IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MOST REVEREND JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, Plaintiffs, vs. 1 L 4 ACE USA; ACE USA INC; ACE GROUP; “ INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH. AMERICA?ACE INSURANCE & COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; ACE- INA;’ACE INA HOLDING, INC.; AND/OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT ACE-USA AFFILIATED INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants. P0s40866.1 CIVIL DIVISION No Gy-oF-00 4178 COMPLAINT IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION Filed on Behalf of Plaintiffs, MOST REVEREND JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN Counsel of Record for this Party: ERIC N. ANDERSON, ESQUIRE PA. 1.D. #18183, MEYER, DARRAGH, BUCKLER, BEBENEK & ECK, P.L.L.C. Firm No. 198 U.S. Stee! Tower, Suite 4850 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6194 Telephone No.: (412) 261-6600 Fax No.: (412) 471-2754 JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. MOST REVEREND JOSEPH V. CIVIL DIVISION ADAMEC and ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, | No. Plaintiffs, vs. ACE USA; ACE USA INC; ACE GROUP; INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; ACE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; ACE- INA; ACE INA HOLDING, INC.; AND/OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT ACE-USA AFFILIATED INSURANCE COMPANIES, Defendants. COMPLAINT IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION NOW come plaintiffs, by their counsel, Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C., and hereby request this Honorable Court to declare the parties’ rights with respect to certain insurance policies and, in support thereof, state as follows: PARTIES 1. Most Reverend Joseph V. Adamec (hereinafter Bishop Adamec) is an adult who resides in Blair County, Pennsylvania. He is the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona—Johnstown and, as such, is authorized to bring this action on behalf of the Diocese of Altoona—Johnstown and on behalf of other Diocesan parties. He is a plaintiff 2. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona—Johnstown (hereinafter referred to as the Diocese) is a non—profit organization operating within Blair, Cambria, Somerset 0840868. 1and Centre Counties, Pennsylvania, and has its principal offices in Blair County, Pennsylvania. It is a plaintif. 3. Insurance Company of North America (hereinafter INA) was a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. INA was authorized to write insurance policies within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The primary office of INA in the United States is located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. INA’s principal place of business was and is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where it is domiciled. INA, and/or its successor in interest, is a defendant. 4, tis believed and therefore averred that ACE USA at all times relevanttto the above-captioned matter and/or its predecessor, INA, conducted business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has a principal place of business located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3703. 5. __Itis believed and therefore averred that ACE USA, Inc. at all times relevant tothe above-captioned matter and/or its predecessor, INA, conducted business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has a principal place of business located at 510 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 6. _Itis believed and therefore averred that ACE INA Holdings, Inc. at all times relevant to the above-captioned matter and/or its predecessor, INA, conducted business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has a principal place of business located at 436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3703 7. It is believed and therefore averred that ACE GROUP, INSURANCE COMPANY NORTH AMERICA, ACE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ACE-INA and any and all other relevant ACE-USA affiliated insurance companies individually or through their predecessors, conducted business within the Commonwealth Poecoas6.1 2of Pennsylvania and has a principal place of business located at 436 Wainut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-3703. 8. _ Allofthe defendants, and/or their predecessor companies (hereafter referred to as ACE and/or ACE INA) acted individually, or jointly with their predecessors in issuing Policies of insurance to the plaintiff, Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County rightfully has original jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith insurance practices action pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 931 and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8371. There exist numerous justiciable controversies between the plaintiffs and the insurer defendants and their rights depend upon the interpretation and application of various insurance policies. 10. Venue in this action against ACE and/or ACE INA, insurance companies, is proper in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No, 2179(b), insofar as ACE and ACE INA are insurers that do business in Allegheny County, the INA policies were brokered in Allegheny County, and the insureds’ legal counsel is located in Allegheny County. THE POLICIES 11. _ INA was the primary insurer of the Diocese during the continuous policy periods from November 1, 1962 through December 7, 1968, inclusive. INA issued policies of insurance to the Diocese (hereinafter collectively referred to as the INA policies) which insured the Diocese, its bishops, parishes, schools, cemeteries, hospitals and other institutions of the Diocese (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Insureds). 12, The INA policies are, on information and belief, lost. The Insureds have undertaken extensive searches for the INA policies, including searches of insurance Poedoas6.1 3brokers’ files and documents, but have as yet been unable to locate the INA policies. The Insureds continue to search and will continue to search various resources in an effort to locate the missing INA policies. Nevertheless, the Insureds possess documents that constitute compelling secondary evidence of the INA policies and which reflect the insuring agreements, terms, conditions, policy limits and policy periods of the INA policies. 13. Bypolicy number CGL 202484, INA issued occurrence-based comprehensive general liability and medical payments insurance for bodily injury, property damage and medical payments coverage to the Insureds for the annual period November 1, 1962 through November 1, 1963, inclusive. The bodily injury liability policy limits of INA policy number CGL 202484 were $100,000 each person and $300,000 each occurrence and in the aggregate. A true and correct copy of a certificate of insurance which evidences INAS provision of insurance to the Insureds under Policy No. CGL 202484 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A 14. Bypolicy number CGL 216295, INA issued occurrence-based comprehensive general liability and medical payments insurance for bodily injury, property damage and medical payments coverage to the Insureds for the annual period November 1, 1963 through November 1, 1964, inclusive. The bodily injury liability policy limits of INA policy number CGL 216295 were $100,000 each person and $300,000 each occurrence and in the aggregate. A true and correct copy of a certificate of insurance which evidences INA’s provision of insurance to the Insureds under Policy No. CGL 216295 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 15. Bypolicy number CGL 228043, INA issued occurrence-based comprehensive general liability and medical payments insurance for bodily injury, property damage and medical payments coverage to the Insureds for the annual period November 1, 1964 through November 1, 1965, inclusive. The bodily injury liability policy limits of INA policy Pose0ses 1 4number CGL 228043 were $100,000 each person and $300,000 each occurrence and in the aggregate. A true and correct copy of a certificate of insurance which evidences INA's provision of insurance to the Insureds under Policy No. CGL 228043 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 16. Bypolicy number CGL241778, INA issued occurrence-based comprehensive general liability and medical payments insurance for bodily injury, property damage and medical payments coverage to the Insureds for the annual period November 1, 1965 through November 1, 1968, inclusive, The bodily injury liability policy limits of INA policy number CGL 241778 were $200,000 each person and $500,000 each occurrence and in the aggregate, A true and correct copy of a certificate of insurance which evidences INA’s provision of insurance to the Insureds under Policy No. CGL 241778 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. 17. _ Bypolicynumber GAC 14102, INA issued occurrence-based comprehensive general liability and medical payments insurance for bodily injury, property damage and medical payments coverage to the Insureds for the annual period November 1, 1966 through November 1, 1967, inclusive. The bodily injury liability policy limits of INA policy number GAC 14102 were $200,000 each person and $500,000 each occurrence and in the aggregate. A true and correct copy of a certificate of insurance which evidences INA’s provision of insurance to the Insured under Policy No. GAC 14102 is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. 18. Bypolicy number GAL 14509, INAissued ocourrence-based comprehensive general liability and medical payments insurance for bodily injury, property damage and medical payments coverage to the Insureds for the annual period November 1, 1967 through November 1, 1968; and thereafter by endorsement, the November 1, 1967 through November 1, 1968 policy period was extended to December 7, 1968, inclusive. The bodily ososes.1 5injury liability policy limits of INA policy number GAL 14509 were $200,000 each person and $500,000 each occurrence and in the aggregate. A true and correct copy of the certificates of insurance which evidence INA's provision of insurance to the Insureds under Policy No. GAL 14509 are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits F and G. THE UNDERLYING CLAIMS 19. The Diocese and Bishop Adamec sought insurance coverage under the INA policies from ACE and/or ACE INA, successor in interest to INA, for nine sexual misconduct claims (hereinafter collectively referred to as the claims) asserted against the Insureds by nine claimants (hereinafter collectively referred to as the claimants). The claimants alleged that, when they were minors, they were sexually abused at various times by priests of the Diocese and by a teacher formerly employed by the Diocese 20. The claimants alleged that the priests’ and teacher's sexual abuse of them commenced at various times during the 1960s. The dates that each claimant alleged as the particular date that his or her sexual abuse commenced all occurred during one of the periods when the INA policies were in effect (hereinafter the INA policy periods). 21. Thenine sexual misconduct claims asserted against the Insureds, referenced in paragraphs 19 and 20, above, which arose from alleged sexual abuse and misconduct, that commenced during the INA policy periods are the following (1) John Amat (hereinafter Amdt) brought an action against the Diocese, Bishop Adamec and Bishop Hogan, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division, at No. 2003 GN 3332, on August 12, 2003. Arndt sought recovery from the Insureds for alleged sexual abuse of the then-minor Arndt by Father Joseph Bender from 1963 to January 1965. A true and correct copy of Arndt's complaint is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit H. Posenes6.1 6(2) Therese Roland Mcintyre (hereinafter Mcintyre) brought an action against the Diocese, Bishop Adamec and Bishop Hogan, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division, at No. 2003 GN 4905, on November 18, 2003. Mcintyre sought recovery from the Insureds for alleged sexual abuse of the then-minor Mcintyre by Father Joseph Strittmatter from 1964 to 1968. Atrue and correct copy of Mcintyre’s complaints attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit | (3) Thomas Tercek (hereinafter Tercek) brought an action against the Diocese, Bishop Adamec and Bishop Hogan, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division, at No. 2004 GN 5222, on or about February 10, 2005. Tercek sought recovery from the Insureds for alleged sexual abuse of the then-minor Tercek by Father Martin McCamley from 1965 to 1966. A true and correct copy of Tercek’s complaint is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit J (4) John Doe 3 brought an action against the Diocese, Bishop Adamec and Bishop Hogan, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division, at No. 2003 GN 3497, on August 20, 2003. John Doe 3 sought recovery from the Insureds for alleged sexual abuse of the then-minor John Doe 3 by Father Joseph Bender from the fall of 1968 to late 1970. A true and correct copy of John Doe 3's complaint is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit K. (8) Gerald Payne (hereinafter Payne) brought an action against the Diocese of Owensboro, Kentucky and The T.O.R. Franciscans in civil court in Kentucky, on information and belief, in 2001. Thereafter, Payne notified the Insureds through his attorney by letter dated July 21, 2005, that he sought recovery from the Insureds for o8d0866.1 aalleged sexual abuse of the then-minor Payne by Father Raymund Waldrutff during the summer of 1968. Payne alleged that the Insureds failed to warn the Diocese of Owensboro that Father Waldruff had abusive propensities upon his re- assignment from the Diocese to the Diocese of Owensboro by his religious order in approximately 1967. A true and correct copy of Payne's attorney's notice letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit L. (6) John Doe 13 notified the Insureds through his attorney by letter dated October 8, 2004, that he sought recovery from the Insureds for alleged sexual abuse of the then-minor John Doe 13 by Father Raymund Waldruff from 1964 to 1967. Thereafter, John Doe 13 filed a Praecipe for Issuance of Writ of Summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division, at No. 2004 GN 5809. True and correct copies of John Doe 13's attorney's notice letter and the Praecipe for Issuance of Writ of Summons are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibits M and N (7) T.N. notified the Insureds through his attorney by letters dated December 15, 2003 and March 23, 2004, that he sought recovery from the Insureds for alleged sexual abuse of the then-minor T.N. on December 24, 1965, by a former teacher, Jerry Trexall (hereinafter Trexall), employed by the Insureds at the Diocese’s St. Peter's School. True and correct copies of T.N.’s attorney's notice letters are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibits O and P. (8) K.S. notified the Insureds through her attorney by letters dated December 15, 2003 and March 23, 2004, that she sought recovery from the Insureds for alleged sexual abuse of the then-minor K.S. by Father Gerard Ream from 1967 through 1975. True and correct copies of K.S.’s attorney's notice letters Poesoase.1 8are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibits O and P (see paragraph 17(8), above) (9) AW. contacted the Diocese’s victims advocate directly in September 2004, to demand recovery and compensation from the Insureds for alleged sexual abuse of the then-minor A.W. by Father Daniel O'Friel in 1968. A.W. met with the Diocese's Allegations Review Board in September 2004 and accepted the Review Board's modest settlement offer, which was paid on October 4, 2004. Other officials of the Insureds were not notified of A.W.’s claim until December 30, 2004. 22. The claimants alleged various damages and injuries they sustained as a result of the alleged sexual abuse they endured. The claimants sought recovery from the Insureds based upon the following causes of action or threatened causes of action: statutory negligence per se; breach of a common law duty of reasonable care; breach of fiduciary duty; failure to provide a safe and secure environment; various theories of negligent supervision; “persons acting in concert”; supplying false information or negligent misrepresentation; failure to protect against foreseeable risks; breach of a duty to war of unreasonable risk of harm; “use of incompetent persons”; fraudulent concealment; intentional failure to supervise; and, failure to warn. Claimants, variously and in general, sought compensatory and punitive damages from the Insureds. See Exhibits H through P, referenced in paragraph 21, above. SETTLEMENTS AND DEFENSE COSTS INCURRED BY THE INSUREDS 23. The Insureds have incurred and continue to incur in excess of $1,093,268.74 in combined settlements and defense costs in the claims, comprised of per-ctaim settlements and defense costs (including ongoing defense costs being incurred in the Tercek claim) incurred in each of the nine claims as follows: (1) $250,337.57 for the Arndt claim; osa08s.1 9(2) $112,167 for the John Doe 13 claim; (3) $115,337.57 for the Mcintyre claim; (4) $21,895.90 plus additional, ongoing defense costs in the Tercek claim, a still-pending claim; (8) $100,337.57 for the T.N. claim; (6) $125,337.57 for the K.S. claim; (7) $2,517.99 for the Payne claim; (8) $25,000 for the A.W. claim; and, (9) $340,337.57 for the John Doe 3 claim. THE PLAINTIFF INSUREDS’ DEMANDS FOR COVERAGE 24. The Insureds sought insurance coverage from ACE for the claims (Exhibits H through P), all of which were subject to coverage under the INA policies. In particular, the Insureds requested that ACE defend against and indemnify the Insureds for any settlements entered into by the Insureds in the claims; and requested that ACE indemnify the Insureds for both defense costs and settlements incurred in the claims that were settled 25. The Insureds gave timely and adequate notice to ACE and/or ACE INA of the. claims. 26. The Insureds have satisfied all conditions precedent to coverage under the INA policies 27. Ultimately, the Insureds demanded from ACE and/or ACE INA in excess of $763,268.74 in coverage for the claims; which sum represented the following portions of combined settlements and defense costs in each of the claims, subject to and net of the limits of liability of the INA policies, and net of contributions to settlements received from other entities: oseosss.1 10(1) $115,337.57 for the Arndt claim; (2) $42,167 for the John Doe 13 claim; (3) $115,337.57 for the Mcintyre claim; (4) $21,895.90 plus additional, ongoing defense costs in the Tercek claim, asstill- pending claim; (8) $100,337.57 for the T.N. claim; (6) $125,337.57 for the K.S. claim; (7) $2,517.99 for the Payne claim; (8) $25,000 for the A.W. claim; and, (9) $215,337.57 for the John Doe 3 claim: THE PLAINTIFF INSUREDS' CONTENTIONS 28. Each underlying complaint, demand and cause of action comprising “the claims” (Exhibits H through P) arose out of the Insureds’ alleged injurious acts or omissions which enabled the Insureds’ priests and employee to sexually abuse the claimants. Each of the claims thus arose from an “occurrence” within the meaning of the INA policies identified in paragraphs seven through fourteen of this pleading. 29. Each underlying occurrence described in paragraph 28, above, which resulted in sexual abuse of each claimant and the ensuing harm suffered by each such claimant constituted a single “occurrence” which gave rise to a single cumulative injurious process and harm suffered by the claimant. 30. The single “occurrence” as described in paragraph 29, above, is subject to. coverage under the INA policy in effect at the time when the first act of sexual abuse commenced as to each such claimant; irrespective of the number of successive acts or omissions or incidents of abuse allegedly perpetrated upon the claimant, irrespective of the 0840866.1 inumber of successive policies which were in effect during the entire ongoing period that such abuse occurred, and irrespective of the number of successive policy periods implicated by the entire ongoing period of abuse. 31. Alternatively, the Insureds are entitled to select any one of the INA policies in effect during the ongoing period of abuse as to each such claimant, from which ACE and/or ACE INA is obligated to provide coverage to the Insureds under the selected INA policy for the single “occurrence” described in paragraph 29, above, and for the settlement and defense costs incurred as to each such claimant's claim. 32. ACE and/or ACE INA has an indivisible duty and obligation, under the applicable INA policy in effect at the time the sexual abuse of a particular claimant commenced, or under any INA policy in effect during the period of abuse of a particular claimant, to provide the Insureds with a full legal defense and to pay all legal defense costs incurred by the Insureds in the defense against each such claimant's underlying claim, demand or cause of action (Exhibits H through P); and ACE and/or ACE INA are obligated to pay all such costs of defense in full, and in addition to and irrespective of the applicable INA policy limits. 33. ACE and/or ACE INA had an indivisible duty and obligation, subject to the limits of liability of the applicable INA policy in effect at the time the sexual abuse of each particular claimant commenced, or under any INA policy in effect during the period of abuse of a particular claimant, to fully indemnify the Insureds for all sums incurred by the Insureds in payment of the compromise settlement of each such claimant's claim, demand or cause of action (Exhibits H through P). P0840866.1 12ACE'S RESPONSES TO THE INSUREDS' COVERAGE DEMANDS 34. ACE and/or ACE INA has rejected the Insureds' demands for coverage and has failed to acknowledge its contractual, legal and other obligations to the Insureds in all the claims except the Tercek claim, for which ACE has paid for a defense of the insureds since approximately September 2006. ACE and/or ACE INA denied coverage to the Insureds for all the claims except the pending Tercek claim, for which ACE has indemnified the Insureds only for modest post-tender defense costs. Also, ACE and/or ACE INA reserved its rights as to coverage by so completely qualifying, limiting, conditioning or restricting coverage to the Insureds as to impair substantially the value and benefit of the, insurance coverage to which the Insureds are entitled. ACE and/or ACE INA’s denial of insurance proceeds to the Insureds was based on an inadequate, incomplete, dishonest and self-interested investigation. 