IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: 

Law Office of Edward E. Kopko 

Edward E. Kopko, Eastern District of Pa. Atty. Reg. No. 25582 

15 Nottingham Drive 

Ithaca, New York 14850 

607-269-1300; 607-269-1301 

eek@kopkolaw.com 

PLAINTIFF:

PASQUALE SCARAMUZZA 

V. 

DEFENDANTS: 

ANTHONY J. SCIOLLA, JR. and JAFFE, 

FRIEDMAN, SCHUMAN, SCIOLLA, & 

APPLEBAUM, P.C. 

NO. 2004-CV-____________ 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT 

 The plaintiff, Pasquale Scaramuzza (Scaramuzza), by and through his attorney, Edward 

E. Kopko, complains against the defendants, Anthony J. Sciolla, Jr. (Sciolla) and Jaffe, 

Friedman, Schuman, Sciolla, & Appelbaum, P.C., (Jaffe Friedman) upon a cause of action stated 

as follows: 

DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 

 Scaramuzza invokes the diversity jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Scaramuzza is a resident of Florida and Sciolla and the Jaffe Friedman are residents of 

Pennsylvania. The principal amount in controversy is $477, 556.12. 

VENUE 

 All of the acts complained of occurred in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which is 

located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 1 of 15
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 

1. Scaramuzza is an adult individual and a resident of the State of Florida. 

2. Sciolla is an adult individual licensed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to practice law 

in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

3. Jaffe, Friedman, Schuman, Sciolla, & Appelbaum, P.C., (Jaffe Friedman) is a professional

corporation of lawyers organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania and Jaffe Friedman regularly conducts business at Suite 200, 7848 Old York 

Road, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania 19027. 

4. At all times relevant to the allegations contained in this complaint, Sciolla was an employee,

director, officer, or shareholder of Jaffe Friedman working within the scope of his

employment and with the knowledge and consent of Jaffe Friedman. 

5. On or about February 12, 2002, Scaramuzza, as client, and Sciolla and Jaffe Friedman, as 

attorney, entered into an attorney client relationship by which Sciolla and Jaffe Friedman 

undertook to represent Scaramuzza in the case of “Lincoln General Insurance Company v. 

Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. and Pasquale Scaramuzza,” (Lincoln General Litigation) then

pending in the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Docket No. 98-

02859. A copy of the written attorney employment agreement is attached as Exhibit One. 

(Appendix p. 2-3) A copy of the amended complaint filed Lincoln General Litigation, 

together with exhibits to the complaint, is attached as Exhibit Two. (Appendix p. 4-33) 

6. In the Lincoln General Litigation, the plaintiff, Lincoln General Insurance Company, alleged 

as follows: 

5. On May 30, 1995, Lincoln General entered into a “Brokerage 

Agreement “ with Personal Surplus whereby Personal Surplus 

2

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 2 of 15
agreed to solicit business and bind risks for Lincoln General’s 

private passenger automobile physical damage line of business in 

all states where Lincoln General was licensed to write such

insurance, including Pennsylvania. The “Brokerage Agreement”

was entered into and signed by Lincoln General at is office in 

York, Pa. The “Brokerage Agreement” was not effective until 

signed by Lincoln General. A true and correct copy of the 

“Brokerage Agreement” is attached hereto as Exhibit ‘A’ and 

incorporated herein by reference. (Appendix p. 16-21) 

6. Under Paragraph 3(b) of the “Brokerage Agreement,” Personal 

Surplus was responsible for collecting, accounting for, and paying 

all premiums on the insurance business that it wrote for Lincoln 

General, even if it did not collect the premium from the policy

holder. As stated in Paragraph 3(b)(3), premiums collected by 

Personal Surplus were the property of Lincoln General, and 

Personal Surplus held such premiums as a trustee for Lincoln 

General. 

