any other law deemed applicable by the Court, including but not limited to: (a) 56. A.L. Conrad, daughter of decedent. This action is also brought by Plaintiff Andrea Dawn Conrad, individually and in her own right, for all damages recoverable under applicable law for said minor, for her and for all beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of her decedent’s estate. 57. As a result of the foregoing and the injury to and death of her decedent, Plaintiff Kasey Lee Holley, Guardian D. R. Holley, a minor, brings this action on behalf of said minor and on behalf of her decedent’s estate and for all beneficiaries and/or potential beneficiaries under Pennsylvania law and/or any other law deemed applicable by the Court, including but not limited to: 58. (a) Kasey Lee Holley, wife of decedent; (b) D. R. Holley, minor son of decedent. This action is also brought by Plaintiff Kasey Lee Holley, individually and in her own right, for all damages recoverable under applicable law for all beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of her decedent’s estate. The Causes of Action COUNT I STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY All Plaintiffs v. Defendant KAMPI 59. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 58, as though set forth at length herein. 16 60. Defendant KAMPI is, among other things, in the business of supplying, inspecting, testing, distributing, selling, marketing, warranting, supporting and manufacturing (for itself and/or in conjunction with others) component parts for the subject helicopter, and providing accompanying product support and product support materials with respect thereto, pursuant to and in accordance with the military contract awarded to it or otherwise. 61. At all times material hereto, Defendant KAMPI manufactured, supplied, distributed, inspected, tested, warranted, and sold component parts for the subject helicopter, including but not limited to the non-conforming bypass valve button installed on the subject helicopter. In addition, Defendant KAMPI had and owed a duty to ascertain and insure that the component parts it sold, supplied and/or manufactured for the subject helicopter were, in all respects, safe, adequate, appropriate and/or compatible for use in the subject helicopter, and also that those component parts conformed to the precise specifications required and/or called for in the military contract awarded to Defendant KAMPI. 62. The component parts for the subject helicopter sold, supplied and/or manufactured by Defendant KAMPI were expected to and did reach the United States Military (as owner) and Plaintiffs’ decedents without substantial change in their condition, and at the time of the accident, said component parts, but for the abnormal degradation of the bypass valve button due to its non-conformance with specifications, were in substantially the same condition as they were when they left Defendant KAMPI’s possession, except for wear and tear, if any, caused during normal, foreseeable use. 63. The components parts for the subject helicopter, specifically the bypass valve button, had defects in design, manufacture and/or in the inadequacy, absence or lack of warnings, that made it unreasonably dangerous, and these unreasonably dangerous defects and conditions 17 existed at the time the component parts for the subject helicopter left Defendant KAMPI’s control and were first sold and/or supplied by Defendant KAMPI, and were a substantial factor and/or proximate cause in causing the crash and resultant harm and death to Plaintiffs’ decedents. 64. The defects in the component parts for the subject helicopter consisted of, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: (a) Defective design and/or manufacture of the component parts for the subject helicopter; (b) Defective and inadequate warnings and/or lack of warnings concerning the improper manufacture of the component parts for the subject helicopter; (c) Failing to warn of the defects in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, sale and supply of the component parts for the subject helicopter; (d) Failing to warn of the lack of airworthiness and continued airworthiness of the component parts for the subject helicopter; (e) Manufacturing, selling and supplying the component parts for the subject helicopter without performing proper testing during certification, manufacture and/or any time thereafter; (f) Defective design and/or manufacture by providing and supplying helicopter component parts, which were not suitable for use or for their intended purpose; (g) Certifying the subject helicopter component parts without proper testing, both pre- and post manufacture and pre-and post delivery to the military pursuant to contract awarded to KAMPI; 18 (h) Designing and manufacturing component parts for the subject helicopter which were defective and inadequate and/or otherwise failing to incorporate into their manufacture safe and suitable materials which met government required specifications; (i) Manufacturing, designing, selling and/or supplying defective helicopter component parts and/or failing to correct the same once defects in their manufacture became known or should have been known; (j) Failing to correct known or readily knowable defects in the component parts for the subject helicopter; (k) Failing to recall, replace or retrofit the component parts for the subject (l) Failing in its post sale duty to warn of and/or otherwise remedy the defects helicopter; and dangerous conditions in the component parts for the subject helicopter; (m) Selling, designing, supplying and manufacturing a defective product with a dangerous condition that was unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer; (n) Selling, designing, supplying and manufacturing a defective and dangerous product such that a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by that product outweighed the burden or costs of taking proper precautions with respect thereto; (o) Selling or otherwise designing and/or procuring a defectively designed product consisting of improper materials which were unsuitable for their intended use, and (p) Such other defects as will appear during the course of discovery to be liability-producing conduct on the part of this Defendant. 19 65. At all times material hereto, Defendant KAMPI had the duty and responsibility under the military contract awarded to it and/or under the Federal Aviation Regulations to make certain that there were no defects in their products, as manufactured, supplied and/or sold, or that any defects which were discovered post-manufacture and sale through inspection and/or service, were corrected prior to causing serious injury or death, so long as the military contract awarded to it was in effect. 66. As a direct result of the failures of Defendant KAMPI to meet their legal obligations under said military contract and/or the Federal Aviation Regulations, the subject helicopter crashed causing the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents. 67. As a direct result of the failures of Defendant KAMPI to design, manufacture, sell and supply a component part which was airworthy, and which satisfied continuing airworthiness standards and requirements so as to insure its continued safety, the subject helicopter crashed causing the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents. 68. There was nothing that Defendant KAMPI was required to do, by law or otherwise, that was in any manner not justified or not necessary, in light of the risks or harm that failure to do so imposed on the occupants, including Plaintiffs’ decedents. 69. There were no obvious defects or conditions that were visible, open and obvious that would have warned the occupants of the helicopter that disaster was about to or likely to occur. 