175302.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________

BRIAN CARR and MARILYN CARR, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW

Plaintiffs :

:

v. :

:

GILLIS ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, INC., :

a division of LEGGETT & PLATT, INC., and :

JARKE CORPORATION, :

Defendants : NO. 04-CV-5345

__________________________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of , 2006, upon consideration of the

Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Gillis Associated Industries, Inc., a division

of Leggett & Platt, Inc. and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and

DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________

Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill
175302.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________

BRIAN CARR and MARILYN CARR, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW

Plaintiffs :

:

v. :

:

GILLIS ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, INC., :

a division of LEGGETT & PLATT, INC., and :

JARKE CORPORATION, :

Defendants : NO. 04-CV-5345

__________________________________________:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Gillis Associated Industries, Inc., by and through its attorneys, hereby

moves for summary judgment and in support thereof avers as follows:

1. Plaintiff Brian Carr was allegedly injured on January 16, 2003, while

working at Welex, Inc., when he fell from a ladder while attempting to reach parts from a

shelf in the stock area. A true and correct copy of plaintiffs’ complaint is attached hereto

as Exhibit “A”.

2. At the time, plaintiff was using a rolling steel ladder manufactured by

Gillis Associated Industries, Inc. in or about 1989 or 1990, which had been subsequently

purchased by Welex. It is alleged that while Mr. Carr was standing on the ladder

reaching toward the shelf for a part, the ladder rolled away, causing him to fall and

injuring his back and knee. A loss of consortium claim has been asserted on behalf of

Marilyn Carr. See Exhibit “A”.
175302.1

3. Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action against Gillis Associated

Industries, Inc. and Jarke Corporation

1

for strict products liability and negligence.

4. Through their liability expert, plaintiffs aver the accident was caused by a

lack of sufficient resistance between the rubber crutch tips on the bottom of the front

tubular legs of the ladder and the surface of the floor. According to plaintiffs’ expert,

Miles Buchman, the ladder is defective because the rubber crutch tips wore through,

allowing the bottom of the steel tubing of the front legs to come into direct contact with

the flooring. Mr. Buchman further opines that, had the rubber crutch tips contained metal

inserts, the tubular feet would not have broken through the rubber and the accident would

not have occurred. Alternatively, Mr. Buchman contends that the warning accompanying

the product was insufficient to alert the user of this defect. A true and correct copy of the

report of Miles Buchman is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”

5. Since its purchase by Welex, the subject ladder has been in Welex’

exclusive possession and control. An investigation conducted by Welex concluded that

the accident was caused by, inter alia, poor maintenance of the ladder. A true and correct

copy of the accident investigation report is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”

6. As evidenced by the attached affidavit from Gillis’ General Manager of

Inside Sales and Service, the rubber crutch tips on the ladder at the time of the accident

were not the original tips provided at the time of manufacture; nor were they

replacements obtained from or manufactured by Gillis. A true and correct copy of the

affidavit of Mark Jones, Gillis Associated Industries General Manager of Inside Sales and

Service, is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”.

1

Jarke Corporation has been voluntarily dismissed from this action by stipulation of counsel.
175302.1

7. In addition, the exemplar crutch tips provided by Gillis for examination by

Mr. Buchman, which Mr. Buchman opines would be proper for the ladder in question and

would have prevented the accident, are in fact the same and only type of crutch tips ever

utilized by Gillis as either original equipment or made available for sale as a replacement

part. See, Exhibit “D”. The affidavit further indicates, as does the testimony of other

witnesses who have been deposed, that the crutch tip on the ladder at the time of the

accident was not the one originally provided by Gillis at the time of sale or sold by Gillis

as a replacement part, but had in fact been purchased from a third party and installed by

Welex.

8. Since the ladder was sold with the type of tips conceded by their expert to

be proper, plaintiffs fail, as a matter of law, in their attempt to show that the ladder was

dangerous or defective at the time of sale.