7. Under the “Addendum” to the “Brokerage Agreement”. effective 

August 1, 1996, Personal Surplus could only be relieved of its 

responsibility to pay premiums to Lincoln General if Personal 

Surplus notified Lincoln General with 30 days of the premium 

billing that it was unable to collect such premiums. A true and 

correct copy of the Addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and 

incorporated herein by reference. (Appendix p. 27) 

8. Personal Surplus’ binding authority in accordance with the 

Brokerage Agreement was $30,000 or less per unit. A true and 

correct copy of the letter dated May 30, 1995, setting forth the 

binding authority limit is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and 

incorporated herein by reference. (Appendix p. 28) 

9. Additionally, on May 30, 1995, as an inducement to Lincoln

General to enter into the “Brokerage Agreement”, Personal Surplus

3

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 3 of 15
agreed to guarantee the full performance by Scaramuzza of all 

terms and conditions of the Brokerage Agreement. A true and 

correct copy of the “Guaranty” is attached hereto as Exhibit “D” 

and incorporated herein by reference. (Appendix p. 29-33) 

 

7. Scaramuzza signed Exhibit “A” to the complaint in the Lincoln General Litigation as an

officer of Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. and not as an individual. (Appendix p. 21) 

8. Scaramuzza signed Exhibit “B” to the complaint in the Lincoln General Litigation as an

officer of Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. and not as an individual. (Appendix p. 27) 

9. Scaramuzza signed Exhibit “C” to the complaint in the Lincoln General Litigation as an

officer of Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. and not as an individual. (Appendix p. 28) 

10. Scaramuzza signed Exhibit “D” to the complaint in the Lincoln General Litigation as an

officer of Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. and not as an individual. (Appendix p. 32) 

11. Scaramuzza is not a party to Exhibit “A” to the complaint in the Lincoln General Litigation. 

(Appendix p. 16) 

12. Scaramuzza is not a party to Exhibit “B” to the complaint in the Lincoln General Litigation.

(Appendix p. 27) 

13. Scaramuzza is not a party to Exhibit “C” to the complaint in the Lincoln General Litigation.

(Appendix p. 28) 

14. Scaramuzza is not a party to Exhibit “D” to the complaint in the Lincoln General Litigation. 

(Appendix p. 32) 

15. In the Lincoln General Litigation complaint, Lincoln General does not alleged that 

Scaramuzza is a party to Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the complaint. 

16. In the Lincoln General Litigation, Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the complaint constitute a 

written or express agreement between Lincoln General Insurance Company and Personal 

4

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 4 of 15
Surplus Lines, Inc. upon which Lincoln General sought to recover a debt from Personal 

Surplus Lines, Inc. 

17. In the Lincoln General Litigation complaint, Exhibit Two, only Counts III and V contain 

allegations of personal liability of Scaramuzza. 

18. In the Lincoln General Litigation, the plaintiff, Lincoln General Insurance Company, alleged 

in Count III as follows: 

COUNT III 

LINCOLN GENERAL v. SCARAMUZZA 

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 

26. Lincoln General incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 

through 25 of this Complaint. 

27. In his capacity of licensed insurance broker and/or agent, 

Scaramuzza solicited and obtained private passenger automobile 

physical damage insurance and placed it with Lincoln General. 

28. Under Pennsylvania Law, Scaramuzza owed a fiduciary duty to 

Lincoln General with respect to the premiums for the business that

he obtained for Lincoln General. 

29. In breach of his fiduciary duty, Scaramuzza failed or refused to 

hold unearned premiums in trust or to return unearned premiums to

insurance premium finance companies. 

30. Scaramuzza acted in breach of his fiduciary duty with full 

knowledge of the consequences and effects of Lincoln General. 

Upon information and belief, Scaramuzza failed to return unearned 

premiums in order to take advantage of the interest on the return on 

the unreturned money which he retained. 

31. Scaramuzza refused to return the unearned premiums

maliciously, without any justifiable cause, and with the intent to 

harm Lincoln General. 