70. At all times material hereto, the subject helicopter was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant KAMPI. 71. At all times material hereto, Defendant KAMPI knew and intended that their component parts would be purchased by the United States military and used by pilots and 20 occupants of the subject helicopter without inspection for defects of the kind discovered and found herein. Stated differently, the component parts for the subject helicopter were defective, dangerous and/or unreasonably dangerous in that it was dangerous to an extent beyond what would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer or user of the product, taking into account the ordinary consumer or user’s knowledge of the product and its characteristics. Furthermore, the risks that caused harm were unknowable or unknown to Plaintiffs’ decedents, and were risks that caused harm that was unacceptable to the average user or consumer, such as Plaintiffs’ decedents. 72. When Defendant KAMPI placed the defective component parts into the stream of commerce, the subject helicopter component parts were defective and were otherwise unreasonably dangerous, in that they caused or contributed to cause the flight control system, to become inoperative, uncontrollable and/or unresponsive, resulting in the subject helicopter experiencing a catastrophic loss of control during normal flight, causing injury to and the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents. 73. By virtue of the defects in the component parts of the subject helicopter, the risks associated with the supplying of those parts outweigh its benefits, taking into account the potential harm to the helicopter occupants, the likelihood that this harm would occur, the existence of an alternative design(s) at the time of manufacture and the cost of safer and feasible alternative design; specifically, the required design and manufacture specifications called out by the government in the military contract awarded to Defendant KAMPI. 74. Additionally, as designed, manufactured, distributed, supplied and sold by Defendant KAMPI, the component parts were defective in that the subject helicopter suffered a catastrophic mechanical and/or loss of control failure during normal flight operations, causing 21 the subject helicopter not to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to on the occasion in question. 75. The dangers and defects in the components parts for the subject helicopter, were unknown to the average user and consumer of this helicopter, including Plaintiffs’ decedents, but well known to Defendant KAMPI. 76. The defects in the component parts for the subject helicopter were a proximate cause and/or a substantive factor in the happening of the subject crash and the harm to Plaintiffs’ decedents, and as such, Defendant KAMPI is strictly liable. 77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant KAMPI’s breaches of duties and responsibilities, the subject helicopter crashed resulting in serious injuries to and the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, all for which the Plaintiffs, their decedents’ estates, survivors and next of kin seek damages, compensation and financial recovery as previously alleged and as permitted by applicable law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant KAMPI, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) on each Count, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE All Plaintiffs v. Defendant KAMPI 78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 77, as though set forth at length herein. 79. At all times material hereto, Defendant KAMPI was, among other things, engaged in the business of supplying, inspecting, testing, distributing, selling, marketing, warranting, 22 supporting and manufacturing (for itself and/or in conjunction with others) component parts for the subject helicopter pursuant to and in accordance with the military contract awarded to it and placed those components parts for the subject helicopter into the stream of commerce, with full knowledge and intent that it would be used by pilots, flight crew(s) and other occupants of the subject helicopter. 80. Defendant KAMPI owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs’ decedents to use reasonable care in connection with the testing, inspecting, sale, supply, distribution and manufacture (including the selection of competent and reliable component part vendors or manufacturers of those parts), so as to insure the airworthiness and continuing airworthiness of the component parts for the subject helicopter. 81. At all times material hereto, Defendant KAMPI also owed a duty to use reasonable care in manufacturing, testing, inspecting, certifying, marketing, distributing, selling, and supplying the component parts for the subject helicopter by complying in all respects with the design and manufacturing specifications set forth in the military contract awarded to it by the government, so as not to cause injury to and/or the death of, the helicopter’s crew and passengers, including Plaintiffs’ decedents. 82. At all times herein, Defendant KAMPI breached its duty of care by negligently, carelessly, and recklessly designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting, certifying, marketing, distributing, selling, and supplying its component parts for the subject helicopter, by failing to comply with those government required design and manufacturing specifications. 83. Defendant KAMPI knew or should have known that its failure to properly and safely manufacture and supplying component parts for the subject helicopter would create an unreasonable risk of harm or death to persons, like Plaintiffs’ decedents, occupying the aircraft. 23 84. It was foreseeable that the acts or omissions of Defendant KAMPI would create an unreasonable risk of harm and injury to Plaintiffs’ decedents and those in their position. 85. Upon information and belief, long prior to April 3, 2018, Defendant KAMPI knew or should have known with the exercise of reasonable care that the component parts for the subject helicopter were unsuitable for their application and were defectively and/or negligently designed, manufactured, sold and supplied, and were otherwise unsafe. 86. Notwithstanding this knowledge, Defendant KAMPI negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to timely apprise the United States military and/or other users and operators of the defects in and the unsuitability of the subject helicopter component parts. 87. Defendant KAMPI was negligent, by act or omission, and breached its duty of care owed to Plaintiffs’ decedents, in one or more of the following respects, by: (a) Failing to reasonably and properly manufacture, sell and supply the component parts for the subject helicopter in a manner suitable for its intended application; (b) Failing to reasonably and properly vet , choose and/or select a helicopter component parts manufacturer to insure that the component parts were suitable for their intended application and otherwise adequate in quality and/or performance for the subject helicopter; (c) Failing to reasonably and timely notify and warn the United States military and other regulatory authorities that defects in the component parts for the subject helicopter existed and/or had not been cured; (d) Failing to warn and notify United States military service facilities that the defects and dangerous conditions in the component parts for the component parts for the subject helicopter existed and/or had not been cured; 24 (e) Failing to correct known defects in the design, manufacture, sale and supply of component parts utilized in the subject helicopter; (f) Failing to comply with their responsibilities to manufacture, test, inspect and certify that the components for the subject helicopter were in