9. As set forth at length in the accompanying memorandum of law, there has

been no evidence presented to date that ladder was defective as a matter of law and/or

any alleged defect was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident.

10. There is no outstanding issue of material fact, and defendant is entitled to

summary judgment in its favor as a matter of law.

Respectfully submitted,

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,

EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

By: _________________________

Jonathan Dryer, Esquire

Pa.Attorney I.D. No. 34496

Attorney for Defendant

Gillis Associated Industries, Inc.

Dated: January 30, 2006
175302.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________

BRIAN CARR and MARILYN CARR, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW

Plaintiffs :

:

v. :

:

GILLIS ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, INC., :

a division of LEGGETT & PLATT, INC., and :

JARKE CORPORATION, :

Defendants : NO. 04-CV-5345

__________________________________________:

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT GILLIS ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, INC., A

DIVISION OF LEGGETT & PLATT, INC.

Defendant Gillis Associated Industries, Inc., a division of Leggett & Platt, Inc.

(hereinafter “Gillis”) hereby submits this Memorandum of Law in support of its Motion

for Summary Judgment.

I. Background

Plaintiff Brian Carr was allegedly injured on January 16, 2003 while working at

Welex, Inc. when he fell from a ladder while attempting to reach parts from a shelf in the

stock area. See Exhibit “A”. At the time, plaintiff was using a rolling steel ladder

manufactured by Gillis Associated Industries, Inc. in or about 1989 or 1990, which had

been subsequently purchased by Welex. It is alleged that while Mr. Carr was standing on

the ladder reaching toward the shelf for a part, the ladder rolled away, causing him to fall

and injuring his back and knee. See Exhibit “A”.
175302.1

Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action against Gillis Associated Industries, Inc.,

a division of Leggett & Platt, Inc. and Jarke Corporation

2

for strict products liability and

negligence. Discovery is now closed and the parties have exchanged expert liability

reports.

Through their liability expert, Miles Buchman, plaintiffs aver the accident was

caused by the lack of sufficient resistance between the rubber crutch tips on the bottom of

the front tubular legs of the ladder and the surface of the floor. According Mr. Buchman,

the ladder is defective because the rubber crutch tips wore through, allowing the bottom

of the steel tubing of the front legs to come into direct contact with the flooring. Mr.

Buchman further opines that, had the rubber crutch tips contained metal inserts, the

tubular feet would not have broken through and the accident would not have occurred.

Alternatively, Mr. Buchman contends that the warnings accompanying the ladder at the

time of sale insufficiently instructed the user as to how to avoid the danger created by this

alleged design defect. See Exhibit “B.”

The subject ladder has been in the exclusive possession and control of plaintiff’s

employer, Welex, since its purchase in approximately 1990. An investigation conducted

by plaintiff’s employer concluded the accident was caused by, inter alia, poor

maintenance of the ladder, in particular, the condition of the crutch tips. See Exhibit “C.”

As evidenced by the attached affidavit from Mark Jones, Gillis’ General Manager

of Inside Sales and Service, the rubber crutch tips on the ladder at the time of the accident

were not the original tips provided at the time of manufacture; nor were they

replacements obtained from or manufactured by Gillis. A true and correct copy of the

affidavit of Mr. Jones is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”. In addition, the exemplar crutch

2

Jarke Corporation has been voluntarily dismissed from this litigation by stipulation of counsel.
175302.1

tips provided by Gillis for examination by Mr. Buchman, which Mr. Buchman opines

would be proper for the ladder in question and which would, in his opinion, have

prevented the accident, are in fact the same and only type of crutch tips ever utilized by

Gillis as either original equipment or made available for sale as a replacement part. See,

Exhibit “D”. The affidavit further indicates, as does the testimony of other witnesses

who have been deposed, that the crutch tips on the ladder at the time of the accident were

not the ones originally provided by Gillis at the time of sale or sold by Gillis as a

replacement part, but had in fact been purchased from a third party and installed by