32. As a result of Scaramuzza’s breach of his fiduciary duty, 

5

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 5 of 15
Lincoln General is entitled to recover from Scaramuzza as

compensatory damages, the amount withheld unearned premiums of 

$361,822.56, plus interest. Since his breach of fiduciary duty was 

malicious and unlawful, Lincoln General is also entitled to an award 

of punitive damages in excess of $500,000, and the attorneys’ fees 

incurred by Lincoln in this action. 

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Lincoln General Insurance Company, 

demands the entry of judgment against Defendant, Pasquale 

Scaramuzza, and the award of compensatory damages of 

$361,822.56, punitive damages in excess of $500,000, attorneys’ 

fees, prejudgment interest, and the costs of this action. 

19. In the Lincoln General Litigation, the plaintiff, Lincoln General Insurance Company, alleged 

in Count V as follows: 

COUNT V 

LINCOLN GENERAL v. PERSONAL SURPLUS AND 

SCARAMUZZA—UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

38. Lincoln General incorporates by reference herein Paragraphs 1 

through 37 of this Complaint. 

39. Personal Surplus and Scaramuzza, acting jointly and severally, 

have been unjustly enriched by wrongfully withholding gross 

unearned insurance premiums which, by law, belong to insurance 

premium companies. 

40. Personal Surplus and Scaramuzza are not entitled to retain those 

gross unearned premiums or the interest that has been earned on 

that money during the period of their unlawful withholding. 

41 Lincoln General is entitled to recover all amounts which 

Personal Surplus and Scaramuzza have improperly withheld, plus 

prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees. 

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Lincoln General Insurance Company, 

6

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 6 of 15
demands the entry of judgment against Defendant, Pasquale 

Scaramuzza, and the award of compensatory damages of 

$361,822.56, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and the costs of 

this action. 

20. On February 24, 2003, the Lincoln General Litigation was tried before the Court of Common 

Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. A copy of the transcript of the trial, including 

the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s trial exhibits, is attached as Exhibit Three. (Appendix p. 

34-203) 

21. During the trial of the Lincoln General Litigation, the Court stated: 

At this point, it’s the Court’s determination to grant the Plaintiff’s 

request for admissions and deem admitted the items concerned in 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit P-6, which are the request for admissions of June 

27, 2002, which would admit the accuracy in regard to the sum of 

$363,593.56. (Appendix p. 114) 

22. During the trial of the Lincoln General Litigation, Lincoln General introduced into evidence 

documents identified as “Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions Directed to Defendants,” and 

introduced as “P-6.” (Appendix p. 284-290) 

23. The Lincoln General Litigation Exhibit “P-6” contains requests for admission numbered one 

through seventeen and each explicitly pertains to a transaction between Personal Surplus 

Lines, Inc. and Lincoln General Insurance Company. (Appendix p. 284-290) 

24. The Lincoln General Litigation Exhibit “P-6” does not pertain to any transaction between 

Scaramuzza and Lincoln General Insurance Company. (Appendix p. 284-290) 

25. During the trial of the Lincoln General Litigation, the plaintiff, Lincoln General failed to 

introduce any evidence against Scaramuzza to sustain the allegations contained in Count III 

of the complaint. 

7

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 7 of 15
26. During the trial of the Lincoln General Litigation, the plaintiff, Lincoln General, failed to 

introduce any evidence against Scaramuzza to sustain the allegations contained in Count V of 

the complaint. 

27. During the trial of the Lincoln General Litigation, the plaintiff, Lincoln General, failed to 

introduce any evidence that Exhibit “P-6,” relating to requests for admission of transaction 

between Lincoln General Insurance Company and Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. related to any

debt alleged owed by Scaramuzza to Lincoln General Insurance Company. 

28. Sciolla filed a post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert that Lincoln General had failed to 

introduce any evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count Three of the complaint. 