35. Although repeatedly requested, ACE has declined to provide coverage for the claims with the exception of the Tercek case where ACE agreed to pay for defense. THE PLAINTIFF INSUREDS' DAMAGES 36. As a result of ACE's and/or ACE INA's refusal to honor the INA policies issued to the Diocese, the plaintiff Insureds have been denied fair and equitable insurance proceeds and other benefits to which they are entitled under the INA policies, which constitute contracts of insurance entered into between the Diocese and INA and, by succession to INA’s interests, ACE and/or ACE INA. 37. ACE and/or ACE INA denied the Insureds an ongoing, contemporaneous defense against all the claims except the Tercek claim and also refused to indemnify the Insureds for defense costs already incurred by the Insureds in the defense against and resolution of all the claims except the Tercek claim. ACE's and/or ACE INA's refusal to provide and pay for the insureds’ defense caused the Insureds to incur substantial defense 0840866.1 13costs contrary to the Insureds’ reasonable expectations under the contracts of insurance they entered into with INA. 38. ACE's and/or ACE INA‘s refusal to comply with its contractual obligations to provide a defense to the Insureds in all the claims except the Tercek claim adversely impacted the Insureds’ defense and resolution of the claims. The Insureds' limited financial resources were further strained by incurred and unreimbursed defense costs Which required the insureds to err on the side of more expedited settlements in their handling of claims, and to forego potential defenses and defense strategies. 39. ACE's and/or ACE INA's refusal to comply with their contractual obligations and refusal to indemnify the Insureds for monetary settlements of the covered claims has resulted in the Diocese's already impaired financial circumstances to be further exacerbated. 40. The insureds have sustained damages in excess of $741,372.84, an amount net of defense costs ACE has paid in the Tercek claim; as a result of ACE’s and/or ACE INA's refusal to comply with their contractual obligations to conduct a complete investigation and to provide coverage to the Insureds for defense costs and indemnity of settlements subject to policy limits. COUNT ONE 41. The plaintiff Insureds incorporate herein by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs one through forty of this pleading, as if same were set forth herein at length. 42. ACE and/or ACE INA dispute one or more of the Insureds’ contentions set forth in this pleading 43. Declaratory relief from this Honorable Court will terminate some or all of the disputes and controversies concerning the Insureds’ demands of coverage upon ACE 0se0s6.1 14and/or ACE INA for the claims, demands or causes of action set forth in the claims (Exhibits H through P). WHEREFORE, the plaintiff Insureds respectfully request that this. Honorable Court enter a declaratory judgment establishing that: (a) (b) (c) (a) (e) ® 0840866.1 The Insureds’ alleged wrongful acts and omissions set forth in each claim and/or demand and/or cause of action asserted by each of the claimants identified above, which allegedly gave rise to and proximately caused sexual abuse suffered by each such claimant, constituted an insurable “occurrence” within the meaning of the INA policies as to each such claimant's.claim; Each insurable “occurrence” described in paragraph 43 (a), above, gave rise to and proximately caused the entire ensuing cumulative injuries and harm allegedly suffered by each such claimant as a result of the alleged sexual abuse of such claimant by the Insureds' priest or employee; The entire ensuing cumulative injuries and harm suffered by each claimant and proximately caused by the Insureds’ alleged wrongful acts or omissions, as described in paragraph 43 (b) above, constitutes a single insurable “occurrence” as to the claim asserted by each such claimant; The single insurable occurrence as to each claimant's claim, as described in paragraph 43 (c) above, is subject to insurance coverage under the particular INA policy which was in effect at the time when the first alleged act of sexual abuse was perpetrated upon such claimant; irrespective of the number of alleged successive wrongful acts or omissions, irrespective of the number of alleged successive acts of sexual abuse perpetrated upon each such claimant, irrespective of the number of successive INA or other policies in effect during the entire ongoing period of such abuse, and irrespective of the number of successive policy periods implicated by the entire ongoing period of abuse of each such claimant; Alternatively, the Insureds may select any INA policy in effect during the period of abuse of each claimant to provide insurance coverage for the entire defense costs and settlement of each such claimant's claim; ‘ACE and/or ACE INA has an indivisible duty and obligation, under the INA policy in effect at the time the sexual abuse of each particular claimant commenced or under the INA policy which the Insureds select as described in paragraph 43 (e), above, to provide the Insureds with a full legal defense and to pay alll legal defense costs incurred by the insureds in the defense against each such underiying claim, demand or cause of action (Exhibits H through P); ACE and/or ACE INA are obligated to pay all such costs of defense in full, and in addition to and irrespective of the applicable INA policy limits; 15(9) ACE and/or ACE INA has an indivisible duty and obligation, subject to the limits of the INA policy in effect at the time the sexual abuse of each particular claimant commenced or under the INA policy which the Insureds select as described in paragraph 43 (e), above, to fully indemnify the Insureds for all sums incurred by the Insureds in payment of the compromise settlement of each such claimant's claim, demand or cause of action (Exhibits H through P); (h) The Insureds are entitled to such other relief as this Honorable Court deems equitable and just; and, (i) The Insureds are entitled to recover their costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in filing and in prosecuting this declaratory judgment proceeding COUNT TWO 44. The plaintiff Insureds incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs one through forty-three of this pleading, as if same were set forth herein at length. 45. _ INA issued to the Diocese various policies of insurance which were in effect during the periods from November 1, 1962 through December 7, 1968, inclusive. The INA policies constituted contracts of insurance between INA and the Diocese, which INA issued to the Diocese in exchange for the Diocese’s consideration in the form of the Diocese’s payments of policy premiums to INA. 46. Under the terms and conditions of the INA policies, INA and/or INA’s successors in interest, corporate parents, merged entities or other responsible parties had contractual obligations to provide insurance proceeds to the Insureds for, among other things, third party liability claims asserted against the Diocese and all the Insureds. 47. The Diocese and all the Insureds complied with all the terms and conditions ofthe INA policies, and satisfied all policy conditions and conditions precedent to coverage under the INA policies. In addition, the Insureds submitted the claims as described above, which clearly and squarely fall within the provisions of coverage under the INA policies, and P0840866.1 16the Insureds are thereby entitled to insurance coverage under the INA policies for the claims as set forth above. 48. Despite the Insureds’ compliance with the terms and conditions of the applicable INA policies, ACE and/or ACE INA have wrongfully denied insurance coverage and proceeds to the Insureds for the claims, demands and causes of action described herein and asserted against the Insureds 49. The Insureds have met all burdens of proof as to the existence, terms, conditions, insuring agreements, limits, policy periods and coverages of the INA policies issued to the Diocese. 50. ACE and/or ACE INA wrongfully rejected and breached their contractual duties to defend against and to indemnify the Insureds for the underlying claims, demands or causes of action asserted against the Insureds (except in the Tercek claim); ACE and/or ACE INA thereby wrongfully denied the Insureds insurance coverage, benefits and proceeds to which they were entitled under the INA policies, and which the Insureds reasonably expected they would be provided according to their reasonable expectations as INA policy holders and insureds. 51. Contrary to their reasonable expectations as insureds under the INA policies, the Insureds have been forced to incur and will continue to incur substantial unreimbursed and unindemnified defense costs and costs of monetary settlements in the underlying claims as a proximate result of ACE’s and/or ACE INA's wrongful breach of the INA contracts of insurance 52. The Insureds are thereby entitled to contractual damages from ACE and/or ACE INA in the amount of all insurance proceeds to which they would have been otherwise entitled as insureds under the INA policies but for ACE's and/or ACE INA’s wrongful breach of the insurance contracts. The Insureds further request such other relief that this oseoses.1 7Honorable Court may deem just and equitable. COUNT THREE 53. The plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs one through fifty-two of this pleading, as if same were set forth herein at length. 54, ACE and/or ACE INA acted in bad faith toward the Insureds when it failed to conduct a proper, reasonable, adequate and complete investigation of the Insureds’ claims and demands for insurance coverage under the INA policies, and when it failed to conduct a proper, reasonable, adequate and complete investigation of the underlying sexual misconduct claims for which the Insureds sought insurance coverage under the INA policies. 55. ACE's and/or ACE INA’s actions and/or omissions vis-a-vis the underlying sexual misconduct claims and the Insureds’ claims and demands for coverage of the underlying sexual misconduct claims constituted a lack of good faith investigation of the facts and reflected ACE’s and/or ACE INA’s dishonesty, self-interest and/or ill will in its failure to conduct a proper, reasonable, adequate and complete investigation. 86. ACE and/or ACE INA acted in bad faith toward the Insureds when it wrongfully denied insurance coverage and insurance proceeds to the Insureds for eight of the underlying sexual misconduct claims, and it acted in bad faith when it failed to acknowledge its contractual, legal and other obligations to the Insureds. In addition, ACE and/or ACE INA acted in bad faith when it “reserved rights” by so completely qualifying, limiting, conditioning or restricting coverage as to impair substantially and/or to deny the value and benefit of the INA policies for which the Insureds paid substantial premiums and enjoyed reasonable expectations of coverage from INA and its successors in interest. 57. ACE and/or ACE INA lacked a reasonable basis for its wrongful denial of insurance coverage and insurance proceeds to the Insureds for the defense costs and Pose0ess.1 18settlements the Insureds incurred in the underlying sexual misconduct claims, and ACE and/or ACE INA knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis for its wrongful denial of insurance proceeds to the Insureds for the defense costs and settlements the Insureds incurred in the underlying sexual misconduct claims. 58. ACE's and/or ACE INA's actions and/or omissions vis-a-vis the Insureds’ claims and demands for insurance coverage in the underlying sexual misconduct claims, and ACE's and/or ACE INA’s wrongful denial of insurance proceeds to the Insureds for the underlying sexual misconduct claims reflected ACE's and/or ACE INA’s dishonesty, self- interest and/or ill will toward the Insureds and in its handling of the Insureds' claims and demands for coverage for the underlying sexual misconduct claims. 59. _ By reason of the ACE and/or ACE INA failures to acknowledge and accept their duties to properly investigate, defend against and indemnify the Insureds with insurance proceeds for the underlying sexual misconduct claims, demands or causes of action (except in the Tercek claim); the Insureds have been compelled to retain legal counsel to protect their rights with respect to the INA policies and to bring this declaratory judgment action to establish the Insureds’ rights and coverages with respect to the INA policies and to recover insurance proceeds to which the Insureds are entitled under the INA policies. 60. As a result of the wrongful conduct of ACE and/or ACE INA, the Insureds have incurred and will continue to incur substantial unreimbursed defense costs and attorneys’ fees in the underlying sexual misconduct claims and in this declaratory judgment action, in amounts yet to be fully determined. WHEREFORE, the insureds respectfully request that, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A §8371, this Honorable Court award damages in an amount equal to the entire amounts Poscoas6.1 19incurred by the Insureds for defense costs and monetary settlements in the underlying claims, demands and causes of action described and set forth herein, irrespective of the policy limits of the INA policies, together with an award of punitive damages, pre—judgment interest, post—judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and court costs. The Insureds also request such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. Respectfully submitted, MEYER DARRAGH BUCKLER BEBENEK & ECK, P.L.L.C. By ERIC N. ANDERSON, ESQUIRE Counsel for Plaintiffs, Most Reverend Joseph V. Adamec And Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown Poseoess.1 20(290) SMEC-T PD $961 TON OF BABE ee HSA RE; WOM DaND—yD OBeIEOD Loe womagnuco wy pox soct “7 wtaproe hq posed ‘aseoerp 20 seus ‘Aanl 22 30} 30 0} ‘sesUadxo Jezouny pur BU} ssintt jeuoIss9}0% pout Aresso09t 303 quaprr2e JO Step au} ‘wo af 940 urtAy seaide Auredwop yz. “CpSpH LSAT”) suaardeg (ropeH—zZ “oN aBer409, spugtina7e we Aq posme> ‘yoo1o%p 38n Jo gor, 2m Bupprpeus (poaneny ap hq poumo hsdosd adspxa) faadosd yo vopinsap 30 93 Aanfur yo asnedoq sodeurep x07 we] £q wy uodn pasodun Avuqert amp yo uorear kq ded 02 ovedipqo smosaq [feys pasneu out eansu axp 40 sfetoq uo ked o, “Anger seme Guodory -g or oun Aue 18 {POq Jo aeme29q so0:Ar9$ 30 SFO] puIe DIED 30} ry uodn posodus xp jo uoseas fq fed 01 peyaq wo ded o1, very Amnfuy Apo, “Vv An ugerT [e9099—T “ON B8e19409 ssmonoy se Burkydde MNOS *WLSOOW ~"HSTUva UsiLava sii Mor “Es 10 panssy s{ souemsuy Jo sresyns9 sup “Korog soweyy pres Jo suo oy or welqne pue sapEN, “785208 199 “ON Aonjog s2uBH aarsuayoiduiog ¥ *e1ueAtASUUDg y eDHIWY YON 30 Auedwoy souesnsuy 94D ‘LVHL AMILUFD OL SI SIHL aoTEMsu] samfieg TeaTpsp| pue hyrpqery [exeueg eatsuaqerdm0y NAOLSNHOMYNOOLTY 40 3839010VINVATASNNGA “YOGI BONGAY Wat 90H1 NMOISNHOL-YNOOLTY JO asxO0Id AXIONVHO TH ! aywoyT te) eoueMsoy sjusmfieg [earpepy poe fymiqery yezatag aatsueqasduto) auappoe y>e 00'000‘00I$ uosiad ysea og'ogz$ swuswdeg eoIpsWy oreBa288e 0'000'G2S quappoe ye 00'000'92S ry aBeureg dassdosg areBai8Be 00'000'008S souazmns20 Yea 00°000'008S uossad y>e9 00'000'001$ Ammgery Aanfuy Atpog ELVOMILUIO SIL HANA ONIATAAV SLUATT(2210) O9-TE-N] PO | sat $ wingurasg ULF S96T "AT HeqWEKEAT™ sO eAnDeY aBer2H0D painsur ay} Jo sonianoe je YpEM uoRZ=UOD UE pure sos -waid Aue yo om 10 asueuanuyeus «diysisusio a4p Jo Ino Buse UapHoe Aq pasne> ‘aseoRIP xo soups “danfur dyypoq surmsns oy uossod ype> 20} 10 07 ‘asuadso feouny pur Bu} ‘sant jeuoisoyo. pou Aressa09u 40} 1uapA2e JO Sep 3k tuosy Jaf su su ay) apy soauBe Auredatog 24. “Co papttpony”) muoudeg porpeW—zZ “ON 28e!900, “gouiauuno00 ue hq posne> ‘joazayn 98n Jo fo a Sujpnpuy “posnauy ap 4a pouno fuadoxd dz) fnadoud jo uopionsi9p 10 0 “W961 'T "AON 01 Aanfur Jo asneoq soBeurep 107 wet hq uy uodn pasodust [249 JO uoseas hq ded oF pareBipgo auosaq [eys pasnsuy 4 yy sun ITE pasnste otf Jo sIEYDq wo ked OL, huqert odeueg hsedora “aowasins90 ue Aq pases pue suotied 10 os ‘woxosoy Supynses our Aue 3 peep 84 “Dee 104 JO asne79q f29|AI9s JO $80] PUE 1E> 10} sou tuodn pasodus: Auge ayi Jo woseaz hq Ked 02 ryoq wo Ked of, “963913 TOD “ON nog Josep soueinsuy uswhed [EIpIW pue AyIqeYT pex9UI9O aAsuaysIdwoD v "EIURA|ssuUDg ‘umorsuyo[-euooryy Jo as2301C 342 OF pans MY WON 30 Auedwioy aouesnsuy aL ‘LVHL AdILUID OL SI SIHL aaueMsuy suewfieg [eopey] pue fyrrqery ereuag eatsuayasduo7 NAOLSNHOP-YNOOLTY 4O 3835010 PLAINTIFF’ ITVINVATASNNad ‘YNOOLIV HANEAY Zt Ort NMOLSNHOLYNOOLIV 40 asx901C AYAONVHO FHL ayeoy Tie] eoUeMsT] syuamfieg [eorpeyy pue fyrpqer] yereuag eatsuaqaidio} quappoe yea 00'000'00I$ uossad yoea 0970928 suawked IPA. aaeB0188e 00'000'95 qwap1a.e y>e9 09'000'SZs Arner] aBeureg Auadorg areBas88e 00'000'008$ aouazans20 Y>e 00'000'00ES uosiad ye Q0'000°001 Aamqery Aanfuy Atpog ALVOMILUGO SIL HON ONIATdaY SLINITInsurance Company of North America aq INSURANCE BY NORTH AMERICA Ute insurance Company of North America 3220 wast Libety Avenue, Pitsburgh, Pa. 15216 May 22, 1964 Rt, Rev, Hagr, Thomas E, Madden, P,A. Vicar .General Diogewe of Altoona-Johnstown Dear Ravorengheettogt wedhne Subject: Lioutey Hapestion | CGL 216295 Locations BA Baler Avene, Barnesboro, Cambria Co., Pa. As a result of 2 net gtr ampbction of the school at the above location on May 1 1964, we recommend that the following action be tekent + 63-5, ‘The open stairwell from the basement to the first floor: level should have a amoke barri- cade door placed at the lower level to pre- vent the passage of suoke to the upper level. ADVISORY RECOMMENDATION 63-2. The front and rear and basement exit doors from the school should be provided with en approved type of anti~panic hardware to allow free egress from the school in case of an emergency. In the interest of aceident prevention, we feel that these recommendations are wopthy of your prompt attention, and we would appreciate hearing from you concerning any action taken on them, Very truly yours, eet 9. Boatter— ewart D, Beattie Safety Specialist rh. Qvig. & 2-Insured 8, George Pgh. Underwriting Dept.q INSURANCE BY NORTH AMERICA UTAo Sy tne Ameen e 220 wat arty Avr, PRIDE, P2806 May 22, 1964 my nets Re. Rev. Thomes E, Madden, P,A, Vicar Géns Them, Diocese of Alter stow Subjects labidaty Inspection CGL 216295 School Stanislaus ning Street, Boswell, Pa. Lovatton: e@ An tnapection of the school at the above location was made on May 11, 1964, At that time no unsafe conditions were noted. Ho reconimendations. 0m tbe ’ ae ‘ Very truly yours, . ; Lay Bare wine quart D, Beattie Safety Specialist - a m fF Orig. & 2-Iapured thee. we eeyo soupy ‘Aint “aint jeugisso1d aque lwouy Jaf au0 urtpy pauarouy soruada: “pSPRTOUL™) susurdeg [OPIW—~Z ‘ON @BesIA0D “pougzana00 ue Aq parr ‘Joazamp asn jo sso] a Buypnpouy (pasnsuy ayy kq paumo Auadosd 1d90%3) 70 woHnuMp 20 0 ie Seurep 05 ep Aq uy uodn poroduy ip yo wore! Aq hed 0} ‘pauwingo sutooaq (reys paznsuy ay y>ryen tusns TE pounsuy auf 30 3124sq vo ked OL, rT oBeureg Airedora “x -zouazmnan0 ue hq poste pus suosiad 40 uosied {uv Aq pourerens ‘wonaiay Supynsos sun due we wep "p10 stouyors “Kanfuy Ajfpoq JO S8NETOG saopAAa soSeurep ‘Burp arep 20} 42] Aq iwfy Uedn posoday Aayyqey aun yo uoseex Aq ded 01 powedyiqo aulooaq {ret posnsuy ayy yort sins TE pounsuy ayy 70 3TeYSq wo Aed OF sopyaery Aenfur Appog, -¥ r jes3409 ssmortoy se Suyhidde OVEN PAROS NEON = NONE EMMA a HOE 101 pansit 1 soueansuy jo axeoynse9 sip “dotted sanseW pres Jo suor axp ot roalqns pue z9pUN “@99822 199 “ON, aoueansuy suawkeg 122199} essua9 anseuoysicuiog © ues yoL-2uo0r,y 40 259001 HUY ION Jo kuedwioy soUeIsuy Su, ‘LVHL AdILUTD OL SI SIHL souRmsU] syueMaeg feapayY pue fymLqery yeseneg eatsueqasdatoy NAOLSNHOP-YNOOLTY JO 3839010 IT Ex! 9 a © = € 2 aVINVATASNNGA ‘YNOOLIY ANBAY WL 90nt NMOJSNHOLYNOOLTY JO JsaD01a ANGONVHO FHL ayeoyy Je) aauemst] syuamieg [apap pue fymqery eraueg earsuaqasduioq quaprooe yea 90'000'00I$ uosiad ype oo'ogz$ swuaudeg Teorey areBo28Be 09-000'928 auaprsoe Y>"> 09'000'S2$ eyT aBeweg Arsdorg sreBas88e 00'000'008$ gouasin290 ye 90'00'008$ uosiad y>e9 00'000'001$ Aupqery Aanfuy Atrpog. ELVOMILYAD SIL YAQNA ONIA TAY SLIWIT(1940) VWI-LE-] PO ot serge "$ wnyuaeg eet spounsuy a4 Jo som ‘dfysratiio 349 Jo an sn oy uoHIad. IPED 20} Sif” wos aanzayo aBero409 (py wopsauu0s uy pure sot ae Aq pase ‘9s806Ip on ‘sottindxa yexauny pue Buy ‘sant reuoyssapoid ougans ‘Aavssaoau 40) qwaplave jo auep ot ‘wouy sea 9u0 Uy ed 01 posneuy at wy saai8e uedwop 21, SOTATATZ08 ToomOs UT peBelue “(~~ pypHysty') Musume [ORPOTL—Z ‘ON Bese sTrdnd BuTpnToxe-oFTand Texoue# ros -sousssna0 we Aq posed ‘Joo1ay 2 Jo aun Buypnouy “(pox sin hq pouno fzadoud adsor) fnzadoud jo uopannp 19 9 30 asneoaq sadeurep x07 ax] Aq wry uodn pasoduy, au 30 woseas Aq Ked o1 (qo suro20q TeyS parMsUr ay YIN sume TE paunsur at 30 s[eYOq UO Aed OL, “Anger feud dora “a suard fue jo o5n 20 soueu) “kant sous4n390 ue fq pases pue suosied 10 uosiad (ue fq poureisns ‘woxssoy Bupinsox ou Aue 28 "PU ‘asearIp 40 sour 09 JO asNeTq $IO}AI98 JO $80] PU a1" 10} ‘sofleurep 205 me Aq. un wr Amnfor impor -¥ ROOT “ON aBeIB60) 101 pansy sf soueansuy Jo aieynseQ sp “Loyfod saseAY pres Jo sus) ayn o1 wo—fqns pue JePUN “BLL142 TOD “ON Lrtod Josey souemsuy suaukeg Toppy Pue AMIGeTT [e1BUID ajsUayaIdWOD & ‘eTUERTMsutIOT ‘umorsuyof-euooryy 30 283001C1 3tR OF panss} Sey BoUDUTY TION Jo AuedwioD souINsUT aL, \LVHL AILLYFO OL SI SIHL aaneIso] spiamheg [eorpayy pue fytpiqery jesauag aatsuayesdmo; NAOLSNHOPYNOOLTY JO 3839010 @._-AVINVATASNNad ‘VNOOLTY SANSAY WEL gor NMOLSNHOLYNOOLIY 40 IsA00Ia KASONVHO IHL ayeayT}Ia) eoueIsT] syuetmfieg [eorpapy pue fyyqery jesauag eatsuaqasduroy qUDpIOde Ye 99'000'001$ uosiad yoea gg‘ogz$ suuoudeg [eOIPIW. areBa188e 09'000'09$ 9 Ye 00'000°G8S seureg Arredorg areBas88e 09'000'009$ ‘suaain2>0 Ye 99'000'005$ ‘uosrad y>e2 09'000'008$ Aaqery Aanfuy Apypog ALVOMILAGO SIHL WAGNO ONIATddY SLIAITDIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN Comprehensive General Liability and Medical Payments Insurance THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: ‘The Insurance Company of North America has issued to the Diocese of Altoons-Johnstown, Pennsylvania, a Comprehensive General yy and Medieal Payments Insurance Master Policy No. GAL 14102. Under and subject to the terms of suid Maser 1 this Certificate of Insurance is «JOH, THE. BAPTIST. PARISH ,..ACOSTA,.PENNSYLVANLA.... applying as follows: y the insured all sums which the insured shall become obligated to pay by reason of the poted upon him by law for damages, including, damages for care and loss of services because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person or persons and caused by an ‘occurrence. sured shall become obligated by law for, damages becuse of injury erty (except property owned, by the insure: luding the loss ‘auned bran occurrence, FOR general PibLic-excluding papiie E. Medical Payments engaged in school activities. ‘Thé Company agrees expenses incurred within one year from the date of aecidone for necesary med ambulance, hospital, professional nurs- to of for each person who sustains bodily injury, sickness or ising out of the ownership, maintenance or Use of any prem- activities of the insured. e ex! » i y = z < =LIMITS APPLYING UNDER THIS CERTIFICATE Bodily Injury Liability $200,000.00 each person, $500,000.00 each occurrence $500,000.00 aggregate Property Damage Liability $25,000.00 each occurrence $50,000.00 aggregate Medical Payments $250.00 each person $10,000.00 each accident Comprehensive General Liability and Medical Payments Insurance Certificate ‘THE CHANCERY DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN 106 12th AVENUE ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA(2910) pasneu cuuzad Aue Jo 26m 10 soueuoruyeu “dj ysioun to sowyore ‘danfur Aqypoq.surersns” Oya ontod ‘ype9 20) ‘tina teuojsoyosd ‘jendioy ‘soueynqure ypaut Aresrooot £0} 1UapIDD" JO SED ‘wosy Joh duo uyypym pauinouy somuadxa rte hed on bodn im sooude dueduioy LL. SOTATATIOU Toogos UT paeins “ sqpind Suypmtoxe-oFTand Tetoued xo¥ _soUDLINI0 UE Aq pasnes Joorom 960 30 Mal au Supret “Gorn 9 ka Founo hadoad rds) hnodoud jo woponatn 20 6 danfay yo aeerdoq beurep 20} met fq wyy uodT parody fayey ampy0 worvad Aa Ked of do sese20q TEN pauneK 94t Yoqyaa Sune Te Poansut 2th gTeHOq Uo fed OF ry afemeg Mizodong “a -sououinar0 poupnens ‘wosjsioin Supnson urn Aue 7 uot 080] UE DIED 20} em tp Jo uostos ka ed 9} he [8 pone eqaq uo hed oF ery anf Aupog.