Welex.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. Standard for Summary Judgment

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment

is appropriate if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). To defeat summary

judgment, a plaintiff “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse

party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided

in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

B. Applicable Law

Pennsylvania has adopted §402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which

imposes strict liability upon the manufacturer or seller of a product in “a defective
175302.1

condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or user.” Craley v. Jet Equipment and

Tools, Inc., 2001 Pa. Super. 171, 778 A.2d 701, 705 (Pa. Super. 2001). There are three

types of defective conditions which may give rise to strict liability: design defect,

manufacturing defect, and failure to warn defect. Weiner v. American Honda Motor

Company, Inc., 718 A.2d 305, 307 (Pa. Super. 1998). In a strict products liability action,

a plaintiff must prove that the product was defective, and that the defect was a substantial

factor in causing the injury. Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Company, 696 A.2d 1169,

548 Pa. 286 (1977). It is plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that the injuries sustained were

proximately caused by the product’s defect. Jacobini v. B&O Press Company, 588 A.2d

476, 527 Pa. 32 (1991). The failure to establish either element bars recovery as a matter

of law. Philips v. A-Best Products Company, 665 A.2d 1167, 542 Pa. 124 (1995).

Strict liability may be imposed only on proof that the product lacked an element

necessary to make it safe for its intended use. Weiner, supra; Restatement (Second) of

Torts, §402A. The intended use of a product includes any use reasonably foreseeable to a

manufacturer. Kalik v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 658 F. Supp. 631 (W.D. Pa. 1987). The

intended use, while primarily an inquiry into the manufacturer’s intent, is measured

against an objective standard of reasonableness. Pacheco v. The Coats Company, Inc., 26

F.3d 418, 422 (3

rd Cir. 1994).

Under Pennsylvania law, whether a product is defective under the facts alleged by

the plaintiff is initially a question of law to be answered by the trial judge. Mackowick v.

Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 525 Pa. 52, 575 A.2d 100, 102 (Pa. 1990). In its

determination, the court should make a social policy analysis and balance the utility of

the product against the seriousness and likelihood of injury and the availability of
175302.1

precautions that might prevent the injury. Fitzpatrick v. Madonna, 424 Pa. Super. 476,

623 A.2d 322, 324 (Pa. Super. 1993). If the judge determines as a matter of law that

Pennsylvania’s social policy supports placing the risk of loss on the manufacturer in a

given situation, then the case goes to the jury for a determination as to whether the facts

alleged by the plaintiff are true. Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d

1020, 1027 (Pa. 1978). In Azzarello, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that in a

strict products liability action, the trial judge must make the threshold legal determination

of whether the defect alleged, if proven, would render the product “unreasonably

dangerous” as that term is defined in Restatement (Second) of Torts, §402A. It is the

function of the court to initially decide whether, under plaintiff’s averment of facts,

recovery would be justified. Azzarello, 391 A.2d at 1026. When deciding this issue, the

court must first view the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine if

a defect may be found. Burch v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 320 Pa. Super. 444, 450-51,

467 A.2d 615, 618-19 (Pa. Super. 1983).

Under a failure to warn theory, “a product may be deemed defective if it lacks

adequate warnings or instructions necessary for safe use of the product.” Demmler,

supra, at 431. A warning defect will be found to exist if “the user was not adequately

instructed on how to use the product as the product was designed, or where the product

was distributed without sufficient warnings to notify the ultimate user of the dangers

inherent in the product.” Davis v. Berwind Corp., 547 Pa. 260, 267, 690 A.2d 186, 190

(1997). There is a presumption in §402A, that when an individual uses a product, he or

she has read and heeded any warning labels attached to that product. (See comment j.)
175302.1