accordance with all required design and manufacturing specification under the military contract awarded to it; (g) Failing to comply with their responsibilities under the military contract awarded to it pertaining to airworthiness and continued airworthiness of the components of the subject helicopter; (h) Failing to reasonably and properly instruct, warn and otherwise provide information regarding the unsuitability of the subject helicopter component parts for its intended application; (i) Failing to reasonably and properly test, inspect and analyze the component parts of the subject helicopter for its intended application prior to or even after manufacture to ascertain the true nature of the defects and dangerous conditions in those component parts; (j) Failing to warn that the subject helicopter component parts were inadequate for its intended use; (k) Unreasonably, improperly and contrary to regulation, certifying to the United States military and/or other appropriate regulatory authorities that the component parts for the subject helicopter were airworthy and suitable for its intended application when in fact they were not; (l) Designing, manufacturing and supplying inadequate component parts related to quality and performance; 25 (m) Failing to recall and/or retrofit the component parts for the subject (n) Carelessly, negligently and recklessly inspecting, testing, distributing, helicopter; selling, and supplying defectively designed and manufactured component parts for the subject helicopter; (o) Manufacturing, selling, supplying and distributing defectively manufactured and non-compliant components parts; (p) Manufacturing, selling, supplying and distributing a defectively designed product consisting of improper materials which were unsuitable for their intended use. (q) Otherwise being negligent under the circumstances; and (r) Such other acts of negligence as will appear during the course of discovery to be liability-producing conduct on the part of this Defendant. 88. At all relevant times, the subject helicopter was used as intended and in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant KAMPI. 89. Due to Defendant KAMPI’s negligent actions and omissions, the subject helicopter failed to perform in the manner reasonably expected in light of its nature and intended purpose. 90. Defendant KAMPI’s negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the crash and resultant injuries and death to Plaintiffs’ decedents and damages to Plaintiffs, as alleged herein. 91. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant KAMPI’s breaches of duties and responsibilities, negligence, carelessness and recklessness, the subject helicopter crashed, resulting in serious injuries to and the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, all for which the Plaintiffs, 26 their decedents’ estates, survivors and next of kin seek damages, compensation and financial recovery as previously alleged and as permitted by applicable law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant KAMPI, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) on each Count, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT III BREACH OF WARRANTIES All Plaintiffs v. Defendant KAMPI 92. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 91, as though set forth at length herein. 93. Defendant KAMPI is liable to Plaintiffs’ decedents on the basis of breach of warranty in that, at all times material hereto, the component parts of the subject helicopter were manufactured, tested, sold, inspected, supported, marketed, supplied or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce with express warranties and/or implied warranties that those component parts were of fair and average qualities in the trade, were safe and merchantable, and were fit for its ordinary and particular purpose. 94. Defendant KAMPI also warranted that the subject helicopter’s component parts were free of defects in manufacture when in fact they were dangerous and defective in breach of the aforesaid warranties. 95. When Defendant KAMPI designed, manufactured, tested, sold, inspected, supported, marketed, supplied or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce their component parts, they expressly warranted that the subject helicopter’s component parts were in a condition 27 suitable for safe flight when in fact they were not, thus said express warranty was breached and, as a proximate result of said breach, Plaintiffs’ decedents suffered fatal injuries. 96. As a result of the manufacture, testing, sale, inspection, support, marketing, supplying or otherwise placing into the stream of commerce the subject helicopter’s component parts by Defendant KAMPI there also arose certain warranties implied by law. Those warranties include merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, to wit, safe flight. 97. Defendant KAMPI engages in the business of manufacturing, testing, inspecting, distributing, marketing, certifying, warranting and selling helicopter component parts to consumers, including the United States military. 98. In all transactions for the purchase of goods, Pennsylvania law implies a warranty that the goods are in merchantable condition as well as fit for the particular purpose for which they are required. 99. Defendant KAMPI impliedly warranted that the helicopter component parts at issue were airworthy, and were of merchantable quality and fit for the particular purpose for which it was intended. 100. Defendant KAMPI breached the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness in that the subject helicopter component parts were not merchantable and were not fit for the particular purpose for which those helicopter component parts are used or intended when they were manufactured and sold. 101. Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position relied upon such warranties in occupying the subject helicopter on April 3, 2018, and were intended beneficiaries of all applicable warranties. 102. Defendant KAMPI breached its implied warranties of merchantability in that: 28 (a) Defendant KAMPI, a merchant in the goods of the type used by Plaintiffs’ decedents, did not have the same adequately developed, tested, inspected, assembled and manufactured; (b) Said goods were not of fair and average quality in the trade in which Defendant KAMPI engages; (c) Said goods were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which said goods (d) Said goods were not in conformity with, in so far as safety was concerned, were used; those generally used in the trade or business in which Defendant KAMPI is engaged; (e) Defendant KAMPI knew or should have known that the goods were not fit for their ordinary purposes; (f) Defendant KAMPI knew or should have known that said goods were defectively designed, manufactured, tested, sold, inspected, supplied and marketed and as such were dangerous to the Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position; (g) Defendant KAMPI knew or should have known that said goods were inadequate and dangerous for the purposes intended and were dangerous to the safety of Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position; (h) Said goods did not conform to the normal commercial standards of the trade in which the Defendant KAMPI engages. 103. Defendant KAMPI breached its implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose in that: (a) Defendant KAMPI knew or should have known that said goods would be used by Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position; 29 (b) Defendant KAMPI knew or should have known that Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position did and would rely upon the Defendant KAMPI to furnish goods which were not defective; (c) Defendant KAMPI knew or should have known that the goods were not adequately and properly designed, manufactured, tested, sold, inspected, supported, marketed, supplied or placed into the stream of commerce and therefore would not be fit for the purposes for which Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position would be using them; (d) Defendant KAMPI failed to provide safe and non-defective component parts for the subject helicopter which would not cause injury, harm and damage to Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position. 