“y [e992 e390) ramoyioy £e Buykydde “VERWATXSNNGE*VESOOV HBTEVE UST WE wa MOL ts 101 pans ye jo suum ain 0: woafans pus sspun “60961 TVD ON Arno ger uog sxsuayoadzog » mutated y TPSMY WON 70 Auedwen souesnsuy BL ie ‘LVHL 441LUFD OL SI SIHL aITEMsN] suamfey apEPY PUL fyrpqery exe aAtsuaqerdm09 NMOLSNHOPYNOOLTY 4O 3849010 fy soueansuy Jo amYRIID sy ‘honlog sme, WX souensuy usuukeg [8 suyo[-eUodrty Jo a2001c,VINVATASNNAd ‘YNOOLTY IQNAAY 4321 gor NMOLSNHOLYNOOLTY 40 3sqD010 AWHONVHO FHL eqeaggie eouemsny syuemfieg peapayy pue fiyqery yesauag eatsueqesdut09 auapqae yr"? 09'000'01S uosiad yor 00°009¢ swuswideg [eOrpay saeBaa88e 09°000'09S aouaiins20 Yse2 09°000'92$ Aomuqery aBeureg duredorg ‘seB0283e 00'000'009$ souazin290 y>e 99°000'008$ ‘uosxad y>e9 00'000'002$ Aupaery Aanfuy Aprpog ELVOMILYID SIHL HANA ONIATAAY SLIAIT—— jij WOHY aApooYe aBes2A09 att or aiien Pen yooyss uy pesesue “("pspHTsay™) NusuKey prompoyy “Z eqtdnd Suzpnjoxe - ofiqnd ypxeues 203 sa ee eg om ho pee gp hn cy fey ea aaa TS ae oo a ‘gouszinos0 uv Aq pasmes pue suosiad 10 uoszed Aue Aq paureysns “woxy sz tu yn Se i A a a ee ssmoyjoy se Buyside ee ‘VINVARSNNE” VISOOW “HSTHVE ISLLave ME MOE “ES fo) pantsy sf souunsuy Jo ayeoyRsID sp sefoyog saysePy pres Jo sua} aM 0 390fqns pue s9PUA : “souesnsuy squsuideg [worpsyy pue AmIqerT [ei2uID orisuayarduIoS ‘equeayisuusg ‘umoysuyo{-eu09y sq wioyy sti Auvduzog ApenteD way 2y} PHT gOGT ‘Z sequiovg TH GOST "TVD Adyoq panunuos sey wotoMY YPION Jo AueduIOD souNeInsuy ayy IEE, !XdILNID OL SI SIL soueMsu] syed [EIpay pue AGEN] jerueT eArsuoyasdui0) NMOISNHOP-YNOOLIY 4O 3830010 >) ‘souazin290 - PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITsnuaay "ZT 9OFT NMOLSNHOL-YNOOLTV JO asz00Id ANGONVHO FHL auappoe Y>E> 0O'000‘OTS vwossod Yow O'OOSe SLNAWAVE ‘TVOIGIW | | equeapisueg ‘euooTy aretasBBe o9'000'0SS ‘ousum990 Y>e2 00'000'SeE Aumqery steureg Avsodorg | | avenue og og0'00st souoina20 ypeD gp10o'00s$ woud y2e> 09 000'002¢ rt Aanfe Apog | | | | ALVOIIMLYI) JONVUNSNI eee WHGNN ONIATddV SLIATT | suNaWAVa ‘TvorGaH PY ALTTaVIT ; ‘TVYANAD FAISNSHAUdWODARH OTS, INTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOHNT. ARNDT 7 CIVIL ACTION - LAW 5O Plaintift DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, Defendants : ‘NO 2003 GN NOTICE ‘You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attomey and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are wamed 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 other rights important to you. ‘YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOUDO 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: MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES 1107 12th STREET SUITE 508 ALTOONA, PA 16601 1-800-326-9177 Supreme Court ID #19957 Richard M. Serbin, Esquire 85 Logan Boulevard Altoona, PA 16602 814-944-6111 PLAINTIFF'S: Supreme Court ID #19957 on L 2'd — STB"ON HOeRRET AGAR bS2:T — eaB2"eT “OTEIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHNT. ARNDT, Plaintiff y DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN Defendants NO. 2003 GN F332 COMPLAINT SERBIN, KOVACS & NYPAVER, LLP, RICHARD M. SERBIN, ESQUIRE ID419957 JOSEPH J. NYPAVER, ESQUIRE 1D #49715 85 LOGAN BOULEVARD ALTOONA,PA 16602 (814) 944-6111 leo yy Counsel for Plaintiff eta eran HORT SUSU usa :T RRR "7T ‘OnINTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA - JOHNT. ARNDT, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff v DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN Defendants B ‘NO. 2003 GN COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, by and through his attorneys, SERBIN, KOVACS & NYPAVER, LLP, and sets forth 2 cause of action whereof the following is a statement: A. PARTIES : 1. Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, is an individual who resides at 954 Bridgman ‘Street, Elmira, New York, He was a minor child, nine (9) or ten (10) years of age when ‘be was first sexually abused by Father Joseph Bender, a diocesan priest. 2. Defendant DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN is a non-profit organization with its principal offices located at Chancery Hilltop, Hollidaysburg, Blair “County, Pennsylvania, (hereinafter DIOCESE, collectively with Bishop Defendants referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), doing business as an organized religion, including but not limited to the ownership, management and operation of parishes and Catholic schools within various counties, including: Blair, Cambria, Centre and Somerset. ta OTDON HORT AABN WagerT EBee-2T “ON3. Defendant BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC (hereinafter individually referred to as “ADAMEC”) is an individual residing at the comer of Larch Street and Logan Bouleverd, Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania; and is the current bishop or leader of the DIOCESE, having undertaken the position May 20, 1987. 4, Defendant BISHOP JAMES HOGAN ( hereinafter individually referred to as ‘HOGAN") is an individual who resides at Garvey Manor, 128 Logan Boulevard, Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania; and served as the bishop or leader of the DIOCESE with his tenure lasting from 1966 to May of 1987, 5. tis believed and therefore averred that at all times material herein, the Bishop of the DIOCESE, by virtue of his office is empowered by the DIOCESE to supervise and control all diocesan priests, employees and/or other agents; all diocesan properties and entities including parishes and schools, and various other Diocesan entities located in various counties, including: Blair, Cambria, Centre and Somerset 6. Atall times material herein, the Plaintiff wes a parishioner of the DIOCESE at the parish of St. Joseph’s Church, in Renova, Pennsylvanis. 7. Atall times material herein, as a result of the Plaintiff and his family's enrollment in their parish church within the DIOCESE, the Plaintiff was taught to tust and rely om his parish priest, as well as other leaders of the DIOCESE including its bishops. 8. Atall times material herein, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, explicitly and implicitly represented to the Plaintiff that the DIOCESE, its bishops, and each of its priests, including Father Bender, were benevolent and trustworthy stewards who would only act in the best interest of the Plaintiff. 9. Atall times material herein, the Plaintiff believed that it would be sinful or 3 rare erent aici tere ero15. | The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS solicited funds for its support pacishioners of its parishes through parish “assessments” and direct appeals. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS also provided funds to the parishes, as they deemed necessary and appointed the trustees of the parishes and approved parish and school budgets. 16. Through control of and interaction with the parish churches and their direct knowledge of the daily functioning of the various religious and recreation programs operating in each parish in the DIOCESE, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS ‘were aware that among their parishioners there were a significant number of young children and adolescents who because of their very status as minors, were vulnerable to and trusting of parish priests. 17, The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were aware that these minor parishioners through their participation in perish churches, parish schools, diocesan secondary schools and diocesan sponsored and developed educational and/or recreational programs, had intimate, frequent, and often times private contact with parish clergy and ~ priests assigned by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were also aware that as part of a priest’s duties and in furtherance of cultivating a trusting relationship with children, that priests visited the childrens’ homes to meet with the children and their parents. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS also knew and approved of the fact that young children parishioners were present at parish rectories (priests/clergy residences) for 2 variety of purposes including work. 18, The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS by and through their parish priests, including Father Joseph Bender, were acting “in loco parentis” at all times when children ‘were in the company of Father Bender, except those periods when the childrens’ parents were present. As such the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were acting “in loco parentis” at all times that Father Bender was grooming children to be sexually abused and actually sexually abusing them. ta ato ON -HOMMMUG SQABW We: —__epae “et -onw.19. Atal times material hereip, a confidential relationship existed Between the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, the priests of the DIOCESE and its parishioners, including the Plaintiff. 20. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, along with Father Joseph Bender, and other unnamed parish clergy repeatedly instilled in the Plaintiff as they did in all of their parishioners the belief that priests are figures of authority who should be relied upon to protect the well being of children in the parishes and schools ofthe DIOCESE. Plaintif, 1ike all the children in the parish, was taught to obey priests and to rely on and trust them without doubt or question on issues affecting his physical and moral well being. FACTS SPECIFIC TO THE PLAINTIFF 21. Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, was raised in a devout Christian, Roman ers regularly attended and participated in the celebration of Catholic family, whose m sass, and fulfilled their obligations of financial and other support. 22, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, bom September 25, 1953, while a minor parishioner at St. Joseph’s Church, became acquainted with Father-Benter and held Father Bender in high esteem, reverence aud trust. Plaintiff attended St. Joseph's School, and became a member of Father, Bender’s boys’ choir, called “St. Joe's Lite Singers”. 23, Father Joseph Bender in his role as priest of the parish, and as choirmaster, exploited the power of his assigned and appointed positions, his authority, duties and/or obligations as a DIOCESE priest and as JOHN T. ARNDT’S priest, to take advantage of. JOHN T. ARNDT'S vulnerability, sexual naivete, and trust. Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, was sexually abused by Father Bender on numerous occasions for a period beginning in 1963, when JOHN was 9 or 10 years old, and continuing until eerly 1965. The abuse began with kissing, fondling of the genitals, and masturbation, and thereafter progressed MeHDOINT RI M/2:TRpz"2T “ONYto fellatio and anal sex. The abuse ocourred at various locaton trips to Canada and Washington, DC; and most frequently at a camp maintained by Father Bender in Hyner Mountain, where Father Bender often took members of St. Joc’s Little Singers. D. KNOWLEDGE AND NOTICE OF THE DI OF THE, USE OF MINOR PARISHIONERS BY DIOCESAN PI STS. INCLUD] FATHER JOSEPH BENDER 24. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS knew of the sexual abuse of children by smuumerous Diocesan priests, including Father Bender, and that such abusive behavior was a long standing problem within the DIOCESE, having received actual notice of such abuse 8 more fully described herein. 25, Tbe DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS kmew that many priests in the DIOCESE had sexually molested children and more specifically knew of allegations regarding the sexual abuse of minors, including but not limited to the following priests: (a) Fether Joseph Gaborek () —Fromas early as 1972, complaints of unpriestly behavior by Father Joseph Gaborek were forwarded to HOGAN by Gaborek’s then supervising pastor, (H). 10.1984, HOGAN received written complaints against Father Gaborek involving improper sexual conduct with children, by way of two separate letters from parishioners; (ii) Thereafter, the Pennsylvania State Police became involved in the investigation into allegations regarding Pather Gaborek, ‘whereupon Bishop Hogan withheld pertinent information of Gaborek’s criminal acts with children; (iv) Gaborek admitted to HOGAN of certain inappropriate acts, ‘but advised HOGAN thet “nothing sloppy” had occurred with the boys; Besoin LL L?:T ROR *AT “Sno wi) @ @w qi) Gy) 10) wi) HOGAN advised Gaborek to “keep his big mouth shut” with respect to his having sexually molested these boys; HOGAN testified that as of November of 1984, Gaborek ‘was reassigned to another parish, despite knowledge of his history of criminal acts with children. The transfer was actually a promotion to pastor of his own parish. (b) Father Dennis Coleman As early as 1975-1979, HOGAN received his first complaint regarding Father Demnis Coleman, The complaint alleged that Coleman had rubbed his penis on the feet of a ten year old boy; Despite this report of abuse, no investigation was conducted and instead Coleman was transferred to a new parish without restrictions; In cearly 1986, HOGAN received additional and similar complaints about Father Coleman from his then supervising pastor, ‘Thereafter, HOGAN was contacted by Children & Youth Services of Cambria County regarding similar allegations they had received regarding Coleman. HOGAN, however, withheld pertinent information concerning bis knowledge of Coleman's history of sexually molesting other children; Despite receiving multiple child abuse complaints, HOGAN failed to conduct or order any investigation or warn parishioners. Instead, Father Coleman was transfered by HOGAN to another parish; Upon his removal from the parish, parishioners were advised. that Father Coleman was secking treatment for a “nervous problem” and donations were solicited on his behalf (See Exhibit “A”, copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein). Hee AE UaR:T RP? TON(©) Father William Kovach @ @ Gai @) ) wi) In the early 1970s, Monsignor Panza brought to the attention of HOGAN a complaint that he received concerning sexual advances made by Father Kovach on en altar boy during a day trip; HOGAN failed to perform or order any investigation, and no restrictions were placed on Kovach; In 1982, new complaints regarding Father William Kovach were made to HOGAN involving multiple sexual acts with a 15 year old boy continuing over a period of approximately one year, in addition to providing the boy with pomography; HOGAN testified under oath that in September of 1982, he met with the parents of the boy who advised thet Father William Kovach had repeatedly sexually molested their son over a period of one year, Upon being confronted, Father Kovach admitted to all the sllegations made by the boy and his family, with the exception of his denial of having sodomized the boy; Despite actual knowledge of Father Kovach’s criminal acts, he was thereafter allowed by HOGAN to remain as a parish priest within the DIOCESE with unlimited access to children; ADAMEC, thereafter, knowing of Kovach’s long history of illegal conduct with children, continued to allow him to serve es a priest in the DIOCESE, with unrestricted access to children. (@ Fother Francis Luddy @ ® In 1967-1969, D.S. a minor parishioner, notified his, pastor, Father Louis Mulvehill, that Father Luddy had sexually molested him; Father Francis Luddy admitted under oath to molesting his first child one to two years after ordination and numerous ‘young boys within his assigned parishes thereafter, including ELBA SUS) LUIRe-T amd DT -8nGi) Ge) ) w (v8) Mark Hutchison as well as other identified children; Father Luddy admitted under oath to sexually violating boys on hundreds of occasions in diocesan rectories while sexving as an assistant pries, living with and being supervised by various assigned parish priests; Despite eceipt by the DIOCESE of actual notice of his molestation of children, Father Luddy wes eventually promoted 10 pastor of his own parish; ‘Upon receipt of complaints from Mark Hutchison that Father Luddy had molested him on hundreds of occasions, Father Luddy was moved out of state by HOGAN; DIOCESE Defendants continued to provide public support and praise of Father Luddy, along with financial support, although aware that he had molested countless chilren over a period of more than nineteen (19) years; Despite actual knowledge of Father Luddy’s history of ‘brutally molesting children, Father Luddy was permitted by ADAMEC to continue to dress as « priest, thereby providing him with access to new children, until shortly before the start of the Hutchison v Luddv trial in January, 1994. (¢) Father James Skupien @ @ Itwas known to the DIOCESE Defendants for years that Father Skupien had a sexual interest in boys; Monsignor Philip Saylor testified under oath that he relayed to HOGAN the fact that Father James Skupien, who was then a DIOCESE priest and principal of 2 DIOCESE high school, had been discovered by Dean Township police officer David Metzgar in a vehicle along with a juvenile, and that both ‘Skupien and the juvenile were naked at the time they were discovered; HeepeRG [GAS MuE@:T © ea2"2T “OMe(ii) @) HOGAN'S only concem was whether the investigating police officer who caught Father Skupien with the boy was Catholic and would meet with him. HOGAN ignored the police report and failed to initiate any investigation; and Father Slupien retained his previous position within the DIOCESE 2s a priest and schoo! principal, thereby providing him with access to new children, despite this knowledge on the part of HOGAN and thereafter ADAMEC. (© Father Thomas Carroll @ Gi) co) Ge) Monsignor Philip Saylor testified under oath that he received a phone call from the parents of 2 boy who claimed to have been molested by Father Thomes Carroll who was then assigned to St. Therese’s Catholic Church as an associate pastor. ‘Monsignor Saylor advised HOGAN of this complaint; Father Carroll was sent to a psychiatrist but resumed his, position and remained an active priest, with unrestricted access to children, until his death in 1988; Police authorities were never advised of Father Carroll's criminal acts; and Parishioners were never advised that Father Carroll represented a potential risk to their children. (g) Father Leonard Inman ® Gi) Gi) @ @&) In 1986 HOGAN was notified that Father Leonard Inman and other priests were being investigated by police authorities relative to their sexual solicitation of juveniles; HOGAN wamed Father Inman and other priests that - the police were investigating their activities and advised them to ley low; Taman was thereafter seut for psychiatric evaluation; Despite knowledge of Inman's sexual interest in children, HOMO MRT dT) ERE *ZT “OMFather Inman continued to serve as a priest until his “retirement”, (h) Father Robert Kelly () _ ADAMEC received one or more sexual abuse complaints involving a child and Father Kelly; (i) Father Robert Kelly was eventually sent away for psychiatric evaluation; (ii) Father Kelly, upon retum from psychiatric evaluation -was placed in various administrative positions, presumably to limit his access to children; (iv) ‘Thereafter, he was permitted by ADAMEC to retum to his previous parish assignment; (v) Kelly was later promoted by ADAMEC to pastor of his own parish, with unrestricted access to children. (i) Father Bernard Gratten ( DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS received complaints of Father Gratten’s inappropriate sexual conduct with children; (i) After receipt by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS of complaints of sexual abuse, Father Gratten was eventually referred for psychiatric evaluation; (ii) Despite knowledge by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS that Father Gratten was a pedophile, he was permitted to dress like a priest and have access to children; (iv) Father Bernard Gratten continues to serve as.a priest within the DIOCESE. () Monsignor Francis McCaa @ Numerous complaints were received by HOGAN over a period of years regarding Monsignor McCaa’s sexual assaults upon childzen; Gi) By the mid 1980s, at least five altar boys complained HOEART AUT WERT RAme"2T “ON® Gi, &) ) ) ‘through their parents to HOGAN of being molested by Monsignor McCaa, who was then assigned to Holy Name Church in Ebensburg; One or more lawsuits were filed against Monsignor Francis McCaa and the DIOCESE dealing with inappropriate sexual conduct with children; Secret settlements with victimized children were secured by the DIOCESE, and the legal record sealed: HOGAN thereafter transferred McCaa out of state; Monsignor McCaa has continued as e priest under the auspices of the DIOCESE and ADAMEC, Father James Bunn ® qi) Gi) (i) ®) w) (wit) By 1982, HOGAN had received one or more complaints from ‘parents that Father Bunn had molested their sons; ‘At the time, Father Bunn was principal of Bishop McCort High Schoo! in Johnstown; No investigation to determine if other children were victimized was conducted by HOGAN or the DIOCESE of ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN; Police authorities were not informed of Fether Bunn's criminal actions by either HOGAN or ADAMEC; ‘Bunn continued to be assigned to various parishes within the DIOCESE with unrestricted access to children, despite the receipt of additional complaints of his pedophilic activities, ‘No warnings were provided by either HOGAN or ADAMEC to co-workers or parishioners of Father Bum’s potential danger to parish children or school children; and Ie was not until May, 2002, after the child abuse crisis within Dioceses across the country received massive media attention, that Father Buna was purportedly restricted by ADAMEC and limited in his ministerial duties, . HeeponT SUT Lue :T RopD PTAoO (a) Father John Boyle @ @) Gi) @) ) wi) ‘Various complaints were received by DIOCESE Defendants dealing with Father Boyle’s sexual molestation of children; Following the receipt of these complaints no investigation was conducted by DIOCESE Defendants to determine the number of children sexually abused or the history of Father Boyle's abuse of children; DIOCESE Defendants failed to inform police authorities of their knowledge of Father Boyle's criminal actions; ‘No wamings were given to co-workers or parishioners regarding Father Boyle's abusive actions; No restrictions were placed by DIOCESE Defendants on Father Boyle's access to children; and Father Boyle was permitted by HOGAN and ADAMEC to remain a priest of the DIOCESE. Father Martin McCamley @ @ Gi) (iv) In approximately 1981 or 1982 HOGAN received written notification thet Father Martin MeCamley bad repeatedly sexually abused a minor, HOGAN thereafter met with the older brother of one of the abused boys, and was informed of the details involving the sexual relationship with the victim; HOGAN was also informed during the course of the meeting that Father MeCamley had taken children from Camp Cathedral to see pomographic movies at a drive-in theatre and that the complaining individual had been one of the boys who participated in these 7 immoral activities; HOGAN penmitted Father McCamley to contime with his priestly duties despite notice of his involvement in these immoral and illegal actions; Levenmt ARIA WED =T pop DT Tan(¥) Police authorities were not informed of this illegal conduct, nor were co-workers and parishioners; and e@ (vi) Despite receipt of notice regarding McCamley’s abuse 2nd corruption of the morals of children, HOGAN and thereafter ADAMEC hes continued to permit McCamey to serve as a priest in the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. 26. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were aware that these offending clerics, and others, gained access to these children as a direct result of their status end responsibilities as clerics of the DIOCESE. 27. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS had knowledge of the sexual abuse of minors by their servants and the resultant dire effects of this abuse on the child victims, E. FRAUD AND CONCEALMENT 28, In furtherance of their own interests, including the continued financial support of parishioners, the primary concer of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS has been the protection of the reputation of its priests, including Father Josephi Bender. 29. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS have systematically concealed the danger ‘that predator clerics presented by misrepresenting them as priests in good standing in at Jeast the following ways: () Enabling their continued unrestricted access to minors; (b) Assigning them and/or allowing them to reside and serve at parishes within the DIOCESE; (©) Allowing them free and unrestricted use of premises of the DIOCESE for otherwise uncheperoned activities with e minors; Heo RUG LET Pee “?T Ane(@) Assigning them to duties specifically involving minors; () Announcing to the public, or allowing offending clerics to ive the public less disagreeable or less serious reasons for leaving an assignment or position other than sexual misconduct with children; () Promoting offending clerics within the church hierarchy; (g) Privately assuring concemed parents that the offending clerics’ problems would be “taken care of” ; (ht) Providing and/or subsidizing education, maintenance and/or living arrangements for offending clerics after removal from their assignments, or upon their suspension; (Continuously listing offending clerics in official directories and/or publications by euphemisms such as “absent on Ieave”, “on duty outsidediocese”, “advanced studies”, “on special assignment”, or “retired” after removal or transfer from their assignments or suspension for sexual misconduct with children; 6) ‘Transferring abusive priests to “restricted” ministerial positions without notifying co-workers and parishioners of the perpetrator’s abusive history, which created new environments for the abuse of children; and (&) Allowing offending cleries to honorably “retire”. 30. The effect of these practices by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS was such to create the misperception in the mind of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's family that the Plaintiff was safe with priests in general and with Fether Joseph Bender in particular, and that, ifthere was a conduct about which Plaintiff or Plaintiffs family might be concemed, it was an isolated instance of spurious conduct, when in fact the Plaintiff was - the victim of a known and preventable hazard that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS had created and/or allowed to continue. 31. Asa further effect, these practices by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, LOKABHT SALA WORST pene "2T SN34. LIULEDAN VEFENUANID Tesponded, 1 at all, 70 incidents or complaints of sexual abuse of minors by priests by “counseling” the perpetrator and transferring him geographically, with the intention of protecting the reputation or image of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS an¢ their priests, 33, On discovery of an offending cleric’s misconduct, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS systematically concealed said knowledge, failed to report the misconduct to authorities, and prevailed upon others not to report said misconduct to law enforcement officials. These acts occurred despite Adamec’s public admission that the Diocese has a moral obligation if not a legal one to report knowledge of cases of molestation of minors to proper authorities, civil and ecclesiastical. (See Adaméc’s letter 10 the Editor, dated June 16, 2002, identified as Exhibit “B”, copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein), 34, | DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS aided and abetted the concealment of criminal conduct, by failing and refusing to report to criminal or civil authorities allegations that came to their attention, of sexual abuse of children by priests of the DIOCESE. 35, When confronted, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS falsely assured parishioners, law enforcement, state or court officials and/or others, expressly and/or impliedly, that they would responsibly deal with offending clerics; falsely promising reviews/investigations and falsely promising to take preventive measures against further ta erator. LEROY SI WET FOOD “ETON36. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS ignored and/or failed to properly investigate complaints against priests involving sexual abuse of children. 37. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS suppressed from parishioners and law enforcement authorities instances where priests admitted or acknowledged sexual abuse of children. 38. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS failed to maintain records of offenders and complaints; intentionally covered up and kept complaints secret, including the suppression and/or spoiliation of evidence regarding the sexual molestation of children by its priests. (See, inter alia, deposition of ADAMEC, dated 1/7/94, pg. 239-240, copy of which is marked Exhibit “C”, attached hereto end by this reference incorporated herein). 39. | DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS engaged in sealing records of civil litigation ~ and civil settlemients, and in removal of materials from court files which identified offending clerics and reflected tortiovs conduct on the part of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. 40. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS transferred and/or reassigned offending clerics to new parishes thereby exposing a new population of children to unreasonable risk of injury. This includes but is not limited to the transfers of Fathers Coleman, Gaborek, Kovach, Luddy, McCaz, Bunn, Bender, Boyle, McCamley and Gratten by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS following the receipt of allegations of sexual abuse of mainors by these priests. « 41. Despite knowledge of prio: misconduct and/or after secretly securing eveluation/ireatment of the offending cleric at church operated or affiliated treatment facilities (while misrepresenting the true reason for his absence to parishioners),DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS allowed the offending cleric to retum to various assignments, temporary as well as permanent, where more children were exposed to abuse. 42. Despite knowledge of prior misconduct, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. conferred further privilege, prestige and power to these abusive clerics by way of promotion to new parishes as pastors. This includes but is not limited to the promotions to pastor of Gaborek, Kelly and Luddy by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, following ‘he receipt of allegations of sexual abuse of minors by these priests. 43, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS maintained offending clerics at parishes or in other assignments, with the benefit of his priestly authority; and falsely held out the cleric as a safe, competent and moral priest, ft and/or suitable to serve and/or administer to parishioners with whom he would reasonably come into contact in the course and scope of his employment, thereby allowing priests to deceive parents into believing a child molester, disguised in priestly garb, was no different than any other priest. This, includes but is not limited to Monsignor McCaa, Father Luddy, Father Kovach, Father Gratten, Father Kelly, Father Coleman, Father Bunn, Father Bender, Father Boyle, Father Inman, Fether Carroll, Father Gaborek, Father MeCamley, and Father Skupien. 44. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS maintained secret files regarding abusive priests, and made secret payments to victims in exchange for their silence. 45. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS did not attempt to ascertain if there were other victims of a particular offending priest once they received information that he hed in fact sexually abused a child. 46. Atal times material herein, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS have exhibited an ongoing systematic pattem of conduct involving secrecy and concealment of sexual involvement by DIOCESE priests, including Father Bender, with minors. Meena SUR MUTE:T | emaD:PT-OnH47, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS have employed a closed secret system of internal reporting of sexual misconduct by their servants, including the use of “code words” or nonspecific language, thereby limiting knowledge to themselves, and subsequently to their own affiliated psychiatric and treatment facilities. 48. For decades and continuing through the present, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, including the perpetrator priests have engaged in 2 covert policy and practice to conceal the problem of sexual bust of children by parish clergy. The ‘National Conference of Bishops, of which the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were members, acknowledged that the problem of pedophilia against Catholic priests, which went back to at Jeast 1972. On June 13, 2002, Bishop Wilton B. Gregory, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated in his address: “we are the ones, ‘whether through ignorance or lack of vigilance, or ~ God forbid — with knowledge, who allowed priest abusers to remain in ministry and reassign them to communities where they continued to abuse. We are the ones who chose not to report the criminal actions of Priests to the authorities, because the law did not require this. We are the ones who ‘worried more about the possibility of scandal than in bringing about the kind of openness .. that helps prevent abuse. And we are the ones who, at times, responded to victims and their families 2s adversaries end not as suffering members of the church.” 49. The aforesaid statement attributed to Bishop Gregory appeared in the media, both in print and on television, and was heard/seen by victims of priest sexual abuse around the world, including the Plaintiff. 50, Information as to the known criminal conduct of DIOCESE priests was kept secret and confidential in secret archive files within the exclusive control of HOGAN and thereafter ADAMEC, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from having any ‘nowledge that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS had prior notice of Father Bender's abusive propensities. 51. The freudulent concealment of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS of known Meson SFG MUTE:T eoeip-2T conpredator priests including Father Joseph Bender, from the public in general and the Plaintiff in particular, has continued to the present, as exemplified by statements made by HOGAN and ADAMEC and various officials acting on behalf of DIOCESE, to the tmedia, that appeared in various publications directed to both the public in general and to Catholics in the DIOCESE in particular, including the Plaintiff. 52, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS have issued misleading public statements, including editorials, press releases and articles identified as being from ADAMEC published in the DIOCESE owned and operated newspaper, The Catholic Register, cenying any culpability on their part, and attacking those victims of child abuse who fled claims against other predatory priests, including Father Luddy in Blair and Somerset Counties. See copies of articles and editorials marked Exhibit “D”, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, including: (© AMay 2, 1994 editorial by ADAMEC reiterating that “from the commencement of this lawsuit [Hutchison v Luddy, et al] all of the defendants denied Mr, Hutchison's claims as being baseless and without merit. Given the testimony presented in this case during these past three months, Tam not pleased with the jury's verdict... . The sexual abuse of children is immoral and completely unacceptable ‘behavior. This Diocesan Church of Altoona-Jobnstown has never tolerated, condoned or ignored such behavior by anyone.” ; (®) As of December 14, 1999, ADAMEC continued to publicly deny any diocesen responsibility with respect to the public, trial against Father Luddy and the DIOCESE; (©) On September 9, 2002, in another editorial ADAMEC - continued to deny the culpability of the DIOCESE. 53. Ina press release issued February 13, 2003, ADAMEC continued to deny‘the culpability of the DIOCESE. Said press release was reported in several newspapers circulated within the geographical boundaries of the DIOCESE, A copy of ADAMEC’S press release is marked Exhibit “E”, sttached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 54. DIOCESANDEFENDANTS filsely denied under oath allegations in legal pleadings filed against other predatory priests in Blair and Somerset Counties, wherein DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were alleged inter alia, to have engaged in a policy and practice of concealing priests inown to be child molesters, when they knew that their denials were false, See Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in Hutchison v Luddy et al, No. 1175 CP., 1987, verified by Monsignor Roy F. Kline, Bishop James Hogen ad Bishop Joseph V. Adamec. 58. HOGAN falsely testified under osth in a deposition taken by his legal counsel to preserve his testimony on September 22, 1988, in the Hutchison v Luddy case, No. 1175 CP,, 1987 (Blair County) when he denied ever receiving any complaints of pedophilia by any priest in the DIOCESE prior to claims brought against Pather Francis ‘Ludéy in 1987, when in fact he had in his possession and/or contro] handwritten memos, corespondence and medical records detailing the sexual abuse of children by various other DIOCESE priests. (See relevant Trial Testimony of HOGAN, dated 3/7/94, copies of which are marked Exhibit “F”, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein). 56. _ Discovery responses filed on behalf of HOGAN and the DIOCESE and verified by ADAMEC and HOGAN in the case of another predatory priest in Hutchison v Luddy et al, No. 1175 CP., 1987, Blair County, were incomplete, incorrect and misleading and designed to conceal the full scope of DIOCESEAN DEFENDANTS’ culpability from the parties to the litigation, the Court and the general public, including the Plaintiff. 57. ADAMEC failed to comply with the Court Order of the Honorable Hiram x cere ues con §‘A. Carpenter, I, directing that the records placed in the secret archive of the DIOCESE, pertaining to pedophile priests for a defined time period, be provided to the court for in camera review, ina further effort to conceal from the Plaintiff victim in the suit, and the ‘general public including this Plaintiff, the culpability of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. (See relevant portion of Opinion of the Honorable Hiram A. Carpenter, IM, dated 3/14/95, denying Post Tris] Motions, in Hutchison v Luddy, et al, copy of which is marked Exhibit “G”, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein). 58. The active involvement of HOGAN, ADAMEC and others acting on behalf of the DIOCESE in creating safe and protected environment for known predator priests, including Father Bender, was not discovered by the Plaintiff until various stories began appearing in the media in early 2002. The DIOCESE through ADAMEC, for the first time in articles published in mid March, 2002, and again on April 1, 2002, publicly acknowledged thet “he'd dealt with three situations early in his 15 year tenure involving ‘priests and improper contact with minors.” Additionally, ADAMEC publicly admitted in an article published on June 18, 2002, that in the months leading up to the June, 2002, bishops’ meeting in Dallas, two to three additional unnamed priests had been removed by ~ him. 59, Prior to the disclosures that began in mid March, 2002, the Plaintiff neither knew nor had reason to know that he had a cause of action against the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS for causing tortious injury to him due to DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS concealment of their knowledge of Father Bender's actions toward other minor parishioners, and their vehement public denials of any truth to the allegations contained in related legal actions alleging that HOGAN and the DIOCESE had a plan and/or policy to ignore complaints made against its predator priests, and to conceal such criminal conduct. This scheme effectively convinced the public and the Plaintiff that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were not hiding any information and that they had no Imowledge of other predatory priests. 60, The injuries that the Plaintiff sustained as a result of the actions of the f4 semen MEDBHT A Wd: | eRe“ T Ten‘be was unable to work due to his traumatization and may in the funure be unable to work. COUNT ONE STATUTORY VIOLATION, NEGLIGENCE PER SE 72. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 73. Atal] times material the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS and their priests, agents and/or employees, in the course of their practice and profession, regularly came into contact with children as a result of their supervision and control over all diocesan schools and parishes. As such, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were at all times relevant herein, legally obligated under the “The Child Protective Services Law” to report suspected child abuse to the Department of Public Welfare or county child protective service agencids. See 11 P,S. 2201 et seq (repealed); 23 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq. 74. -Atno time did the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS ever report to authorities any allegation of child sexual abuse by a priest, including allegations received regarding, Father Joseph Bender. 75. ADAMEC has publicly admitted that there is a moral obligation if not a legal one, to report knowledge of cases of molestation of minors to the proper authorities, civil and ecclesiastical. (See Exhibit “B”). 76. Asa direct and proximate result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ failure to report to’authorities allegations of sexual abuse by Father Joseph Bender and other DIOCESE priests, the Plaintiff was victimized by Father Joseph Bender and sustained the injuries and damages enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damagesagainst the DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN: DEFENDANTS), in an amonnt in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, pins interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. 77. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein, by this reference thereto. 78. | ADAMEC and HOGAN were obligated as leaders and supervisors of the DIOCESE and its schools and parishes, to take reasonable care to investigate, to supervise, or to wam minor parishioners and/or their families of the risk of harm occasioned by their interaction with Father Bender and/or other DIOCESE priests which - they knew or should have known were sexually abusing minors. 79. | DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS failed to give primary assistance to victims. 80. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS through their agents and representatives, held themselves out as having control over Father Joseph Bender and al] DIOCESE priests, and having the ability to protect minors from inappropriate contact and/or child sexual abuse at the hands of DIOCESE priests. 81. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS engaged in a pattern of inaction or silence, when they had an obligation to speak. 82. | DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS breached their duty of reasonable care as hereinabove alleged, inter alia, es follows:_pneedteaninnanaiahieeenenenrerrrm AA (@) _ Ignoring reports of sexual abuse of minors by their priests; (©) Reassigning offending priests to new assignments within vr outside the DIOCESE; (©) Failing to report offending priests to law enforcement and/or the Department of Public Welfare and/or Children & Youth Services; (@) Failing to warn new parishes and parishioners including the Plaintiff of the danger posed by sexually abusive priests; (©) Failing to remove or suspend offending clerics including Father Bender from their duties as priests, or to otherwise act to stop them from pursuing sexual assaults on children including the Plaintiff, despite receiving complaints and reliable information that the priests were engaged in illegal and improper activities with children. 83, Asa direct and proximate result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ failure to exercise reasonable the care, the Plaintiff was victimized by Father Bender and ~ sustained the injuries and damages enumerated herein. ‘WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, secks compensatory damages against the DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V, ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. ‘A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT THREE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 84. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto.85. HOGAN and the DIOCESE were entrusted with the well being, care and safety of the Plaintiff as a result of his status as a parishioner at a DIOCESE parish: ‘Under their fiduciary relationship, HOGAN and the DIOCESE assumed a duty to act in the best interest of the Plaintiff, 86. HOGAN and the DIOCESE placed the Plaintiff in the care of Father Joseph Bender, for the purpose of, inter alia, providing the Plaintiff with religious instruction, training, spiritual guidance and counseling. As such, their existed a fiduciery relationship of trust, confidence, and reliance between the Plaintiff and HOGAN and the DIOCESE. 87, The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were in a specialized or superior position to receive, and did receive specific information regarding misconduct by theit servants/priests, that was of critical importance to the well being or care or treatment of innocent child victims, including the Plaintiff - knowledge not otherwise readily available. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS exercised their special or superior position to assume control of said knowledge and any response thereto. 88, The Plaintiff on the other hand was in a subordinate position of weakness, ‘vulnerability, inequality and lacking in such kmowledge. Further, the abiity of the Plaintiff or his family to monitor the use ot misuse of the power and authority of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS in acting upon or responding to such knowledge was compromised, inhibited or restricted by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. 89. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS had a secular fiduciary relationship with the Plaintiff grounded upon the duty of good faith, fair dealing and the duty to act with the highest degree of tust and confidence. This fiduciary relationship includes the duty to wam and to disclose and to protect parish and/or DIOCESE chiliren from sexual abuse and exploitation by their priests, whom these Defendants promote as being “celibate” and “chaste” representatives of God on carth.