A copy of the post-trial motion is attached as Exhibit Four. (Appendix p. 352-357) 

29. Sciolla filed an amended post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert that Lincoln General 

had failed to introduce any substantive evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count 

Three of the complaint. A copy of the amended post-trial motion is attached as Exhibit Five. 

(Appendix p. 358-367) 

30. Sciolla filed a post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert that Lincoln General had failed to 

introduce any substantive evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count Five of the

complaint. A copy of the post-trial motion is attached as Exhibit Four. (Appendix p. 352-

357) 

31. Sciolla filed an amended post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert that Lincoln General 

had failed to introduce any substantive evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count 

Five of the complaint. A copy of the amended post-trial motion is attached as Exhibit Five. 

(Appendix p. 358-367) 

8

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 8 of 15
32. Sciolla filed a “Brief in Support of their Motion for New Trial” in which Sciolla stated: “The 

relationship between the Plaintiff, Lincoln General Insurance Company, and the Defendant, 

Personal Surplus Lines, Inc., was based on a contract that has been accepted as P-1 and D-1, 

along with a Guaranty by Defendant, Pasquale Scaramuzza.” See Exhibit Five, Brief, first 

page. (Appendix p. 363) 

33. The Guaranty referred to Sciolla states: “Whereas to induce LGIC to enter said Brokerage 

Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Agreement’) Personal Surplus Lines, Inc.

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Guarantor’) has agreed to guarantee the faithful performance of all 

the terms and conditions of the Brokerage Agreement.” See Exhibit Two, Exhibit D, first 

page. (Appendix p. 29) 

34. According to the explicit terms of the Guaranty, Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. was the 

guarantor, not Scaramuzza. (Appendix p. 29) 

35. Sciolla failed to understand, comprehend, and argue that Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. was the 

guarantor, not Scaramuzza. 

36. Sciolla filed a post-trial motion and an amended post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert 

that the Plaintiff’s Exhibit “P-6,” relating to requests for admission, pertained only to Lincoln 

General Insurance Company and Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. and not Scaramuzza. 

(Appendix p. 352-367) 

37. By Order dated May 7, 2003, the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County entered a 

revised judgment against Scaramuzza in the amount of $477,556.12. A copy of the Order is 

attached as Exhibit Six. (Appendix p. 368) 

9

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 9 of 15
38. As a result of the Order dated May 7, 2003, a judgment has been filed against Scaramuzza

making personally and individually liable for the payment of $477,556.12, plus interest to 

Lincoln General Insurance Company. 

COUNT ONE 

SCARAMUZZA V. SCIOLLA 

LEGAL MALPRACTICE 

39. All of the allegations of the complaint are incorporated. 

ELEMENT ONE: EMPLOYMENT OF THE ATTORNEY

40. Scaramuzza hired and retained Sciolla and Jaffe Friedman to represent Scaramuzza in the 

Lincoln General Litigation, thus forming the attorney/client relationship. Exhibit One. 

(Appendix p. 2-3) 

41. Pursuant to the attorney/client relationship thus formed, Sciolla consulted and advised 

Scaramuzza regarding the Lincoln General Litigation and Sciolla filed legal papers on behalf 

of Scaramuzza. 

ELEMENT TWO: THE FAILURE OF THE ATTORNEY TO EXERCISE ORDINARY SKILL AND

KNOWLEDGE

42. Sciolla failed to assert that Scaramuzza had no personal liability for the debts of Personal 

Surplus Lines, Inc. by omitting to introduce evidence during the trial that Scaramuzza was an

employee of Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. and was not responsible for the corporate debts of 

Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. 

43. Sciolla failed to assert that Scaramuzza had no personal liability for the payment of any debt 

to Lincoln General because the express, written contracts between Lincoln General and 

Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. did not include Scaramuzza as a party. 

44. During the trial of the Lincoln General Litigation, Sciolla failed to move the Court for a 

compulsory nonsuit/directed verdict as a result of the failure of Lincoln General to introduce 

10

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 10 of 15
any evidence against Scaramuzza to sustain the allegations contained in Count III of the 

complaint. 