To succeed on a claim of inadequate or lack of warnings, plaintiff must prove that

the lack of a sufficient warning rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and that it

was the proximate cause of the injury. Weiner, supra, at 309. To establish causation for

failure to warn, it must be demonstrated that the user of the product would have avoided

the risk had he or she been warned of it by the seller/manufacturer. Id. at 310. A

determination of whether a warning is adequate and whether a product is defective due to

inadequate warnings is a question of law to be decided by the trial judge who must

determine, under a social policy analysis, whether the imposition of strict liability would

be justified under the facts of the case. Id. Liability for failure to warn exists only when

there is sufficient evidence that a warning may have made a difference. Nowak by and

through Nowak, v. Faberge USA, Inc., 32 F.3d 755, 757 (3

rd Cir. 1994).

C. The Subject Ladder is, as a Matter of Law, Not Defective

It is incumbent upon plaintiffs to prove that a defect in the ladder caused their

claimed injuries. While plaintiffs’ complaint generally alleges that the ladder was

defective, they have provided no credible evidence to support these assertions. Instead,

plaintiffs intend to rely on the testimony of Miles Buchman, who opines that the ladder

was defective because the crutch tips had worn through, thus exposing the bottom of the

front tubular legs of the ladder to the surface of the floor, resulting in a lack of sufficient

resistance with the floor and causing the ladder to move when plaintiff reached out to

obtain an item from the shelf. According to Mr. Buchman, the crutch tips should have

incorporated a metal reinforcement, which would have prevented the feet of the ladder

from wearing through. The fallacy in this assertion is twofold. First, the crutch tips on

the ladder at the time of the accident were not the originals supplied with it; nor were
175302.1

they obtained from or manufactured by Gillis.

3

Secondly, the crutch tips that were

supplied by Gillis as original equipment incorporate precisely the device (a metal insert)

whose absence in Mr. Buchman’s mind renders the accident tips defective.

Mr. Buchman opines that a metal disk the diameter of the tubular feet (either

welded to the bottom of the legs or inserted into the rubber tip) would have prevented the

feet from cutting into the inside of the rubber crutch tips. While Mr. Buchman notes that

Gillis “presently” uses such reinforced crutch tips on its ladder and concedes that this

design will prevent the accident, he is apparently unaware that this has always been the

case. See Exhibit “D”. Thus, Mr. Buchman’s proposed non-defective “alternative”

design is the very same design utilized by Gillis at the time of manufacture and sale. See

Exhibit “D”. As stated in the attached affidavit, exemplar crutch tips were provided to

plaintiffs counsel from Gillis, via defense counsel

4

. This affidavit clearly establishes that

the only type of tip Gillis has ever used for the model ladder at issue in this litigation is

that which was provided to counsel, which in fact contains a metal insert. See Exhibit

“D”. Thus, if the crutch tip on the unit at the time of the alleged accident was of a

different type or design, it was obtained from a source other than Gillis. See Exhibit “D”.

The affidavit obtained from Gillis clearly establishes that the defect alleged in

plaintiffs’ expert report, i.e. the rubber tips without a metal insert, is not a defect that was

created by Gillis. As stated in the attached affidavit, the only type of crutch tip Gillis has

ever used for this model of ladder contains a metal insert and is in fact the type of tip

which plaintiff’s expert opines is required to prevent the accident in question. This same

3 At the request of plaintiffs in discovery, defendant provided a set of rubber crutch tips such as were

originally supplied with the ladder when it was manufactured. These crutch tips are made of soft rubber

and contain a metal disk on the inside.

4 These tips were hand-delivered to plaintiff’s counsel on or about November 4, 2005 while plaintiffs’

expert, Miles Buchman, was examining the ladder at Welex, Inc.
175302.1

type of tip was provided with the ladder as original equipment, and this is the only type of

tip Gillis sells as a replacement part. Thus, any defect regarding the deficiency of the

crutch tips cannot be attributed to any act or omission on the part of Gillis Associated

Industries and plaintiffs’ expert cannot establish liability on the part of Gillis with regard

to a part it did not supply

5

.