=e RA 90. The Plaintiff and his femily had the right to rely and did rely on the e representations of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS that their priests, including Father Joseph Bender, were priests in “good standing” and that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS ‘would not tolerate criminal misconduct that represented a known threat to children by their priests. 91. It is alleged that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS breached this dury through their inaction, manipuletion, intimidation, evasion, intended deception, undve influence, duress or otherwise as more fully described and set forth herein, resulting in injury to the welfare and well being of the Plaintift. 92. Asa direct result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ breach of their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff, he suffered injuries and damages as enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, secks compensatory damages e against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and ~ BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in ‘an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT FOUR FAILURE VIDE. AND SECURE 93. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein by _ this referenced thereto, | 94, HOGAN and the DIOCESE, and their DIOCESE clergy acted in the capacity of “in loco parentis” to the Plaintiff at all times that the Plaintiff performed altar e@ boy services, worked in the rectory, engaged in parish sponsored recreation programs andA other parish and diocesan sponsored programs. e 95. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS by virtue of their position and authority over parishes, parish schools and secondary schools, had an obligation to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment within their parish churches, clergy residences end/or schools for the minor Plaintiff. 96. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS failed to provide such an environment and failed to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances. 97. By sanctioning and encouraging the entrustment of Plaintiff's physical, mental and emotional safety to Father Joseph Bender, HOGAN and the DIOCESE actually and/or impliedly accepted, assumed and ratified the duty “in loco parentis” to protect the Plaintiff, as he was imable to protect himself e 98. | HOGAN and the DIOCESE breached their duty of “in loco parentis”. 99. Asa direct result of the breach of HOGAN and the DIOCESE’S duty, the Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages enumerated herein. ‘WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damages against the DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT FIVE ILIGENT St tVISION e@ 100. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein bythis reference thereto, 101. As set forth hereinabove, the Plaintiff was molested by Father Joseph Bender on property owned and controlled by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. 102. As set forth hereinabove, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were or should have been on notice of Father Bender’s pedophilic behavior and sexually abusive behavior towards minor parishioners. 103. As set forth hereinabove, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were responsible for maintaining control aver and/or overseeing its assignment of Father Bender at DIOCESE owned and operated parishes and elementary schools. 104, Despite the knowledge of HOGAN and the DIOCESE that Father Bender had a propensity to sexually molest children, they failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling Father Bender so as to prevent foreseeable injuries to the Plaintiff 10S. HOGAN and the DIOCESE, by their actions, undertook a course of conduct that increased the risk that Father Bender would abuse the Plaintiff and/or other ‘minor parishioners/students, 106, HOGAN and the DIOCESE’S failure to properly supervise its agent, Father Bender, and/or to terminate him resulted in injuries to the Plaintiff as more fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damages agdinst DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded.eS OS cS SS a ARE ah A COUNT SIX e@ ‘PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT 107. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein by - this reference thereto. 108, As set forth hereinabove, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS acted in concert with Father Bender in a plan to conceal Father Bender’s propensity to abuse minor parishioners. 109. Atal times material, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS knew Father Bender's conduct constituted a breach of duty and was harmful, yet the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS assisted and encouraged Father Bender to maintain his activities as a priest including working directly with children, by assigning him to serve at parishes, and encouraging him to conceal his pedophilic propensities. 110. Said actions by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS in assisting and encouraging a known pedophile to continue working with and meintaining unlimited access to minor parishioners/students, was a substantial factor in essisting Father Bender to commit acts of sexual abuse on minors, including the Plaintiff. 111. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ actions in assisting and encouraging Father Bender to deceive parishioners into believing that he was a priest in good standing with the DIOCESE, rather than the recidivist pedophile they knew or should have known Father Bender to be, was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm. 112. As aresult of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ actions, the Plaintiff sustained injuries as enumerated herein, r) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, secks compensatory damagesagainst DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in 2m emount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT SEVEN SUPPLYIN( INFORMATION/NEGLIGENT MISREPRE: A 113. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein, by this reference thereto. “114. As set forth hereinabove, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS in the course of their activities in running the DIOCESE parishes and schools, supplied false information designed to deceive parishioners and families who were members of DIOCESE parishes and schools, including the Plaintiff, by holding out Father Bender and other DIOCESE priests about whom they had knowledge of allegations of sexual abuse, as safe, competent and moral priests, fit and/or suitable to serve and/or minister to parishioners ‘and students with whom they would reasonably come into contact in the course and scope of their employment. 115. As aresult of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS false and deceptive information, the Plaintiff and/or his family justifiably relied upon HOGAN and the DIOCESE’S representations with respect to Father Bender in continning his association with St. Joseph's parish to their detriment, thereby being placed at risk to be molested by Father Bender. 116. The negligent representations of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's injuries, which injuries are enumerated herein.‘WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT EIGHT FAILURE TO PROTECT AGAINST FORESEEABLE RISKS 117. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 118. _ As set forth hereinabove, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were on notice that the presence of Father Bender in e DIOCESE parish was a foreseeable risk of harm to all minor parishioners/students with whom Father Bender would come into contact. 119. The very foreseeability of another such molestation of minor parishioners/students by Father Bender, make the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ failure to act to protect against the risk, negligent. 120, The negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE in failing to protect the Plaintiff against the foreseeable risk of molestation at the hands of Father Bender was 2 substantial factor in causing his harm. 121. Asa result of the negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE, the Plaintiff suffered injuries as enumerated herein. ‘WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowedby law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT NINE DUTY. TO WARN OF UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM 122. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein by this referenced thereto. 123, _Atall times material herein, Father Bender was within the control of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS and acting as their agent or employee. 124, Atal times material herein, the Plaintiff believed that Father Bender was a priest in good standing within the DIOCESE. 125, Atal times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE knew or should have known that Father Bender bad a propensity for molesting minor parishioners, and that his position as 2 parish priest would create a situation where Father Bender's sexual propensities would harm other minor parishioners, including the Plaintiff. 126. Despite its knowledge of the unreasonable risk of harm to minor DIOCESE parishioners, HOGAN and the DIOCESE filed to.wam the Plaintiff or his family of Father Bender’s propensities. 127. Inaddition to failing to warm, as hereinabove alleged, HOGAN and the DIOCESE went to great lengths to protect Father Bender and conceal his known pedophilic behavior from parishioners and/or families of the students of the school, resulting in a foreseeable risk of harm. 128, This failure to wam and/or concealment of a known danger by HOGAN and the DIOCESE was 2 substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm.129. Due to the negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE, in their failure to war the Plaintiff and/or others similarly situated, the Plaintiff sustained the injuries enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest 2s allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT TEN NEGLIG ERVISION 01 )F IMPROPER PERSONS AS AG} 130. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 13], Atal times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE were conducting activities in ftherance ofits organization, including control and operation of St. Joseph's parish, through its agents, including Father Bender. 132, Atal times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE knew of Father Bender’s propensity to molest minor parishioners, thereby involving a risk of harm to its minor parishioners at St. Joseph’s Church, yet retained him in said position. 133. _Atall times material herein, despite the knowledge of HOGAN and the DIOCESE with respect to the propensities of Father Bender, they failed to supervise Father Bender or prevent him from tortiously injuring the Plaintiff. 134. HOGAN and the DIOCESE’S negligence in the use and employment of Father Bender, an improper person to place in control of activities involving minors, was2 substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm. 138. Dus to the negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE, the Plaintiff sustained injuries as enumerated herein. ‘WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiting arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Juny Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT ELEVEN ‘USE OF INCOMPETENT PERSONS 136. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 137, Atal times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE knew that Father Bender was likely to conduct himself with children in such manner so to create an unreasonable risk of harm to them. 138, Atal times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE had the ability to control Father Bender to the extent they were responsible for his parish assignments and/or his access to parish children, 139, Despite the knowledge of HOGAN ané the DIOCESE of Father Bender's dangerous propensities with children, they permitted Father Bender to misuse his position, as a priest so as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to minor parishioners, including the Plaintist 140, As a result of the negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE, the Plaintiffsustained injuries enumerated herein, ‘WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an mount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. . A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT TWELVE FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 141. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 142, The above actions and omissions of ADAMEC and HOGAN and the leadership of the DIOCESE, as hereinabove alleged, resulted in the systematic suppression and distortion of facts concerning the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ tme knowledge and notice of the problem of sexually abusive priests in the DIOCESE. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS” concerted efforts to cover up, suppress and distort what they knew, (continuously up to the present), effectively concealed the existence of their own negligent behavior from the Plaintiff. 143, The result of the covert practice of concealing the problem of sexual abuse was that the Plaintiff and others similarly situated but presently unknown, were deprived of the knowledge of the essential factual elements which would have formed the basis of their rights to legal redress against the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. 144, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS sought by virtue of their fraudulent concealment of their knowledge of this sex abuse problem, to obtain economic advantage over persons sexually abused by DIOCESE priests, causing such persons, inctuding the Plaintiff, not to discover the fraudulent concealment.145. The suppression of the identity of the numerous sexual offenders by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS wes purposely and fraudulently done to prevent the filing of both criminal and civil complaints against their sexually abusive priests, 146. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS obstructed the prosecution of the PlaintifPs cause of action against them by continually concealing the fact that they had knowledge of Father Bender's predilections before the time the Plaintiff was abused, 147. Asa direct and proximate result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS” intentional conduct, in concealing, suppressing and distorting its knowledge of the semually abusive conduct of some ofits priests, including Father Bender, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in- an amount in excess ofthe jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. col THIR: INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO SUPERVISE 148. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incomporated herein by ‘this referenced thereto. 149. Prior to the dates of sexual molestation perpetrated by Father Bender upon the Plaintiff, and thereafter, Father Bender bad been known or ‘should bave been known: to HOGAN end the DIOCESE to bave been a pedophile or other seausl offender, with the habit of making sexual advances and engaging in unnatural sexual acts. with children,under the pretext of his duties as a DIOCESE priest, and utilizing his position as a priest to overcome such childrens’ reluctance and fears. 150. After leaming through complaints from other priests and/or others, that Father Bender had utilized his position as a priest to lure and persuade children to commit sexual acts with im, HOGAN and the DIOCESE deliberately assigned Father Bender to positions where he would have further access to children, including the Plaintif®, who had no awareness of his previous improper sexual practices; thereafter, they failed to remove or suspend Fether Bender from his duties as 2 priest, or otherwise act to stop him from pursuing his sexval assaults on children, including the Plaintiff, ater receiving further complaints and reliable information that Father Bender was engaging in such illegal and ‘mmproper activities with children. 151. The actions of HOGAN and the DIOCESE as alleged in the preceding Peragraphs constituted intentional misconduct with the harm which befell the Plaintiff as a directly foreseeable consequence. 152. Asa direct result of said tortious conduct, the Plaintifhas suffered the injuries and damages described herein. ‘WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, secks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT FOUR} INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO WARN 153. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy One (71) are incorporated herein, bythis reference thereto. 154. HOGAN and the DIOCESE owed a duty of care to all persons, including the Plaintiff, who was likely to come within the influence of Father Bender in his role of DIOCESE priest, to insure that Father Bender did not abuse his autbority as a priest to injure others by sexual assault and abuse. 155, HOGAN and the DIOCESE intentionally breached their dury of care, and intentionally disregarded the rights and safety of the Plaintiff, by failing to wam or otherwise protect the Plaintiff from Father Bender, who was acting under their supervision, and whom they knew or should have known was likely to sexually assault and abuse persons such as the Plaintiff in the manner described herein, and by failing to insure that priest would not have unsupervised access to people such as the Plaintiff. 156, Asa direct and proximate result, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer the injuries described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. ‘A Jury Trial is hereby demanded, COUNT. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 157. Each of the preceding Paragraphs are incorporated herein by this, referenced thereto, 158. ADAMEC, HOGAN and the DIOCESE through their agents and/or employees were on actual notice of the various allegations and complaints concerningimmoral and illegal sexual misconduct committed by Father Bender, and other DIOCESE priests, and deliberately decided to take no affirmative action to protect children in barm’s way. 159, The acts and omissions of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS as pled hereinabove, represent conduct which was intentional, willfl, outrageous, reckless and deliberately indifferent to the health, safety and welfare of minor parishioners of the DIOCESE in general, and the Plaintiff in particular. 160, Asa proximate and direct result of the aforesaid outrageous conduct of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, the Plaintiff sustained the injuries as more fully described above. ‘WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JOHN T. ARNDT, seeks compensatory and punitive Gamages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs, A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. SERBIN, KOVACS & NYPAVER, LLP Attomey for Plaintiffs ‘Supreme Court ID #19957 oe Leepoe UG Lite: team PT AHe NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JAMES V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN . ‘YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF, OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. IN, KOVACS & NYPAVER, LLP. ‘Supreme Court ID #19957 AJURY TRIAL IS HEREBY DEMANDED, l, KOVACS & NYPAVER, LLP. Supreme Court ID #19957@> IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA THERESE ROLAND McINTYRE, : | CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff se nov 1.9 2003 € : , ' DNs v DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN Defendants : no.20036n 4905 COMPLAINT SERBIN, KOVACS & NYPAVER, L.L.P. pine RICHARD M. SERBIN, ESQUIRE 1D #19957 (pr JOSEPH J. NYPAVER, ESQUIRE ID #9715 85 LOGAN BOULEVARD | ALTOONA, PA 16602 ! 814) 944-6111 FILED a BLAIR COUNTY, PA NEWMAN / CAROL NEW Counsel for Plaintiff nov 18 2003 PROTHONOTASYIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. ‘THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, _ CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff v DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN Defendants : ‘NO. 2003 GN NOTICE ‘You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are wamed 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 other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES 1107 12th STREET SUITE 508 ALTOONA, PA 16601 1-800-326-9177 ‘Attomey for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID #19957 Richard M. Serbin, Esquire 85 Logan Boulevard Altoona, PA 16602 814.944-6111 Supreme Court ID #19957IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Plaintiff v DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN Defendants ‘ NO. 2003 GN COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, by and through. her attomeys, SERBIN, KOVACS & NYPAVER, LLP, and sets forth a cause of action whereof the following is a statement: A. PARTIES : 1. Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, is an individual who resides at 415 N.W. 7" Street, Cedaredge, CO. She was a minor when she was first sexually abused by Father Joseph Strittmatter, a priest of the DIOCESE of ALTOONA- JOHNSTOWN. 2. Defendant DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN is a non-profit organization with its principal offices located at Chancery Hilltop, Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania, (hereinafter DIOCESE, collectively with Bishop Defendants referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), doing business as an organized religion, including but not limited to the ownership, management and operation of parishes andCatholic schools within various counties, including: Blair, Bedford, Cambria, Centre, Clinton, Huntingdon and Somerset. 3. Defendant BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC (hereinafter individually referred to as “ADAMEC”) is an individual residing at the comer of Larch Street and Logan Boulevard, Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania; and is the current bishop or leader of the DIOCESE, having undertaken the position May 20, 1987. 4, Defendant BISHOP JAMES HOGAN ( hereinafter individually referred to as ‘HOGAN”) is an individual who resides at Garvey Manor, 128 Logan Boulevard, Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania; and served as the bishop or leader of the DIOCESE with his tenure lasting from 1966 to May of 1987. 5. tis believed and therefore averred that at all times material herein, the Bishop of the DIOCESE, by virtue of his office is empowered by the DIOCESE to supervise and control all diocesan priests, employees and/or other agents; all diocesan properties and entities including parishes and schools, and various other Diocesan entities located in various counties, including: Blair, Bedford, Cambria, Centre, Clinton, Huntingdon and Somerset. 6. Atal times material herein, the Plaintiff was a parishioner of the DIOCESE at the parish of St. John the Evangelist Church, in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. 7. Atall times material herein, as a result of the Plaintiff and her family’s enrollment in their parish church within the DIOCESE, the Plaintiff was taught to trust and rely on DIOCESE priests, as well as other leaders of the DIOCESE including its bishops. 