45. During the trial of the Lincoln General Litigation, Sciolla failed to move the Court for a 

compulsory nonsuit/directed verdict as a result of the failure of Lincoln General to introduce 

any evidence against Scaramuzza to sustain the allegations contained in Count V of the

complaint. 

46. Sciolla filed a post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert that Lincoln General had failed to 

introduce any substantive evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count Three of the 

complaint. 

47. Sciolla filed an amended post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert that Lincoln General 

had failed to introduce any substantive evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count 

Three of the complaint. 

48. Sciolla filed a post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert that Lincoln General had failed to 

introduce any substantive evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count Five of the

complaint. 

49. Sciolla filed an amended post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert that Lincoln General 

had failed to introduce any substantive evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count 

Five of the complaint. 

50. According to the explicit terms of the Guaranty, Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. was the 

guarantor, not Scaramuzza. (Appendix p. 29-33) 

51. Sciolla failed to understand, comprehend, and argue that Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. was the 

guarantor, not Scaramuzza. 

11

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 11 of 15
52. Sciolla filed a post-trial motion and an amended post-trial motion, but Sciolla failed to assert 

that the Plaintiff’s Exhibit “P-6” pertained only to Lincoln General Insurance Company and 

Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. and not Scaramuzza. (Appendix p. 352-367) 

53. Sciolla failed to assert that under Pennsylvania law, a written or express contract between 

Lincoln General Insurance Company and Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. precludes a claim of 

unjust enrichment asserted personally against Scaramuzza, as set forth in Count V. First 

Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Strausser, 653 A.2d 688, 439 Pa. Super. 192 (1995), Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Denied, 739 A.2d 543 (Pa. 06/09/1999) Gee v. Eberle, 279 Pa. Super. 

101, 420 A.2d 1050 (1980). 

ELEMENT THREE: THAT SUCH NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF DAMAGE TO THE

PLAINTIFF

54. If Sciolla asserted and substantiated with evidence that Scaramuzza had no personal liability

for the debts of Personal Surplus Lines, Inc., Scaramuzza would not have had a judgment

entered against Scaramuzza in the amount of $477,556.12. 

55. If Sciolla had asserted that Scaramuzza had no personal liability for the payment of any debt 

to Lincoln General because the express, written contract between Lincoln General and 

Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. did not include Scaramuzza as a party, Scaramuzza would not 

have had a judgment entered against Scaramuzza in the amount of $477,556.12. 

56. If, during the trial of the Lincoln General Litigation, Sciolla had moved the Court for a 

compulsory nonsuit/directed verdict as a result of the failure of Lincoln General to introduce 

any evidence against Scaramuzza to sustain the allegations contained in Count III of the 

complaint, the Court would have granted the motion and Scaramuzza would not have had a 

judgment entered against Scaramuzza in the amount of $477,556.12. 

12

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 12 of 15
57. If, during the trial of the Lincoln General Litigation, Sciolla had moved the Court for a 

compulsory nonsuit/directed verdict as a result of the failure of Lincoln General to introduce 

any evidence against Scaramuzza to sustain the allegations contained in Count V of the

complaint, controlling Pennsylvania law would have prompted Court to grant the motion and 

Scaramuzza would not have had a judgment entered against Scaramuzza in the amount of 

$477,556.12. 

58. If Sciolla filed a post-trial motion asserting that Lincoln General had failed to introduce any 

substantive evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count Three of the complaint, 

controlling Pennsylvania law would have prompted Court to grant the motion and

Scaramuzza would not have had a judgment entered against Scaramuzza in the amount of 

$477,556.12. 

59. If Sciolla filed a post-trial motion asserting that Lincoln General had failed to introduce any 

substantive evidence to sustain the allegations contained in Count Five of the complaint, 

controlling Pennsylvania law would have prompted Court to grant the motion and

Scaramuzza would not have had a judgment entered against Scaramuzza in the amount of 

$477,556.12. 