104. In deciding to use and operate the subject helicopter, Plaintiffs’ decedents reasonably relied upon the skill, superior knowledge and judgment of military contractors such as Defendant KAMPI and upon Defendant KAMPI’s implied warranties that the subject helicopter component parts were of merchantable quality and fit for its intended purpose of flying. 105. With its inherent design and manufacturing defects, the helicopter component parts were not suitable for their particular purpose. The helicopter component parts were unreasonably dangerous and unfit for the ordinary purpose for which it was used, resulting in a catastrophic loss of control during normal flight. 106. Defendant KAMPI’s failure to provide helicopter component parts which were suitable for use, as impliedly represented, was a substantial factor in causing and/or a proximate cause of the crash and death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, and resulting damages to Plaintiffs. 30 107. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant KAMPI’s breaches of warranty, upon which warranties Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position did rely, the subject helicopter crashed, resulting in serious injuries to and the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, all for which the Plaintiffs, their decedents’ estate, survivors and next of kin seek damages, compensation and financial recovery as previously alleged and as permitted by applicable law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant KAMPI, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) on each Count, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY All Plaintiffs v. Defendant DIAMOND 108. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 107, as though set forth at length herein. 109. Defendant DIAMOND is, among other things, in the business of supplying, inspecting, testing, distributing, selling, marketing, warranting, supporting, designing, and manufacturing (for itself and/or in conjunction with others) component parts for the subject helicopter, and providing accompanying product support and product support materials with respect thereto, pursuant to and in accordance with the military contract awarded to it or otherwise. 110. At all times material hereto, Defendant DIAMOND manufactured, designed, supplied, distributed, inspected, tested, warranted, and sold component parts for the subject helicopter, including but not limited to the non-conforming bypass valve button installed on the subject helicopter. In addition, Defendant DIAMOND had and owed a duty to ascertain and 31 insure that the component parts it sold, supplied and/or manufactured for the subject helicopter were, in all respects, safe, adequate, appropriate and/or compatible for use in the subject helicopter, and also that those component parts conformed to the precise specifications required and/or called for in the applicable military contract. 111. The component parts for the subject helicopter sold, supplied and/or manufactured by Defendant DIAMOND were expected to and did reach the United States Military (as owner) and Plaintiffs’ decedents without substantial change in their condition, and at the time of the accident, said component parts, but for the abnormal degradation of the bypass valve button due to its non-conformance with specifications, were in substantially the same condition as they were when they left Defendant DIAMOND’s possession, except for wear and tear, if any, caused during normal, foreseeable use. 112. The components parts for the subject helicopter, specifically the bypass valve button, had defects in design, manufacture and/or in the inadequacy, absence or lack of warnings, that made it unreasonably dangerous, and these unreasonably dangerous defects and conditions existed at the time the component parts for the subject helicopter left Defendant DIAMOND’s control and were first sold and/or supplied by Defendant DIAMOND, and were a substantial factor and/or proximate cause in causing the crash and resultant harm and death to Plaintiffs’ decedents. 113. The defects in the component parts for the subject helicopter consisted of, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: (a) Defective design and/or manufacture of the component parts for the subject helicopter; 32 (b) Defective and inadequate warnings and/or lack of warnings concerning the improper manufacture of the component parts for the subject helicopter; (c) Failing to warn of the defects in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, sale and supply of the component parts for the subject helicopter; (d) Failing to warn of the lack of airworthiness and continued airworthiness of the component parts for the subject helicopter; (e) Manufacturing, selling and supplying the component parts for the subject helicopter without performing proper testing during certification, manufacture and/or any time thereafter; (f) Defective design and/or manufacture by providing and supplying helicopter component parts, which were not suitable for use or for their intended purpose; (g) Certifying the subject helicopter component parts without proper testing, both pre- and post manufacture and pre-and post delivery to the military pursuant to the applicable military contract; (h) Designing and/or manufacturing component parts for the subject helicopter which were defective and inadequate and/or otherwise failing to incorporate into their manufacture safe and suitable materials which met government required specifications; (i) Manufacturing, designing, selling and/or supplying defective helicopter component parts and/or failing to correct the same once defects in their manufacture became known or should have been known; (j) Failing to correct known or readily knowable defects in the component parts for the subject helicopter; 33 (k) Failing to recall, replace or retrofit the component parts for the subject (l) Failing in its post sale duty to warn of and/or otherwise remedy the defects helicopter; and dangerous conditions in the component parts for the subject helicopter; (m) Selling, designing, supplying and manufacturing a defective product with a dangerous condition that was unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer; (n) Selling, supplying, designing, and manufacturing a defective and dangerous product such that a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by that product outweighed the burden or costs of taking proper precautions with respect thereto, and, (o) Such other defects as will appear during the course of discovery to be liability-producing conduct on the part of this Defendant. 114. At all times material hereto, Defendant DIAMOND had the duty and responsibility under the applicable military contract and/or under the Federal Aviation Regulations to make certain that there were no defects in their products, as manufactured, supplied and/or sold, or that any defects which were discovered post-manufacture and sale through inspection and/or service, were corrected prior to causing serious injury or death, so long as the military contract awarded to it was in effect. 