D. Plaintiff’s Failure to Warn Claim Must Also Fail

Mr. Buchman opines that the subject ladder was defective because it failed to issue a

warning that would protect users from a defect that was known or at least foreseeable to

the defendant (the possibility that the tube legs would wear through the rubber crutch

tips). See, Exhibit “B”, p. 12. However, because the crutch tips provided with the ladder

at the time of sale are of precisely the design advocated by Mr. Buchman, there is no

defect of which to warn, and the warning suggested by Mr. Buchman is not required.

Indeed, the warnings embossed on the subject ladder specifically admonish the user to

refrain from climbing “a damaged ladder or one on which the brake mechanism is not

operating properly” and to “make sure rubber tips are on legs and that tips rest on floor

when you are on ladder.” See, Exhibit “F.”

The warning suggested by Mr. Buchman is not applicable because it is predicated

on the presumed existence of design defect that does not actually exist. Mr. Buchman

opines “[t]o properly inspect for this dangerous condition, additional warnings and

instructions would be required, such as “weekly, carefully turn ladder on side and inspect

the bottom of the rubber tips.” See, Exhibit “B”, p. 12, emphasis added. While Mr.

Buchman’s suggested warning might be applicable if Gillis failed to incorporate a metal

5

It is surprising, to say the least, that this was not apparent to Mr. Buchman in view of the testimony of

plaintiff’s coworkers (which he claims to have read) regarding their purchase of replacement tips from

sources other than Gillis.
175302.1

disk to sit between the foot of the ladder and the rubber crutch into the design of the

ladder, this is not the case. Because there is no actual design defect, Mr. Buchman’s

suggested warning to ameliorate such a design defect is not necessary.

E. The Actions or Inactions of Plaintiff’s Employer Rather than any

Defect in the Ladder were the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries

As Mr. Carr’s employer, Welex had a duty to create a safe working environment

for all of its employees. Schreffler v. Birdsboro Corp., 490 F.2d 1148 (3

d. Cir. 1974)

(directed verdict for manufacturer affirmed where six years passed since equipment was

in manufacturer’s control, during which time employer was in sole possession and

control of the equipment and in view of its obligations as an employer to take steps for

the safety of its employees); Mueller v. Jeffrey Mfg. Co., 494 F.Supp. 275, 278 (E.D. Pa.

1980). See also 63 AM. JUR. 2d Products Liability § 35 (1996) (“The failure of an

employer to provide a safe work place for its employees, to provide adequate safety

devices, or to warn employees of hazards involved in equipment used at the work place

may constitute a superseding cause relieving the product seller or manufacturer of

liability.”).

Plaintiff’s employer, Welex, was the sole entity in possession of the ladder since

approximately 1990 and in an exclusive position to adequately and safely maintain the

ladder. According to the testimony of plaintiff’s co-employees, the investigation

revealed that the accident in question occurred as a result of poor maintenance of the

ladder. Further, plaintiff’s own liability expert has conceded that had the ladder been

equipped with rubber tips containing metal inserts, this accident would not have occurred.

As set forth above, when the subject ladder was originally manufactured and sold by

Gillis, it was equipped with the same reinforced rubber crutch tips that plaintiff’s expert
175302.1

has opined would have prevented this accident. While none of plaintiff’s co-employees

could conclusively establish where they purchased replacement tips from, it is clear that it

was not from Gillis:

Q: Were you the person who looked through a catalogue and chose that

ladder?

A: Yes, I was.

Q: Okay. Were you responsible for purchasing the rubber feet for the

ladders?

A: Indirectly.

Q: Indirectly?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you explain?

A: We have a book of parts that’s kept at the stockroom counter. Anytime

someone in the stockroom is told or notices that we need parts, they will

highlight that part in the book. I then key it into the computer as being

needed.

* * *

Q: Okay. At any time did you obtain replacement feet from the

manufacturer?