60. According to the explicit terms of the Guaranty, Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. was the 

guarantor, not Scaramuzza. (Appendix p. 29-33) 

61. If Sciolla had understood, comprehended, and argued that Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. was

the guarantor, not Scaramuzza, the Court would not have entered judgment against

Scaramuzza in the amount of $477,556.12 because Scaramuzza had not legal obligation to

pay the debts of Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. 

13

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 13 of 15
62. If Sciolla has asserted that under Pennsylvania law, a written or express contract between 

Lincoln General Insurance Company and Personal Surplus Lines, Inc. precludes a claim of 

unjust enrichment personally against Scaramuzza, First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. Strausser,

653 A.2d 688, 439 Pa. Super. 192 (1995), Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied, 739 

A.2d 543 (Pa. 06/09/1999) Gee v. Eberle, 279 Pa. Super. 101, 420 A.2d 1050 (1980), 

controlling Pennsylvania law would have prompted Court to deny any relief under Count 

Five of the Lincoln General Litigation complaint and Scaramuzza would not have had a 

judgment entered against Scaramuzza in the amount of $477,556.12. 

63. As a direct and proximate cause of Sciolla’s failure to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge 

required of attorneys as set forth in this complaint, a judgment was entered against 

Scaramuzza in the amount of $477,556.12. (Appendix p. 368) 

Wherefore, Pasquale Scaramuzza demands judgment against Anthony J. Sciolla, Jr. in the 

principal amount of $477,556.12, plus any interest accruing on the Lincoln General Litigation 

judgment, and further plus costs and interest of this action. 

COUNT TWO 

SCARAMUZZA v. JAFFE FRIEDMAN 

LEGAL MALPRACTICE—RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR 

64. All of the allegations of the complaint are incorporated. 

65. At all times relevant to the allegations contained in this complaint, Sciolla was an officer, 

shareholder, employee, or agent of Jaffe Friedman working within the scope of his

employment and with the knowledge and consent of the Jaffe Friedman. 

66. Jaffe Friedman is liable to Scaramuzza under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 

14

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 14 of 15
Wherefore, Pasquale Scaramuzza demands judgment against Jaffe, Friedman, Schuman, Sciolla,

& Appelbaum, P.C., in the principal amount of $477,556.12, plus any interest accruing on the 

Lincoln General Litigation judgment, and further plus costs and interest of this action.

COUNT THREE 

SCARAMUZZA v. JAFFE FRIEDMAN 

LEGAL MALPRACTICE—PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAW 

67. All of the allegations of the complaint are incorporated. 

68. At all times relevant to the allegations contained in this complaint, Sciolla was a officer, 

shareholder, employee, or agent of Jaffe Friedman working within the scope of his

employment and with the knowledge and consent of the Jaffe Friedman. 

69. Under Pennsylvania law, Jaffe Friedman, as a professional corporation, shall be liable up to 

the full value of its property for the acts of any of its officers, shareholders, employees or 

agents while they are engaged on behalf of the corporation in rendering professional services. 

See 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 2925(b). 

Wherefore, Pasquale Scaramuzza demands judgment against Jaffe, Friedman, Schuman, Sciolla,

& Appelbaum, P.C., in the principal amount of $477,556.12, plus any interest accruing on the 

Lincoln General Litigation judgment, and further plus costs and interest of this action.

Law Office of Edward E. Kopko 

____________________________________ 

Edward E. Kopko, Pa. Supreme Ct. Atty. No. 25582 

15 Nottingham Drive 

Ithaca, New York 14850 

607-269-1300; 607-269-1301 fax 

eek@kopkolaw.com

Monday, March 22, 2004 

15

Case 2:04-cv-01270-MMB Document 1 Filed 03/24/04 Page 15 of 15