115. As a direct result of the failures of Defendant DIAMOND to meet their legal obligations under said military contract and/or the Federal Aviation Regulations, the subject helicopter crashed causing the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents. 34 116. As a direct result of the failures of Defendant DIAMOND to manufacture, design, sell and supply a component part which was airworthy, and which satisfied continuing airworthiness standards and requirements so as to insure its continued safety, the subject helicopter crashed causing the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents. 117. There was nothing that Defendant DIAMOND was required to do, by law or otherwise, that was in any manner not justified or not necessary, in light of the risks or harm that failure to do so imposed on the occupants, including Plaintiffs’ decedents. 118. There were no obvious defects or conditions that were visible, open and obvious that would have warned the occupants of the helicopter that disaster was about to or likely to occur. 119. At all times material hereto, the subject helicopter was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant DIAMOND. 120. At all times material hereto, Defendant DIAMOND knew and intended that their component parts would be purchased by the United States military and used by pilots and occupants of the subject helicopter without inspection for defects of the kind discovered and found herein. Stated differently, the component parts for the subject helicopter were defective, dangerous and/or unreasonably dangerous in that it was dangerous to an extent beyond what would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer or user of the product, taking into account the ordinary consumer or user’s knowledge of the product and its characteristics. Furthermore, the risks that caused harm were unknowable or unknown to Plaintiffs’ decedents, and were risks that caused harm that was unacceptable to the average user or consumer, such as Plaintiffs’ decedents. 35 121. When Defendant DIAMOND placed the defective component parts into the stream of commerce, the subject helicopter component parts were defective and were otherwise unreasonably dangerous, in that they caused or contributed to cause the flight control system, to become inoperative, uncontrollable and/or unresponsive, resulting in the subject helicopter experiencing a catastrophic loss of control during normal flight, causing injury to and the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents. 122. By virtue of the defects in the component parts of the subject helicopter, the risks associated with the supplying of those parts outweigh its benefits, taking into account the potential harm to the helicopter occupants, the likelihood that this harm would occur, the existence of an alternative design(s) at the time of manufacture and the cost of safer and feasible alternative design; specifically, the required design and manufacture specifications called out by the government in the applicable military contract. 123. Additionally, as designed, manufactured, distributed, supplied and sold, the component parts were defective in that the subject helicopter suffered a catastrophic mechanical and/or loss of control failure during normal flight operations, causing the subject helicopter not to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected it to on the occasion in question. 124. The dangers and defects in the components parts for the subject helicopter, were unknown to the average user and consumer of this helicopter, including Plaintiffs’ decedents, but well known to Defendant DIAMOND. 125. The defects in the component parts for the subject helicopter were a proximate cause and/or a substantive factor in the happening of the subject crash and the harm to Plaintiffs’ decedents, and as such, Defendant DIAMOND is strictly liable. 36 126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant DIAMOND’s breaches of duties and responsibilities, the subject helicopter crashed resulting in serious injuries to and the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, all for which the Plaintiffs, their decedents’ estates, survivors and next of kin seek damages, compensation and financial recovery as previously alleged and as permitted by applicable law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) on each Count, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT V NEGLIGENCE All Plaintiffs v. Defendant DIAMOND 127. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 126, as though set forth at length herein. 128. At all times material hereto, Defendant DIAMOND was, among other things, engaged in the business of supplying, designing, inspecting, testing, distributing, selling, marketing, warranting, supporting and manufacturing (for itself and/or in conjunction with others) component parts for the subject helicopter pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable military contract and placed those components parts for the subject helicopter into the stream of commerce, with full knowledge and intent that it would be used by pilots, flight crew(s) and other occupants of the subject helicopter. 129. Defendant DIAMOND owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs’ decedents to use reasonable care in connection with the design, testing, inspecting, sale, supply, distribution and 37 manufacture, so as to insure the airworthiness and continuing airworthiness of the component parts for the subject helicopter. 130. At all times material hereto, Defendant DIAMOND also owed a duty to use reasonable care in manufacturing, designing, testing, inspecting, certifying, marketing, distributing, selling, and supplying the component parts for the subject helicopter by complying in all respects with the design and manufacturing specifications set forth in the applicable military contract by the government, so as not to cause injury to and/or the death of, the helicopter’s crew and passengers, including Plaintiffs’ decedents. 131. At all times herein, Defendant DIAMOND breached its duty of care by negligently, carelessly, and recklessly designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting, certifying, marketing, distributing, selling, and supplying its component parts for the subject helicopter, by failing to comply with those government required design and manufacturing specifications. 132. Defendant DIAMOND knew or should have known that its failure to properly and safely design, manufacture and supplying component parts for the subject helicopter would create an unreasonable risk of harm or death to persons, like Plaintiffs’ decedents, occupying the aircraft. 133. It was foreseeable that the acts or omissions of Defendant DIAMOND would create an unreasonable risk of harm and injury to Plaintiffs’ decedents and those in their position. 134. Upon information and belief, long prior to April 3, 2018, Defendant DIAMOND knew or should have known with the exercise of reasonable care that the component parts for the subject helicopter were unsuitable for their application and were defectively and/or negligently designed, manufactured, sold and supplied, and were otherwise unsafe. 38 135. Notwithstanding this knowledge, Defendant DIAMOND negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to timely apprise the United States military and/or other users and operators of the defects in and the unsuitability of the subject helicopter component parts. 