8 Atall times material herein, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, explicitly and implicitly represented to the Plaintiff that the DIOCESE, its bishops, and each of its priests, including Father Strittmatter, were benevolent and trustworthy stewards whowould only act in the best interest of the Plaintiff. 9. Atall times material herein, the Plaintiff believed that it would be sinful or wrong to make any kind of an accusation against a priest or bishop; and that priests and bishops could not and would not engage in conduct considered evil or wrong. 10, Atall times material herein, the Plaintiff entrusted her well being to the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS who had a corresponding obligation to be solicitous for, as well as protective of the Plaintiff in the exercise of their position of superiority and purported authority. 11, tall times material herein, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS invited and encouraged the Plaintiff to accept each priest of the DIOCESE purported to be in good standing, including Father Joseph Strittmatter, as one who was worthy of and who bad the responsibility for the Plaintiff's physical and spiritual safety, thereby inducing the Plaintiff to entrust herself to the company and care of Father Strittmatter and to participate ii church sponsored youth activities. B, NATURE OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EACH OF THE PARTIES AND THE PREDATOR PRIESTS 12, The DIOCESE by and through ADAMEC and HOGAN, at all times material herein, was responsible for the creation and staffing of the parishes, parish churches, and parish and diocesan schools within the DIOCESE. 13, Atal times material, ADAMEC or HOGAN were solely and ultimately responsible for assigning, transferring (and/or suspending) all parish clergy to and from parish churches and other entities, such as hospitals and schools within the DIOCESE. Said priests and other parish clergy served at the Bishops” pleasure.14. Atal times material, ADAMEC or HOGAN approved the transfers of all DIOCESE clergy into and out of the DIOCESE. 15. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS solicited funds for its support from the parishioners of its parishes through parish “assessments” and direct appeals. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS also provided funds to the parishes, as they deemed necessary and assisted in the appointment of trustees of the parishes and approved parish and school budgets. 16. Through control of and interaction with the parish churches and their direct knowledge of the daily functioning of the various religious and recreation programs operating in each parish in the DIOCESE, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS ‘were aware that among their parishioners there were a significant number of young children and adolescents who because of their very status as minors, were vulnerable to and trusting of parish priests. 17, The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were aware that these minor parishioners through their participation in parish churches, diocesan schools and diocesan sponsored and developed educational and/or recreational programs, had intimate, frequent, and often times private contact with parish clergy and priests assigned by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were also aware that as part of a priest’s duties and in furtherance of cultivating a trusting relationship with children, that priests sometimes visited the childrens’ homes to meet with the children and their parents. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS also knew and approved of the fact that young children parishioners were present at parish rectories (priests/clergy residences) for a variety of purposes, including volunteering for various tasks or assignments. 18. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS by and through their parish priests, including Father Joseph Strittmatter, were acting “in loco parentis” at all times when children were in the company of Father Strittmatter, except those periods when thechildrens’ parents were present. As such the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were acting “in loco parentis” at all times that Father Strittmatter was grooming children to be sexually abused and actually sexually abusing them. 19, Atal times material herein, a confidential relationship existed between the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, the priests of the DIOCESE and its parishioners, including the Plaintiff. 20. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, along with Father Joseph Strittmatter, and other unnamed parish clergy repeatedly instilled in the Plaintiffas they did in all of their parishioners the belief that priests are figures of authority who should be relied upon to protect the well being of children in the parishes and schools of the DIOCESE. Plaintiff, ike all the children in the parish, was taught to obey priests and to rely on and ‘rust them without doubt or question on issues affecting her physical and moral well being. C._ FACTS SPECIFIC TO THE PLAINTIFF 21. Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, was raised in a devout Christian, Roman Catholic family, whose members regularly attended and participated in the celebration of mass, and fulfilled their obligations of financial and other support. 22. Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, born October 3, 1956, was the niece of Father Joseph Strittmatter. She knew Father Strittmatter both as her uncle and as a priest of the DIOCESE of ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN. Father Strittmatter always wore his collar when he was with the Plaintiff, and sometimes served as a guest priest at St. John the Evangelist Church. Plaintiff held Father Strittmatter in high esteem, reverence and trust. 23. Father Joseph Strittmatter in his role as a priest, exploited the power of his assigned and appointed positions, his authority, duties and/or obligations as a DIOCESEpriest to take advantage of THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE 's vulnerability, sexual naivete, and trust, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE was sexually abused by Father Strittmatter on numerous occasions over a period of approximately three to four years, and ending when she was about twelve (12) years old. ‘The abuse included forced masturbation and fellating of Father Strittmatter; inappropriate touching and massaging of parts of the Plaintiff's body, and attempted rape. The abuse occurred in Father Strittmatter’s rectory bedroom believed to be St. John the Baptist Church, in Acosta, Somerset County, Pennsylvania his automobile, her parents’ home and the homes of various relatives. D. KNOWLEDGE AND NOTICE OF THE DIOCESE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINOR PARISHIONERS BY DIOCESAN PRIESTS, INCLUDING FATHER JOSEPH STRITTMATTER, 24. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS knew of the sexual abuse of children by numerous Diocesan priests, including Father Strittmatter, and that such abusive behavior ‘was a long standing problem within the DIOCESE, having received actual notice of such abuse as more fully described herein. 25, The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS knew that many priests in the DIOCESE had a sexual interest in children, and more specifically had knowledge of the sexual abuse of minors, involving but not limited to the following priests: (a) Father Joseph Gaborek (i) Fromaas early as 1972, complaints of unpriestly behavior by Father Joseph Gaborek were forwarded to HOGAN by Gaborek’s then supervising pastor; (i) In 1984, HOGAN received written complaints against Father Gaborek involving improper sexual conduct with children, by way of at least two separate letters from parishioners; Gii) Thereafter, the Pennsylvania State Police became involved in the investigation into allegations regarding Father Gaborek,Gv) wi) ‘whereupon Bishop Hogan withheld pertinent information of Gaborek’s criminal acts with children; Gaborek admitted to HOGAN of certain inappropriate acts, but advised HOGAN that “nothing sloppy” had ocourred with the boys; HOGAN advised Gaborek to “keep his big mouth shut” with respect to his having sexually molested these boys; HOGAN testified that as of November of 1984, Gaborek was reassigned to another parish, despite knowledge of his history of criminal acts with children, The transfer was actually a promotion to pastor of his own parish. (b) Father Dennis Coleman @ w@ Gi) Gy) @) As early as 1975-1979, HOGAN received his first complaint regarding Father Dennis Coleman, The complaint alleged that Coleman had rubbed his penis on the feet of a ten year old boy; Despite this report of abuse, no investigation was conducted and instead Coleman was transferred to a new parish without restrictions; In early 1986, HOGAN received additi complaints about Father Coleman from his then supervising pastor; Thereafter, HOGAN was contacted by Children & Youth Services of Cambria County regarding similar allegations they had received regarding Coleman. HOGAN, however, withheld pertinent information concerning his knowledge of Coleman’s history of sexually molesting other children; Despite receiving multiple child abuse complaints, HOGAN failed to conduct or order any investigation or warn parishioners. Instead, Father Coleman was transferred by HOGAN to another parish;wi) Upon his removal from the parish, parishioners were advised that Father Coleman was seeking treatment for a “nervous problem” and donations were solicited on his bebalf. (See Exhibit “A”, copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein). (© Father William Kovach @ @ Gi) Gv) (0) wi) In the early 1970s, Monsignor Panza brought to the attention of HOGAN a complaint that he received concerning sexual advances made by Father Kovach on an altar boy during a day trip; HOGAN failed to perform or order any investigation, and no restrictions were placed on Kovach; In 1982, new complaints regarding Father William Kovach were made to HOGAN involving multiple sexual acts with a 15 year old boy continuing over a period of approximately otie year, in addition to providing the boy with pornography; HOGAN testified under oath that in September of 1982, he ‘met with the parents of the boy who advised that Father William Kovach had repeatedly sexually molested their son over a period of one year. Upon being confronted, Father Kovach admitted to all the allegations made by the boy and his family, with the exception of his denial of having sodomized the boy; Despite actual knowledge of Father Kovach’s criminal acts, be was thereafter allowed by HOGAN to remain as a parish priest within the DIOCESE with unlimited access to children; ADAMEC, thereafter, knowing of Kovach’s long history of illegal conduct with children, continued to allow him to serve as a priest in the DIOCESE, with unrestricted access to children. (@ Father Francis Luddy @ In 1967-1969, D.S. a minor parishioner, notified his@ Gi) dv) @) (wi) (vii) pastor, Father Louis Mulvebill, that Father Luddy had sexually molested him; Father Francis Luddy admitted under oath to molesting his first child one to two years after ordination and numerous young boys within his assigned parishes thereafter, including Mark Hutchison as well as other identified children; Father Luddy admitted under oath to sexually violating boys on hundreds of occasions in diocesan reotories while serving as an assistant priest, living with and being supervised by various assigned parish priests; Despite receipt by the DIOCESE of actual notice of his ‘molestation of children, Father Luddy was eventually promoted to pastor of his own parish; Upon receipt of complaints from Mark Hutchison that Father Luddy had molested him on hundreds of occasions, Father Luddy was moved out of state by HOGAN; DIOCESE Defendants continued to provide public support and praise of Father Luddy, along with financial support, although aware that he had molested countless children over a period of more than nineteen (19) years; Despite actual knowledge of Father Luddy’s history of brutally molesting children, Father Luddy was permitted by ADAMEC to continue to dress as a priest, thereby providing him with access to new children, until shortly before the start of the Hutchison v Luddy trial in January, 1994. (©) Father James Skupien @ @ It was known to the DIOCESE Defendants for years that Father Skupien had a sexual interest in boys; ‘Monsignor Philip Saylor testified under oath that he relayed to HOGAN the fact that Father James Skupien, who wasGi) (iv) @) then a DIOCESE priest and principal of a DIOCESE high school, had been discovered by Dean Township police officer David Metzger in a vehicle along with a juvenile, and that both ‘Skupien and the juvenile were naked at the time they were discovered; HOGAN'S only concern was whether the investigating. police officer who caught Father Skupien with the boy was Catholic and would meet with him; HOGAN ignored the police report and failed to initiate any investigation; and Father Skupien retained his previous position within the DIOCESE as a priest and school principal, thereby providing him with access to new children, despite knowledge of his prior illegal acts with children on the part of HOGAN and thereafter ADAMEC. (®) Father Thomas Carroll @ Gi) Gi) 9) Monsignor Philip Saylor testified under oath that he received a phone call from the parents of a boy who claimed to have ‘been molested by Father Thomas Carroll who was then assigned to St. Therese’s Catholic Church as an associate pastor. ‘Monsignor Saylor advised HOGAN of this complaint; Father Carroll was sent to a psychiatrist but resumed his position and remained an active priest, with unrestricted access to children, until his death in 1988; Police authorities were never advised of Father Carroll's criminal acts; and Parishioners were never advised that Father Carroll represented a potential risk to their children. (g) Father Leonard Inman @ In 1986 HOGAN was notified that Father Leonard Inman and other priests were being investigated by policeGi) ii) (iv) authorities relative to their sexual solicitation of juveniles; HOGAN warned Father Inman and other priests that the police were investigating their activities and advised them to lay low; Taman was thereafter sent for psychiatric evaluation; Despite knowledge of Inman’s sexual interest in children, Father Inman continued to serve as a priest until his “retirement”. (h) Father Robert Kelly @ i) Gi) (iv) @) ADAMEC received one or more sexual abuse complaints involving a child and Father Kelly; Father Robert Kelly was eventually sent away for psychiatric evaluation; Father Kelly, upon return from psychiatric evaluation was placed in various administrative positions, presumably to limit his access to children; Thereafter, he was permitted by ADAMEC to return to his previous parish assignment; Kelly was later promoted by ADAMEC to pastor of his own parish, with unrestricted access to children. (i) Father Bernard Gratten @ Gi) Gi) (iv) DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS received complaints of Father Gratten’s inappropriate sexual conduct with children; After receipt by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS of, complaints of sexual abuse, Father Gratten was eventually referred for psychiatric evaluation; Despite knowledge by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS that Father Gratten was a pedophile, he was permitted to dress like a priest and have access to children; Police authorities were never advised of FatherGratten’s criminal acts; and (v) Parishioners were never advised of Father Gratten’s criminal conduct. i) Monsignor Francis MoCaa ® (i) Numerous complaints were received by HOGAN over a period of years regarding Monsignor McCaa’s sexual assaults upon children; (i) By the mid 1980s, at least five altar boys complained through their parents to HOGAN of being molested by Monsignor McCaa, who was then assigned to Holy Name Church in Ebensburg; (ii) One or more lawsuits were filed against Monsignor Francis McCaa and the DIOCESE dealing with inappropriate sexual conduct with children; (iv) Secret settlements with victimized children were secured by the DIOCESE, and the legal record sealed; (v) HOGAN thereafter transferred McCaa out of state; (vi) Monsignor McCaa has continued as a priest under the auspices of the DIOCESE and ADAMEC. Father James Bunn () By 1982, HOGAN had received one or more complaints from parents that Father Bunn had molested their sons; (i) At the time, Father Bunn was principal of Bishop McCort High School in Johnstown; (ii) No investigation to determine if other children were victimized was conducted by HOGAN or the DIOCESE of ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN; (iv) Police authorities were not informed of Father Bunn's criminal actions by either HOGAN or ADAMEC; (v) Bunn continued to be assigned to various parishes within the DIOCESE with unrestricted access to children, despiteo the receipt of additional complaints of his pedophilic activities; (vi) No wamings were provided by either HOGAN or ADAMEC to parishioners of Father Bunn’ potential danger to parish children or school children; and (vii) It was not until May, 2002, after the child abuse crisis within Dioceses across the country received massive media attention, that Father Bunn was purportedly restricted by ADAMEC and limited in his ministerial duties. Father John Boyle (i) Monsignor Thomas Madden, the Vicar General of the DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, the second highest position of authority within the DIOCESE, became aware that Father Boyle sexually victimized children no later than 1958 or 19595 (i) Various complaints were received by DIOCESE DEFENDANTS dealing with Father Boyle’s sexual molestation of children; (ii) Following the receipt of notice of his criminal acts with children, no investigation was conducted by DIOCESE DEFENDANTS to determine the number of children he sexually abused or the history of Father Boyle’s abuse of children; (iv) DIOCESE DEFENDANTS failed to inform police authorities of their knowledge of Father Boyle’s criminal actions; (¥) No wamings were given to parishioners regarding Father Boyle's abusive actions; (vi) Father Boyle was transferred by DIOCESE DEFENDANTS to anew parish where more children were placed in harm's way; i) No restrictions were placed by DIOCESE Defendants on Father Boyle’s access to children which resulted in more children being brutally raped; and (viii) Father Boyle was permitted by HOGAN and ADAMEC: e (@) ) to remain a priest of the DIOCESE. Father Martin McCamley @ (i) ii) (iv) @) (vi) In approximately 1981 or 1982 HOGAN received written notification that Father Martin McCamley had repeatedly sexually abused a minor; HOGAN thereafter met with the older brother of one of the abused boys and was informed of the details involving the sexual relationship with the victim; HOGAN was also informed during the course of the meeting that Father McCamley had taken children from Camp Cathedral to see pomographic movies ata drive-in theatre and that the complaining individual had been one of the boys who participated in these activities; HOGAN permitted Father McCamley to continue with his priestly duties despite notice of his involvement in these illegal actions; Police authorities were not informed of this illegal conduct, nor were parishioners; and Despite receipt of notice regarding McCamlley’s abuse and corruption of the morals of children, HOGAN and thereafter ADAMEC has continued to permit McCamley to serve and/or dress as a priest in the Diocese of Altoona- Johnstown. Father Joseph Bender @ @ Gi) HOGAN and ADAMEC received written and oral complaints about Father Joseph Bender's sexual abuse of children; Despite notice of his illegal conduct, he was transferred from parish to parish resulting in more children being abused; Father Bender admitted to ADAMEC his past sexual contact with children;(iv) Despite this admission, the police were not informed of this illegal activity; (vy) ADAMEC eventually sent Bender for psychiatric evaluation; Parishioners were not informed that Father Bender presented a serious danger tochildren; and (vii) Bender continued to serve as a priest until he voluntarily “retired” on 3/19/92. (©) Monsignor Harold Biller (® — 1n 1994, Father Luddy testified in a public trial under oath in the presence of Bishop Hogan and other Diocesan officials that while he was a pastor at St. Mary's parish, he took a boy to Monsignor Harold Biller for help with an anxiety problem; (ii) After the private counseling session with Biller the boy complained to Father Luddy that Monsignor Biller kept trying to grab his crotch; (ii) After the boy complained, Father Luddy testified he called Biller to complain; (iv) Monsignor Harold Biller continues to serve as pastor of his own parish within the DIOCESE. 26. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were aware that these offending clerics, and others, gained access to children as a direct result of their status, positions and responsibilities as clerics of the DIOCESE. 27. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS knew from experience that these predator priests, despite promises and assurances to the contrary, would inevitably continue to engage in illegal acts with children, 28. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS had knowledge of the sexual abuse ofminors by their servants and the resultant dire effects of this abuse on the child victims. E, FRAUD AND CONCEALMENT 29. In furtherance of their own interests, including the continued financial support of parishioners, the primary concern of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS has been the protection of the reputation of its priests, including Father Joseph Strittmatter. 30. | DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS have systematically concealed the danger that predator clerics presented by misrepresenting them as priests in good standing in at least the following ways: (@ Enabling their continued unrestricted access to minors; () Assigning them and/or allowing them to reside and serve at parishes within the DIOCESE; () Allowing them free and unrestricted use of premises of the DIOCESE for otherwise unchaperoned activities with minors; (® Assigning them to duties specifically involving minors; (©) Announcing to the public, or allowing offending clerics to give the public less disagreeable or less serious reasons for leaving an assignment or position other than sexual misconduct with children; (Q Promoting offending clerics within the church hierarchy; (@ Privately assuring concerned parents that the offending clerics’ problems would be “taken care of” ; (b) Providing and/or subsidizing education, maintenance and/or living arrangements for offending clerics after removal from their assignments, or upon their suspension; (@ Continuously listing offending clerics in official directories and/or publications by euphemisms such as “absent on leave”, “on duty outside diocese”, “advanced studies”, “on special assignment”, or“cetired” after removal or transfer from their assignments or suspension for sexual misconduct with children; () Transferring abusive priests to “restricted” ministerial positions ‘without notifying parishioners of the perpetrator’s abusive history, which created new environments for the abuse of children; and (&) Allowing offending clerics to honorably “retire”. 