A: No.

See, deposition testimony of Samuel Antonelli, Jr., pg. 15 -16 attached hereto as Exhibit

“E”.

Welex did not contact Gillis to obtain replacement crutch tips for the ladder,

despite the fact that the toll-free telephone number was prominently displayed on the

product. Instead, they simply replaced the crutch tips with ones that were not made of the

proper materials required to the safety and integrity of the ladder. See, attached

photographs of the ladder, at Exhibit “F”.

In further support of Welex’s failure to maintain the ladder as the proximate cause

of plaintiff’s accident, Leslie Jackson testified as follows:
175302.1

Q: Did you continue to use the ladder after Mr. Carr’s accident?

A: No

Q: So the ladder is no longer being used?

A: It is now, yes. But I guess after the accident they pulled it out, I guess

Jerry DeLong or whoever wanted to inspect the ladder, see what was

wrong.

Q: Are you aware of the finding of Mr. DeLong’s inspection?

A: Other than I was told the rubber feet was a little worn. That’s about it.

See, deposition testimony of Leslie Jackson, pgs. 28-29 attached hereto as Exhibit “G”.

Moreover, Welex’s investigation, as evidenced by the report prepared indicates

that the cause of Mr. Carr’s accident was his inattention and poor maintenance. The poor

maintenance to which the report refers is that the feet of the ladder were worn out:

Q: In the back [of the report] you checked of poor maintenance as a cause of

the accident as one of the causes?

A: Yes.

Q: How did you come to that conclusion?

A: Because I was told that the rubber feet on the bottom were worn through

and that’s a maintenance issue.

See, deposition testimony of Gerald DeLong, page 16 attached hereto as Exhibit “H”.

Even if this court finds that the ladder was defective, in order for defendant to be

found liable on plaintiffs’ claims, they must prove that the lack of a sufficient warning

rendered the product unreasonably dangerous and that it was the proximate cause of the

injury. Weiner, supra, at 309. To establish causation for failure to warn, it must be

demonstrated that the user of the product would have avoided the risk had he or she been

warned of it by the seller/manufacturer. Id. at 310. As set forth above, the proximate

cause of plaintiff’s injury was his employer’s failure to maintain and repair the subject

ladder. Hence, even if Gillis placed a warning label on the ladder which plaintiffs’ expert

deems appropriate, this warning would not have made a difference as the evidence in this
175302.1

case clearly shows that the alleged lack of warning was not the proximate cause of the

accident. As such, even if this Court determines that the warning label was insufficient,

Gillis is still entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as the imposition of strict

liability is not warranted under the facts of this case. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear

that the failure of plaintiff’s employer to properly maintain the ladder was the proximate

cause of his accident. Thus, defendant is entitled to summary judgment in its favor.

III. CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, Gillis Associated Industries, Inc. is entitled to

summary judgment as the ladder was as a matter or law not defective and the proximate

cause of plaintiff’s injuries was his employer’s failure to adequately and safely maintain

the ladder. Accordingly, defendant Gillis Associated Industries, Inc. respectfully requests

summary judgment in its favor and against plaintiffs.

Respectfully submitted,

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,

EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

By: ____/jmd234/____________________

Jonathan Dryer, Esquire

Pa. Atty. ID No. 34496

Attorney for Defendant

Gillis Associated Industries, Inc.

Dated: January 30, 2006
175302.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Jonathan Dryer, Esquire, attorney for defendant Gillis Associated Industries, Inc.,

a division of Leggett & Platt, Inc., certifies that on January 30, 2006, he sent by United

States mail, first class, postage prepaid a true and correct copy of defendant Gillis

Associated Industries, Inc., a division of Leggett & Platt, Inc.’s Motion for Summary

Judgment to:

Mark B. Segal, Esquire

135 West Market Street

West Chester, PA 19382-2901

/jmd234/

Jonathan Dryer, Esquire