136. Defendant DIAMOND was negligent, by act or omission, and breached its duty of care owed to Plaintiffs’ decedents, in one or more of the following respects, by: (a) Failing to reasonably and properly design, manufacture, sell and supply the component parts for the subject helicopter in a manner suitable for its intended application; (b) Failing to reasonably and timely notify and warn the United States military and other regulatory authorities that defects in the component parts for the subject helicopter existed and/or had not been cured; (c) Failing to warn and notify United States military service facilities that the defects and dangerous conditions in the component parts for the component parts for the subject helicopter existed and/or had not been cured; (d) Failing to correct known defects in design, manufacture, sale and supply of component parts utilized in the subject helicopter; (e) Failing to comply with their responsibilities to design, manufacture, test, inspect and certify that the components for the subject helicopter were in accordance with all required design and manufacturing specification under the applicable military contract; (f) Failing to comply with their responsibilities under the applicable military contract pertaining to airworthiness and continued airworthiness of the components of the subject helicopter; 39 (g) Failing to reasonably and properly instruct, warn and otherwise provide information regarding the unsuitability of the subject helicopter component parts for its intended application; (h) Failing to reasonably and properly test, inspect and analyze the component parts of the subject helicopter for its intended application prior to or even after manufacture to ascertain the true nature of the defects and dangerous conditions in those component parts; (i) Failing to warn that the subject helicopter component parts were inadequate for its intended use; (j) Unreasonably, improperly and contrary to regulation, certifying to the United States military and/or other appropriate regulatory authorities that the component parts for the subject helicopter were airworthy and suitable for its intended application when in fact they were not; (k) Designing, manufacturing and supplying inadequate component parts related to quality and performance; (l) Failing to recall and/or retrofit the component parts for the subject (m) Carelessly, negligently and recklessly inspecting, testing, distributing, helicopter; selling, and supplying defectively designed and/or manufactured component parts for the subject helicopter; (n) Manufacturing, designing selling, supplying and distributing defectively manufactured and non-compliant components parts; (o) Manufacturing, selling, supply and distributing a defectively designed product consisting of improper materials which were unsuitable for their intended use; 40 (p) Otherwise being negligent under the circumstances; and (q) Such other acts of negligence as will appear during the course of discovery to be liability-producing conduct on the part of this Defendant. 137. At all relevant times, the subject helicopter was used as intended and in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendant DIAMOND. 138. Due to Defendant DIAMOND’s negligent actions and omissions, the subject helicopter failed to perform in the manner reasonably expected in light of its nature and intended purpose. 139. Defendant DIAMOND’s negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the crash and resultant injuries and death to Plaintiffs’ decedents and damages to Plaintiffs, as alleged herein. 140. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant DIAMOND’s breaches of duties and responsibilities, negligence, carelessness and recklessness, the subject helicopter crashed, resulting in serious injuries to and the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, all for which the Plaintiffs, their decedents’ estates, survivors and next of kin seek damages, compensation and financial recovery as previously alleged and as permitted by applicable law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) on each Count, exclusive of interest and costs. 41 COUNT VI BREACH OF WARRANTIES All Plaintiffs v. Defendant DIAMOND 141. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 140, as though set forth at length herein. 142. Defendant DIAMOND is liable to Plaintiffs’ decedents on the basis of breach of warranty in that, at all times material hereto, the component parts of the subject helicopter were manufactured, designed, tested, sold, inspected, supported, marketed, supplied or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce with express warranties and/or implied warranties that those component parts were of fair and average qualities in the trade, were safe and merchantable, and were fit for its ordinary and particular purpose. 143. Defendant DIAMOND also warranted that the subject helicopter’s component parts were free of defects in design and/or manufacture when in fact they were dangerous and defective in breach of the aforesaid warranties. 144. When Defendant DIAMOND manufactured, designed, tested, sold, inspected, supported, marketed, supplied or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce their component parts, they expressly warranted that the subject helicopter’s component parts were in a condition suitable for safe flight when in fact they were not, thus said express warranty was breached and, as a proximate result of said breach, Plaintiffs’ decedents suffered fatal injuries. 145. As a result of the manufacture, design, testing, sale, inspection, support, marketing, supplying or otherwise placing into the stream of commerce the subject helicopter’s component parts by Defendant DIAMOND there also arose certain warranties implied by law. Those warranties include merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, to wit, safe flight. 42 146. Defendant DIAMOND engages in the business of manufacturing, designing, testing, inspecting, distributing, marketing, certifying, warranting and selling helicopter component parts to consumers, including the United States military. 147. In all transactions for the purchase of goods, Pennsylvania law implies a warranty that the goods are in merchantable condition as well as fit for the particular purpose for which they are required. 148. Defendant DIAMOND impliedly warranted that the helicopter component parts at issue were airworthy, and were of merchantable quality and fit for the particular purpose for which it was intended. 149. Defendant DIAMOND breached the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness in that the subject helicopter component parts were not merchantable and were not fit for the particular purpose for which those helicopter component parts are used or intended when they were manufactured and sold. 150. Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position relied upon such warranties in occupying the subject helicopter on April 3, 2018, and were intended beneficiaries of all applicable warranties. 151. Defendant DIAMOND breached its implied warranties of merchantability in that: (a) Defendant DIAMOND, a merchant in the goods of the type used by Plaintiffs’ decedents, did not have the same adequately developed, tested, inspected, assembled, designed, and manufactured; (b) Said goods were not of fair and average quality in the trade in which Defendant DIAMOND engages; 43 (c) Said goods were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which said goods (d) Said goods were not in conformity with, in so far as safety was concerned, were used; those generally used in the trade or business in which Defendant DIAMOND is engaged; (e) Defendant DIAMOND knew or should have known that the goods were not fit for their ordinary purposes; (f) Defendant DIAMOND knew or should have known that said goods were defectively manufactured, designed, tested, sold, inspected, supplied and marketed and as such were dangerous to the Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position; (g) Defendant DIAMOND knew or should have known that said goods were inadequate for the purposes intended and were dangerous to the safety of Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position; (h) Said goods did not conform to the normal commercial standards of the trade in which the Defendant DIAMOND engages. 152. Defendant DIAMOND breached its implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose in that: (a) Defendant DIAMOND knew or should have known that said goods would be used by Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position; (b) Defendant DIAMOND knew or should have known that Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position did and would rely upon the Defendant DIAMOND to furnish goods which were not defective; (c) Defendant DIAMOND knew or should have known that the goods were not adequately and properly manufactured, designed, tested, sold, inspected, supported, 44 marketed, supplied or placed into the stream of commerce and therefore would not be fit for the purposes for which Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position would be using them; (d) Defendant DIAMOND failed to provide safe and non-defective component parts for the subject helicopter which would not cause injury, harm and damage to Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position. 153. In deciding to use and operate the subject helicopter, Plaintiffs’ decedents reasonably relied upon the skill, superior knowledge and judgment of military contractors and/or vendors who sell, supply and manufacture parts and materials as part of military contracts awarded to others such as Defendant DIAMOND and upon Defendant DIAMOND’s implied warranties that the subject helicopter component parts were of merchantable quality and fit for its intended purpose of flying. 154. With its inherent design and manufacturing defects, the helicopter component parts were not suitable for their particular purpose. The helicopter component parts were unreasonably dangerous and unfit for the ordinary purpose for which it was used, resulting in a catastrophic loss of control during normal flight. 155. Defendant DIAMOND’s failure to provide helicopter component parts which were suitable for use, as impliedly represented, was a substantial factor in causing and/or a proximate cause of the crash and death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, and resulting damages to Plaintiffs. 156. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant DIAMOND’s breaches of warranty, upon which warranties Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position did rely, the subject helicopter crashed, resulting in serious injuries to and the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, 45 all for which the Plaintiffs, their decedents’ estate, survivors and next of kin seek damages, compensation and financial recovery as previously alleged and as permitted by applicable law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) on each Count, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT VII FRAUD, INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION AND WILLFUL AND WANTON CONDUCT All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants 157. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 156, as though set forth at length herein. 158. Upon information and belief, the military contract awarded to Defendant KAMPI required that Defendant KAMPI provide the government with various certifications and/or representations that, among other things, all terms, conditions, requirements, including all design and manufacturing specifications, set forth in the contract are fully, completely and accurately complied with and/or adhered to. 159. Upon information and belief, one of the applicable design specifications relating to the component parts sold, supplied and manufactured by Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, is Military Specification (Mil Spec) MIL-R-6855, Class 1. 160. Upon information and belief, MIL-R-6855 dictates specific test conditions and inspection criteria at the time of manufacturer relating to product verification known as First Article and Conformance Inspection. In short, the representations made in such certifications must confirm that the manufactured component part conforms to that Mil Spec. 46 Here, a certification under MIL-R-6855 should have confirmed the use of BUNA-N rubber material in the bypass valve “button”. 161. Upon information and belief, Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, provided such First Article and Conformance Inspection certifications and/or representations to the government in connection with the performance of the subject military contract at issue. 162. Post-accident laboratory testing and analysis has demonstrated and confirmed that the presence of the non-compliant EPDM “button” material would have and should have resulted in a failed First Article and Conformance Inspection verification testing under MIL-R6855. 163. Stated differently and simply put, any First Article and Conformance Inspection representations, certifications and/or reports provided by Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, to the government in connection with the military contract at issue demonstrating or claiming to demonstrate compliance with MIL-R-6855 were false, fraudulent and intentionally and deliberately designed to misrepresent the results of the tests and inspections performed and to otherwise mislead and/or deceive the government. 164. Upon information and belief, Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, by providing false, fraudulent and intentionally and deliberately misleading First Article and Conformance Inspection test reports, certifications and/or representations acted willfully and wantonly. 165. At all times material hereto, the representations made by Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, (a) were false, (b) were material to the transaction at hand, (c) were made falsely, with knowledge of their falsity or recklessness as to whether it is 47 true or false, (d) were made with the intent of misleading another into relying upon the misrepresentation, and (e) were justifiably relied on by both the government and Plaintiffs’ decedents and, (f) the resulting injury suffered by Plaintiffs’ decedents was proximately caused by reliance on those misrepresentations. 166. As a consequence of the fraud, intentional misrepresentation and willful and wanton conduct committed by Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, these Defendants are precluded or barred under applicable law from alleging, asserting or claiming that any of the Plaintiffs’ decedents caused, contributed to cause and/or were otherwise comparatively negligent with respect to the cause of the crash. 167. As a direct and proximate result of the fraud, intentional misrepresentation, willful and wanton conduct committed by Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, the subject helicopter crashed resulting in serious injuries to and the death of Plaintiffs’ decedents, all for which the Plaintiffs, their decedents’ estates, survivors and next of kin seek damages, compensation and financial recovery as previously alleged and as permitted by applicable law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant KAMPI and Defendant DIAMOND, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) on each Count, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT VIII PUNITIVE DAMAGES All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants 168. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 167, as though set forth at length herein. 48 169. Long prior to the accident that fatally injured Plaintiffs’ decedents, the Defendants had actual knowledge of the critical importance of complying fully and completely with the material specifications and requirements called out for by the United States Military contract and were also aware of the defects alleged herein, by virtue of their fraud, intentional misrepresentations, and willful and wanton conduct as previously alleged, or otherwise. 170. Long prior to the accident that fatally injured Plaintiffs’ decedents, the Defendants knew that the continued use of the subject helicopter with the defective component parts installed therein would inevitably result in catastrophic accidents with the substantial likelihood of serious personal injury and/or death to those occupying the helicopter. 171. Long prior to the accident which fatally injured Plaintiffs’ decedents, the Defendants were aware of a fix and/or fixes which would have corrected the known defects and dangerous conditions in the subject helicopter component parts, but willfully, wantonly, knowingly, unjustifiably, outrageously and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs’ decedents and the public at large, failed to implement such changes or fixes. 172. In spite of the Defendants’ actual knowledge that occupants of the subject model helicopter would likely be injured and/or killed, and actual knowledge that the subject helicopter component parts were defective, unairworthy, unsafe and unreasonably dangerous, the Defendants nonetheless failed to take any adequate and/or reasonable steps to prevent, warn, eliminate or correct the defects alleged herein or otherwise modify, recall, or retrofit the subject helicopter with non-defective component parts, all of which was in their capabilities and reasonable to accomplish, as a consequence of which the subject helicopter crashed unnecessarily which took the life of Plaintiffs’ decedents. 49 173. At all times material hereto, the Defendants made decisions relating to the subject helicopter component parts based not on safety but rather based on economic reasons and other considerations beneficial to Defendants. 174. The Defendants willfully, wantonly, knowingly, unjustifiably, outrageously and in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiffs’ decedents and the public at large, failed to take any reasonable steps to avoid fatal injuries to Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position, even though they knew that their failure to do so would result in and/or create an extreme likelihood of serious bodily injury or death, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages. 175. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ outrageous, willful and wanton misconduct, and conscious and reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiffs’ decedents and others in their position, Plaintiffs’ decedents suffered fatal injuries and therefore Plaintiffs pray for punitive damages as permitted by applicable law. 176. The aforesaid misconduct of Defendants merits an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and deter them for their misconduct and to deter others from similar misconduct in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED The Plaintiff demands trial by jury of twelve (12) against Defendant as to all counts and issues so triable. 50 Dated this 31st day of March 2020. Respectfully submitted, Counsel for the Plaintiffs LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD E. GENTER /s/ Richard E. Genter Richard E. Genter, Esquire 610 Old York Road, Suite 200 Jenkintown, PA 19046 (215) 884-8190 E-mail: richard@genterlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff Mitchell S. Schultz, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Abraham Schultz, Deceased and Counsel for Plaintiffs Andrea Dawn Conrad, Individually and as Guardian of A.L. Conrad, a Minor, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Taylor Conrad, Deceased and Counsel for Plaintiffs Kasey Lee Holley, Individually and as Guardian of D.R. Holley, a Minor, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Derik Holley, Deceased and KATZMAN, LAMPERT & STOLL /s/ Bradley J. Stoll Bradley J. Stoll, Esquire 121 North Wayne Avenue, Suite 205 Wayne, PA 19087 (610) 686-9686 E-mail: bstoll@klm-law.com 51 Counsel for Plaintiff Michael Phillips, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Samuel Phillips, Deceased and David Casey, Esquire Robert J. Francavilla, Esquire Jeremy Robinson, Esquire Scott Cummins, Esquire Jason Evans, Esquire (Pro Hac Vice Motions to be submitted) CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 238-1811 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com, rjf@cglaw.com, jrobinson@cglaw.com, scc@cglaw.com, jason@cglaw.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Andrea Dawn Conrad, Individually and as Guardian of A.L. Conrad, a Minor, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Taylor Conrad, Deceased and Counsel for Plaintiffs Kasey Lee Holley, Individually and as Guardian of D.R. Holley, a Minor, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Derik Holley, Deceased 52 VERIFICATION The averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing Complaint in Civil Action are true based upon the signer?s personal knowledge or information and belief. Also, the averments of fact are derived from government records, expert analysis, and are therefore believed and averred to be true to the best of the undersigned?s knowledge and investigation. If the foregoing contains averrnents which are inconsistent in fact, the undersigned has been unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true, but signer has knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief that one of them is true. This veri?cation is made subject to the penalties of 18 4904 relating to unsworn falsi?cation to authorities. .. SCHULTZ DATED: .33 J?fz? Law: VERIFICATION The averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing Complaint in Civil Action are true based upon the signer?s personal knowledge or information and belief. Also, the averments of fact are derived from government records, expert analysis, and are therefore believed and aven'ed to be true to the best of the undersigned?s knowledge and investigation. If the foregoing contains averments which are inconsistent in fact, the undersigned has been unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent evennents are true, but signer has knowledge or information suf?cient to form a belief that one of them is true. This veri?cation is made subject to the penalties of 18 4904 relating to unsworn falsi?cation ?3 ?X/i . Michael Phillips, Executor of the Estate of Samuel Phillips to authorities. i DATED: 1/3 9mm 7 I VERIFICATION The avennents or denials of facts contained in the foregoing Complaint in Civil Action are true based upon the signer's personal knowledge or infonnation and belief. Also, the avennents of fact are derived from government records, expert analysis, and are therefore believed and averred to be true to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and investigation . If the foregoing contains avennents which are inconsistent in fact, the undersigned has been unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true, but signer has knowledge or infonnation sufficient to fonn a belief that one of them is true. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. DATED: ().5r/ 3 0I /,2, {) ;:J., cJ VERIFICATION The averments or denials of facts contained in the foregoing Complaint in Civil Action are true based upon the signer?s personal knowledge or information and belief. Also, the of fact are derived from government records, expert analysis, and are therefore believed and averred to be true to the best of the undersigned?s knowledge and investigation. If the foregoing contains avennents which are inconsistent in fact, the undersigned has been unable, after reasonable investigation, to ascertain which of the inconsistent averments are true, but signer has knowledge or information suf?cient to form a belief that one of them is true. This veri?cation is made subject to the penalties of 18 4904 relating to unswom falsi?cation to authorities. 57%(7/ DATED: 5i 30} 10