31. The effect of these practices by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS was such to create the misperception in the mind of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's family that the Plaintiff was safe with priests in general and with Father Joseph Strittmatter in particular, and that, if there was a conduct about which Plaintiff or Plaintiff's family might be concemed, it was an isolated instance of spurious conduct, when in fact the Plaintiff was the victim of a known and preventable hazard that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS bad created and/or allowed to continue. 32, Asa further effect, these practices by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. implicitly and explicitly represented to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family that they could appropriately rely upon the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS to act to protect both their interests and the interests of potential future victims or other children in disciplining the offending cleric, including Father Joseph Strittmatter for clear misconduct, relying upon the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ representations that any priest serving within the DIOCESE was a priest in good standing and that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS would always exercise a fiduciary duty toward them. 33. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS responded, if at al, to incidents or complaints of sexual abuse of minors by priests by “counseling” the perpetrator and transferring him geographically, with the intention of protecting the reputation or image of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS and their priests. 34. On discovery of an offending cleric’s misconduct, DIOCESANDEFENDANTS systematically concealed said knowledge, failed to report the misconduct to authorities, and prevailed upon others not to report said misconduct to law enforcement officials. These acts occurred despite ADAMEC’S public admission that the Diocese has a moral obligation if not a legal one to report knowledge of cases of molestation of minors to proper authorities, civil and ecclesiastical. (See ADAMEC’S letter to the Editor, dated June 16, 2002, identified as Exhibit “B”, copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein). 35. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS aided and abetted the concealment of criminal conduct, by failing and refusing to report to criminal or civil authorities allegations that came to their attention, of sexual abuse of children by priests of the DIOCESE. 36. When confronted, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS falsely assured parishioners, law enforcement, state or court officials and/or others, expressly and/or impliedly, that they would responsibly deal with offending clerics; falsely promising reviews/investigations and falsely promising to take preventive measures against further harm. 37. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS ignored and/or failed to properly investigate complaints against priests involving sexual abuse of children. 38. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS suppressed from parishioners and law enforcement authorities instances where priests admitted or acknowledged sexual abuse of children. 39. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS failed to maintain records dealing with offenders and complaints against them; intentionally covered up and kept complaints secret, including the suppression and/or spoilation of evidence regarding the sexual molestation of children by its priests. (See, inter alia, deposition of ADAMEC, dated 1/7194, pg. 239-240, copy of which is marked Exhibit “C”, attached hereto and by this- e reference incorporated herein) 40. | DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS engaged in sealing records of civil litigation and civil settlements, and in removal of materials from court files which identified offending clerics and reflected tortious conduct on the part of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. 41, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS transferred and/or reassigned offending clerics to new parishes thereby exposing a new population of children to unreasonable risk of injury. This includes but is not limited to the transfers of Fathers Coleman, Gaborek, Kovach, Luddy, McCaa, Bunn, Bender, Boyle, McCamley and Gratten by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS following the receipt of allegations of sexual abuse of minors by these priests. 42. Despite knowledge of prior misconduct and/or after secretly securing evaluation/treatment of the offending cleric at church operated or affiliated treatment facilities (while misrepresenting the true reason for his absence to parishioners), DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS allowed the offending cleric to return to various assignments, temporary as well as permanent, where mote children were exposed to abuse. 43. Despite knowledge of prior misconduct, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS conferred further privilege, prestige and power to these abusive clerics by way of promotion to new parishes as pastors. This includes but is not limited to the promotions to pastor of Gaborek, Kelly and Luddy by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, following the receipt of allegations of sexual abuse of minors by these priests. 44, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS maintained offending clerics at parishes or in other assignments, with the benefit of priestly authority; and falsely held out the cleric as a safe, competent and moral priest, fit and/or suitable to serve and/or administer to parishioners with whom he would reasonably come into contact in the course and scopeof his employment, thereby allowing priests to deceive parents into believing a child molester, disguised in priestly garb, was no different than any other priest. This includes but is not limited to Monsignor McCaa, Father Luddy, Father Kovach, Father Gratten, Father Kelly, Father Coleman, Father Bunn, Father Bender, Father Boyle, Father Inman, Father Carroll, Father Gaborek, Father McCamley, and Father Skupien. 45, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS maintained secret files regarding abusive priests. 46. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS did not attempt to ascertain if there were other victims of a particular offending priest once they received information that he had in fact sexually abused a child. 47. Atal times material herein, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS have exhibited an ongoing systematic pattern of conduct involving secrecy and concealment of their knowledge of the sexual involvement by DIOCESE priests with minors. 48. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS have employed a closed secret system of intemal reporting of sexual misconduct by their servants, including the use of “code words” or nonspecific language, thereby limiting knowledge to themselves, and subsequently to their own affiliated psychiatric and treatment facilities. 49. For decades and continuing through the present, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, including the perpetrator priests have engaged in a covert policy and practice to conceal the problem of sexual abuse of children by parish clergy. The National Conference of Bishops, of which the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were and are members, acknowledged that the problem of pedophilia by Catholic priests went back for decades. On June 13, 2002, Bishop Wilton B. Gregory, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated in his address: “we are the ones, whether through ignorance or lack of vigilance, or — God forbid ~ with knowledge, who allowed priest abusers to remain in ministry and reassign them to communities where they continued toabuse, We are the ones who chose not to report the criminal actions of priests to the authorities, because the law did not require this. We are the ones who worried more about the possibility of scandal than in bringing about the kind of openness that helps prevent abuse. And we are the ones who, at times, responded to victims and their families as adversaries and not as suffering members of the church.” 50. The aforesaid statement attributed to Bishop Gregory appeared in the media, both in print and on television, and was heard/seen by victims of priest sexual abuse around the world, including the Plaintiff. 51. Information as to the known criminal conduct of DIOCESE priests was ‘kept secret and confidential in secret archive files within the exclusive control of HOGAN and thereafter ADAMEC, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from having any knowledge that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS had prior notice of the abusive propensities of many diocesan priests, including Father Strittmatter. 52. The fraudulent concealment of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS of known predator priests including Father Joseph Strittmatter, from the public in general and the Plaintiff in particular, has continued to the present, as exemplified by statements made by HOGAN and ADAMEC and various officials acting on behalf of DIOCESE, to the media, that appeared in various publications directed to both the public in general and to Catholics in the DIOCESE in particular, including the Plaintiff, 53. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS have issued misleading public statements, including editorials, press releases and articles identified as being from ADAMEC published in the DIOCESE owned and operated newspaper, The Catholic Register, denying any culpability on their part, and attacking those victims of child abuse who filed claims against other predatory priests, including Father Luddy in Blair and Somerset Counties. See copies of articles and editorials marked Exhibit “D”, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, including: (®) — AMay 2, 1994 editorial by ADAMEC reiteratingthat “from the commencement 6f this lawsuit [Hutchison vy Luddy, et al] all of the defendants denied Mr. Hutchison’s claims as being baseless and without merit. Given the testimony presented in this case during these past three months, Tam not pleased with the jury's verdict... . The sexual abuse of children is immoral and completely unacceptable behavior. This Diocesan Church of Altoona-Johnstown has never tolerated, condoned or ignored such behavior by anyone.”; () Asof December 14, 1999, ADAMEC continued to publicly deny any diocesan responsibility with respect to the public trial against Father Luddy and the DIOCESE; (©) On September 9, 2002, in another editorial ADAMEC continued to deny the culpability of the DIOCESE. 54, Ina press release issued February 13, 2003, ADAMEC once again denied any culpability on the part of the DIOCESE. Said press release was reported in several newspapers circulated within the geographical boundaries of the DIOCESE. A copy of ADAMEC’S press release is marked Exhibit “E”, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 55, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS falsely denied under oath, allegations in legal pleadings filed against other predatory priests in Blair and Somerset Counties, wherein DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were alleged inter alia, to have engaged in a policy and practice of concealing priests known to be child molesters, when they knew that their denials were false. See Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in Hiutchison_v Luddy et al, No. 1175 CP., 1987, verified by Monsignor Roy F. Kline, Bishop James Hogan and Bishop Joseph V. Adamec. 56. HOGAN falsely testified under oath in a deposition taken by his legal counsel to preserve his testimony on September 22, 1988, in the Hutchison v Luddy case,No. 1175 CP., 1987 (Blair County) when he denied ever receiving any complaints of pedophilia by any priest in the DIOCESE prior to claims brought against Father Francis Luddy in 1987, when in fact he had in his possession and/or control handwritten memos, correspondence and medical records detailing the sexual abuse of children by various other DIOCESE priests. (See relevant Trial Testimony of HOGAN, dated 3/7/94, copies of which are marked Exhibit “F”, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein). 57. Discovery responses filed on behalf of HOGAN and the DIOCESE and verified by ADAMEC and HOGAN in the case of another predatory priest in Hutchison v Luddy et al, No. 1175 CP., 1987, Blair County, were incomplete, incorrect and misleading and designed to conceal the full scope of DIOCESEAN DEFENDANTS’ culpability from the parties to the litigation, the Court and the general public, including the Plaintiff 58. ADAMEC failed to comply with the Court Order of the Honorable Hiram ‘A. Carpenter, II, directing that the records placed in the secret archive of the DIOCESE, pertaining to pedophile priests for a defined time period, be provided to the court for in camera review, in a further effort to conceal from the Plaintiff victim in the suit, and the general public including this Plaintiff, the culpability of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. (See relevant portion of Opinion of the Honorable Hiram A. Carpenter, IM, dated 3/14/95, denying Post Trial Motions, in Hutchison v Luddy, et al, copy of which is marked Exhibit “G”, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein). 59. The active involvement of HOGAN, ADAMEC and others acting on behalf of the DIOCESE in creating a safe and protected environment for known predator priests, including Father Strittmatter, was not discovered by the Plaintiff until various stories began appearing in the media in early 2002. The DIOCESE through ADAMEC, for the first time in articles published in mid March, 2002, and again on April 1, 2002, publicly acknowledged that “he'd dealt with three situations early in his 15 year tenure involving priests and improper contact with minors.” Additionally, ADAMEC publiclye> admitted in an article published on June 18, 2002, that in the months leading up to the June, 2002, bishops’ meeting in Dallas, two to three additional unnamed priests had been removed by him. 60. Prior to the disclosures that began in mid March, 2002, the Plaintiff neither knew nor had reason to know that she had a cause of action against the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS for causing tortious injury to her due to DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS concealment of their knowledge of Father Strittmatter’s actions toward other minor parishioners, and their vehement public denials of any truth to the allegations contained in related legal actions alleging that HOGAN and the DIOCESE had a plan and/or policy to ignore complaints made against its predator priests, and to conceal such criminal conduct. This scheme effectively convinced the public and the Plaintiff that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were not hiding any information and that they had no knowledge of other predatory priests. 61. The injuries that the Plaintiff sustained as a result of the actions of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS could not have been discovered by her earlier due to the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ fraudulent concealment of their active involvement in protecting priests known to them to be child molesters. E_ STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 62. The Plaintiff pleads delayed discovery of her claims against DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS and delayed discovery of the injuries caused by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, thus tolling and/or suspending the Statute of Limitations against all Defendants as to all claims. 63. The Plaintiff pleads misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent concealment thereof on the part of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, thus tolling and/or suspending the running of the Statute of Limitations against all Defendants as to all claims.ee 64. The Plaintiff pleads fraudulent concealment of essential facts under the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ exclusive control, giving rise to Plaintiff's cause of action against DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, which facts were not knowable to the Plaintiff, thus tolling and/or suspending the running of the Statute of Limitations against all Defendants as to all claims. 65. The Plaintiff pleads breach of fiduciary duty, including but not limited to the duty to disclose, against DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, thus tolling and/or suspending the running of the Statute of Limitations against all Defendants as to all claims. 66. The Plaintiff pleads conspiracy to commit negligent acts, to conceal negligence, to commit fraud and to fraudulently conceal the acts and the existence of a fraud and conspiracy, thus tolling and/or suspending the running of the Statute of Limitations against DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS as to all claims. 67. The Plaintiff alleges that the actions of DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS because of their conduct, statements, promises and misrepresentations, preclude them from claiming the bar of the Statute of Limitations to any of the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff thus pleads the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 68. While the Plaintiff knew at the time of the sexual assaults that she had suffered an “injury” at the hands of Father Joseph Strittmatter, she was at all times material herein, unaware until at the earliest, March, 2002, that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS? continued concealment, misconduct and failure to act on information regarding the misconduct of Father Strittmatter and numerous other DIOCESE priests, aided, enabled, encouraged and resulted in causing injuries to the Plaintiff, thus tolling and/or suspending the running of the statute of limitations against DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS as to all claims 69. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS by use of fraudulent concealment, duress and coercion prior to, during and after the termination of the sexual abuse of the Plaintiff,prevented the Plaintiff from asserting her claims against the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. and are therefore estopped from benefiting from their illegal conduct through assertion of the statute of limitations. 70. By virtue of the above pattern of conduct and practices, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS deliberately interfered with the ability of the victims, including the Plaintiff, to identify the cause of their injuries; concealed from the Plaintiff her claim against the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS; misrepresented to the Plaintiff or otherwise by fraud concealed or withheld facts which they had a duty to disclose constituting the basis of such claims, and otherwise through practices of intimidation, duress and deception delayed the Plaintiff from bringing this action. 71. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS should, for the reasons stated hereinabove, be estopped from asserting any defense that the Plaintiff's action is not timely under Pennsylvania law because DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, individually and in concert along with others, fraudulently concealed their involvement in the wrongful conduct of Father Strittmatter and the causal relationship of the harm suffered by the Plaintiff. G. DAMAGES 72. Asa direct and proximate result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS” negligent and/or intentional conduct as described herein, the Plaintiff sustained both physical and emotional injuries, as follows: (@ Humiliation, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, guilt, shame and loss of enjoyment of life; () Extensive and permanent damage to her sexual and psychological development; (©) A lloss of faith and a mistrust of the hierarchy of the Catholic Chureh; (® Shock to the system and emotional distress on learning that she had been betrayed by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS> © © ) ® (a) that claimed they had been looking out for the Plaintiff's best interest; Shook to the system and emotional distress on learning that DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS had not only failed to protect her, but had actually placed her in harm’s way by allowing a known pedophile to act as her teacher and/or priest/minister; Ageravation and/or exacerbation of the pre-existing mental anguish and trauma experienced at the hands of her abuser, on learning of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ role in, protecting its predator priests at the expense of the plaintiff child’s interests; A loss of earnings and earning capacity during those periods she was unable to work due to her traumatization and may in the future be unable to work; and Severe mental anguish and trauma, necessitating psychiatric and medical care and treatment in the past, present and/or in the future. COUNT ONE STATUTORY VIOLATION, NEGLIGENCE PER SE 73. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 74. Atal times material the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS and their priests, agents and/or employees, in the course of their practice and profession, regularly came into contact with children as a result of their supervision and control over all diocesan schools and parishes. As such, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were at all times ® relevant herein, legally obligated under the “The Child Protective Services Law” to report - suspected child abuse to the Department of Public Welfare or county child protective@ service agencies. See 11 P.S. 2201 et seq (repealed); 23 PaCS. § 6301 et seq. 75. Atno time did the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS ever report to authorities any allegation of child sexual abuse by a priest, including allegations believed to have been received by DIOCESE DEFENDANTS regarding Father Joseph Strittmatter. 76. ADAMEC has publicly admitted that there is a moral obligation if not a legal one, to report knowledge of cases of molestation of minors to the proper authorities, civil and ecclesiastical. (See Exhibit “B”). 77. Asa direct and proximate result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ failure to report to authorities allegations of sexual abuse by Father Joseph Strittmatter and other DIOCESE priests, the Plaintiff was victimized by Father Joseph Strittmatter and sustained the injuries and damages enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against the DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. ‘A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT TWO COMMON LAW DUTY OF REASONABLE CARE 78. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein, by this reference thereto. 79. ADAMEC and HOGAN were obligated as leaders and supervisors of the DIOCESE and its schools and parishes, to take reasonable care to investigate, to supervise, or to warn minor parishioners and/or their families of the risk of harmoccasioned by their interaction with Father Strittmatter and/or other DIOCESE priests which they knew or should have known were sexually abusing minors. 80. | DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS failed to give primary assistance to victims. 81. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS through their agents and representatives, held themselves out as having control over Father Joseph Strittmatter and all DIOCESE, priests, and having the ability to protect minors from inappropriate contact and/or child sexual abuse at the hands of DIOCESE priests. 82. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS engaged in a pattem of inaction or silence, when they had an obligation to speak. 83. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS breached their duty of reasonable care as, hereinabove alleged, inter alia, as follows: (@) Ignoring reports of sexual abuse of minors by their priests; (b) _ Reassigning offending priests to new assignments within or outside the DIOCESE; (©) Failing to report offending priests to law enforcement and/or the Department of Public Welfare and/or Children & Youth Services; (@ Failing to warn new parishes and parishioners including the Plaintiff of the danger posed by sexually abusive priests; (©) Failing to remove or suspend offending clerics inchading Father Strittmatter from their duties as priests, or to otherwise act to stop them from pursuing sexual assaults on children including the Plaintiff, despite receiving complaints and reliable information that the priests were engaged in illegal and improper activities with children. 84. Asa direct and proximate result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS?failure to exercise reasonable the care, the Plaintiff was victimized by Father Strittmatter and sustained the injuries and damages enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against the DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. ‘A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT THREE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. 85, Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 86. HOGAN and the DIOCESE were entrusted with the well being, care and safety of the Plaintiff as a result of her status as a parishioner at a DIOCESE parish. Under their fiduciary relationship, HOGAN and the DIOCESE assumed a duty to act in the best interest of the Plaintiff. 87. HOGAN and the DIOCESE placed the Plaintiff in the care of Father Joseph Strittmatter, for the purpose of, inter alia, providing the Plaintiff with religious instruction, training, spiritual guidance and counseling. As such, their existed a fiduciary relationship of trust, confidence, and reliance between the Plaintiff and HOGAN and the DIOCESE. 88. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were in a specialized or superior position to receive, and did receive specific information regarding misconduct by their servants/priests, that was of critical importance to the well being or care or treatment of innocent child victims, including the Plaintiff — knowledge not otherwise readilyavailable. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS exercised their special or superior position to assume control of said knowledge and any response thereto, 89. The Plaintiff on the other hand was in a subordinate position of weakness, vulnerability, inequality and lacking in such knowledge. Further, the ability of the Plaintiff or her family to monitor the use or misuse of the power and authority of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS in acting upon or responding to such knowledge was compromised, inhibited or restricted by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. 90. ‘The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS had a secular fiduciary relationship with the Plaintiff grounded upon the duty of good faith, fair dealing and the duty to act with the highest degree of trust and confidence. This fiduciary relationship includes the duty to wam and to disclose and to protect parish and/or DIOCESE children from sexual abuse and exploitation by their priests, whom these Defendants promoted as being “celibate” and “chaste” representatives of God on earth. 91. The Plaintiff and her family had the right to rely and did rely on the representations of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS that their priests, including Father Joseph Strittmatter, were priests in “good standing” and that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS would not tolerate criminal misconduct that represented a known threat to children by their priests. 92. Ibis alleged that the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS breached this duty through their inaction, manipulation, intimidation, evasion, intended deception, undue influence, duress or otherwise as more fully described and set forth herein, resulting in injury to the welfare and well being of the Plaintiff. 93. Asa direct result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ breach of their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff, she suffered injuries and damages as enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks‘ compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT FOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT 94, Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this referenced thereto. 95. | HOGAN and the DIOCESE, and their DIOCESE clergy acted in the capacity of “in loco parentis” to the Plaintiff at all times that the Plaintiff performed services, worked in the rectory, engaged in parish sponsored recreation programs and/or other parish and diocesan sponsored programs. 96. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS by virtue of their position and authority over parishes, parish schools and secondary schools, had an obligation to provide a reasonably safe and secure environment within their parish churches, clergy residences and/or schools for the minor Plaintiff. 97. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS failed to provide such an environment and failed to exercise the degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under similar circumstances. 98. By sanctioning and encouraging the entrustment of Plaintiff's physical, mental and emotional safety to Father Joseph Strittmatter, HOGAN and the DIOCESE actually and/or impliedly accepted, assumed and ratified the duty “in loco parentis” to protect the Plaintiff, as she was unable to protect herself.c 99. | HOGAN and the DIOCESE breached their duty of “in loco parentis”. 100. Asa direct result of the breach of HOGAN and the DIOCESE’S duty, the Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against the DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT FIVE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION and RETENTION 101. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 102. As set forth hereinabove, the Plaintiff was molested by Father Joseph Strittmatter on property owned and controlled by the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. 103. As set forth hereinabove, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were or should have been on notice of Father Strittmatter’s pedophilic behavior and sexually abusive behavior towards minor parishioners. 104, As set forth hereinabove, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were responsible for maintaining control over and/or overseeing its assignment of Father Strittmatter at DIOCESE owned and operated parishes and schools. 105. Despite the knowledge of HOGAN and the DIOCESE that Father Strittmatter had a propensity to sexually molest children, they failed to exercise reasonable care in controlling Father Strittmatter so as to prevent foreseeable injuries tothe Plaintiff. 106. HOGAN and the DIOCESE, by their actions, undertook a course of conduct that increased the risk that Father Strittmatter would abuse the Plaintiff and/or other minor parishioners/students. 107. HOGAN and the DIOCESES failure to properly supervise its agent, Father Strittmatter, andlor to terminate him resulted in injuries to the Plaintiff as more fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT SIX PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT 108. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 109. As set forth hereinabove, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS acted in concert with Father Strittmatter and others within the Church hierarchy in a plan to conceal the propensity of Father Strittmatter and other priests to abuse minor parishioners. 110. Atal times material, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS knew or should ‘have known that Father Strittmatter’s conduct constituted a breach of duty and was harmful, yet the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS assisted and encouraged Father Strittmatter to maintain his activities as a priest including working directly with children, byassigning him to serve at parishes, and encouraging him to conceal his pedophilic propensities. Lil. Said actions by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS in assisting and encouraging a known pedophile to continue working with and maintaining unlimited access to minor parishioners/students, was a substantial factor in assisting Father Strittmatter to commit acts of sexual abuse on minors, including the Plaintiff. 112. The DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS? actions in assisting and encouraging Father Strittmatter to deceive parishioners into believing that he was a priest in good standing with the DIOCESE, rather than the recidivist pedophile they knew or should have known Father Strittmatter to be, was a substantial factor in causing the PlaintifP's harm, 113, Asa result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ actions, the Plaintiff sustained injuries as enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT SEVEN SUPPLYING FALSE INFORMATION/NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 114, Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein, by this reference thereto. 115. _ As set forth hereinabove, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS in the course oftheir activities in running the DIOCESE parishes and schools, supplied false information designed to deceive parishioners and families who were members of DIOCESE parishes and schools, including the Plaintiff, by holding out Father Strittmatter and other @> DIOCESE priests about whom they had knowledge of allegations of sexual abuse, as safe, competent priests, fit and/or suitable to serve and/or minister to parishioners and students with whom they would reasonably come into contact in the course and scope of their employment. 116. As a result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS false and deceptive information, the Plaintiff and/or her family justifiably relied upon HOGAN and the DIOCESE’S representations with respect to Father Strittmatter in continuing his association with DIOCESAN parishes to their detriment, thereby being placed at risk to be molested by Father Strittmatter. 117. The negligent representations of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were a e substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's injuries, which injuries are enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. ‘A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT EIGHT FAILURE TO PROTECT AGAINST FORESEEABLE RISKS, 118. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. e 119. _ As set forth hereinabove, the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS were on noticethat the presence of Father Strittmatter in a DIOCESE parish was a foreseeable risk of harm to all minor parishioners/students with whom Father Strittmatter would come into contact. 120. The very foreseeability of another such molestation of minor parishioners/students by Father Strittmatter, make the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS” failure to act to protect against the risk, negligent. 121, The negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE in failing to protect the Plaintiff against the foreseeable risk of molestation at the hands of Father Strittmatter was a substantial factor in causing her harm. 122, As aresult of the negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE, the Plaintiff suffered injuries as enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT NINE DUTY TO WARN OF UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM 123, Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this referenced thereto. 124, Atall times material herein, Father Strittmatter was within the control of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS and acting as their agent or employee. 125, Ataall times material herein, the Plaintiff believed that Father Strittmatter@ was a priest in good standing within the DIOCESE. 126. Atall times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE knew or should have known that Father Strittmatter had a propensity for molesting minor parishioners, and that his position as a parish priest would create a situation where Father Strittmatter’s sexual propensities would harm other minor parishioners, including the Plaintiff. 127, Despite its knowledge of the unreasonable risk of harm to minor DIOCESE parishioners, HOGAN and the DIOCESE failed to warn the Plaintiff or her family of Father Strittmatter’s propensities. 128. In addition to failing to warn, as hereinabove alleged, HOGAN and the DIOCESE went to great lengths to protect Father Strittmatter and conceal his known pedophilic behavior from parishioners resulting in a foreseeable risk of harm. 129. This failure to warn and/or concealment of a known danger by HOGAN and the DIOCESE was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm. 130. Due to the negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE, in their failure to warn the Plaintiff and/or others similarly situated, the Plaintiff sustained the injuries enumerated herein. ‘WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. ‘A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT TEN NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OR USE OF IMPROPER PERSONS AS AGENTS~ 131. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 132, Atall times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE were conducting activities in furtherance of its organization, including control and operation of St. John the Baptist parish, through its agents, including Father Strittmatter. 133, tall times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE knew or should have known of Father Strittmatter’s propensity to molest minor parishioners, thereby involving a risk of harm to its minor parishioners and visitors at St. John the Baptist Church, yet retained him in said position. 134, Atall times material herein, despite the knowledge of HOGAN and the DIOCESE with respect to the propensities of Father Strittmatter, they failed to supervise Father Strittmatter or prevent him from tortiously injuring the Plaintiff. 135. HOGAN and the DIOCESE’S negligence in the use and employment of Father Strittmatter, an improper person to place in control of activities involving minors, was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff's harm. 136. Due to the negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE, the Plaintiff sustained injuries as enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. ‘A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT ELEVEN USE OF INCOMPETENT PERSONSe 137. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto. 138. Atall times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE knew that Father Strittmatter was likely to conduct himself with children in such manner so to create an unreasonable risk of harm to them. 139. Atall times material herein, HOGAN and the DIOCESE had the ability to control Father Strittmatter to the extent they were responsible for his parish assignments and/or his access to parish children. 140. Despite the knowledge of HOGAN and the DIOCESE of Father Strittmatter’s dangerous propensities with children, they permitted Father Strittmatter to ‘misuse his position as a priest so as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to minor parishioners, including the Plaintiff. 141. As a result of the negligence of HOGAN and the DIOCESE, the Plaintiff sustained injuries enumerated herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT TWELVE FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 142. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this reference thereto.( 143. The above actions and omissions of ADAMEC and HOGAN and the leadership of the DIOCESE, as hereinabove alleged, resulted in the systematic suppression and distortion of facts concerning the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ true knowledge and notice of the problem of sexually abusive priests in the DIOCESE. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS’ concerted efforts to cover up, suppress and distort what they knew, (continuously up to the present), effectively concealed the existence of their own negligent behavior from the Plaintiff. 144. The result of the covert practice of concealing the problem of sexual abuse ‘was that the Plaintiff and others similarly situated but presently unknown, were deprived of the knowledge of the essential factual elements which would have formed the basis of their rights to legal redress against the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS. 145, DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS sought by virtue of their fraudulent concealment of their knowledge of this sex abuse problem, to obtain economic advantage cover persons sexually abused by DIOCESE priests, causing such persons, including the Plaintiff, not to discover the fraudulent concealment. 146. The suppression of the identity of the numerous sexual offenders by DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS was purposely and fraudulently done to prevent the filing of both criminal and civil complaints against their sexually abusive priests. 147. DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS obstructed the prosecution of the Plaintiff's cause of action against them by continually concealing the fact that they had knowledge of Father Strittmatter’s predilections before the time the Plaintiff was abused. 148. As a direct and proximate result of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS” intentional conduct, in concealing, suppressing and distorting its knowledge of the sexually abusive conduct of some of its priests, including Father Strittmatter, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages enumerated herein.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, (collectively referred to as DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS), in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT THIRTEEN INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO SUPERVISE 149. Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein by this referenced thereto. 150. Prior to the dates of sexual molestation perpetrated by Father Strittmatter upon the Plaintiff, and thereafter, Father Strittmatter had been known or should have been known to HOGAN and the DIOCESE to have been a pedophile or other sexual offender, with the habit of making sexual advances and engaging in unnatural sexual acts with children, under the pretext of his duties as a DIOCESE priest, and utilizing his position as a priest to overcome such childrens” reluctance and fears. 151. After learning through complaints from other priests and/or others, that Father Strittmatter was capable of utilizing his position as a priest to lure and persuade children to commit sexual acts with him, HOGAN and the DIOCESE deliberately assigned Father Strittmatter to positions where he would have further access to children, including the Plaintiff, who had no awareness of his improper sexual interests; thereafter, they failed to remove or suspend Father Strittmatter from his duties as a priest, or otherwise act to stop him from pursuing his sexual assaults on children, including the Plaintiff. 152. The actions of HOGAN and the DIOCESE as alleged in the precedingParagraphs constituted intentional misconduct with the harm which befell the Plaintiff as a directly foreseeable consequence. 153, As a direct result of said tortious conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered the injuries and damages described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT FOURTEEN INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO WARN 154, Paragraphs One (1) through Seventy Two (72) are incorporated herein, by this reference thereto. 155, HOGAN and the DIOCESE owed a duty of care to all persons, including the Plaintiff, who was likely to come within the influence of Father Strittmatter in his role of DIOCESE priest, to insure that Father Strittmatter did not abuse his authority as a priest to injure others by sexual assault and abuse. 156. HOGAN and the DIOCESE intentionally breached their duty of care, and intentionally disregarded the rights and safety of the Plaintiff, by failing to warn or otherwise protect the Plaintiff from Father Strittmatter, who was acting under their supervision, and whom they knew or should have known was likely to sexually assault, and abuse persons such as the Plaintiff in the manner described herein, and by failing to insure that priest would not have unsupervised access to people such as the Plaintiff. 157. Asa direct and proximate result, the Plaintiff has suffered and willcontinue to suffer the injuries described herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks compensatory damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-IOHNSTOWN, and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. COUNT FIFTEEN PUNITIVE DAMAGES 158. Each of the preceding Paragraphs are incorporated herein by this, referenced thereto. 159, ADAMEC, HOGAN and the DIOCESE through their agents and/or employees were on actual notice of the various allegations and complaints concerning immoral and illegal sexual misconduct committed by a significant number of DIOCESE priests, and deliberately decided to take no affirmative action to protect children in harm’s way. 160. The acts and omissions of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS as pled hereinabove, represent conduct which was intentional, willful, outrageous, reckless and deliberately indifferent to the health, safety and welfare of minor parishioners of the DIOCESE in general, and the Plaintiff in particular. 161. As aproximate and direct result of the aforesaid outrageous conduct of the DIOCESAN DEFENDANTS, the Plaintiff sustained the injuries as more fully described above, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THERESE ROLAND MCINTYRE, seeks~ compensatory and punitive damages against DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits requiring arbitration, plus interest as allowed by law and costs. A Jury Trial is hereby demanded. SB KOVACS & NYPAVER, LLP a ‘Attorney for Piaintifis Supreme Court ID #19957NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: DIOCESE OF ALTOONA-JOHNSTOWN, BISHOP JOSEPH V. ADAMEC and BISHOP JAMES HOGAN YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF, OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. SERBIN, KOVACS & NYPAVER, LLLP. “Atthmey for Plaintiff ‘Supreme Court ID #19957 AJURY TRIAL IS HEREBY DEMANDED. SERBIN, KOVACS & NYPAVER, L-LP. Altomey for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID #19957NINSPIRATIONAL AND PRACTICAL THOUGHTS" This year, with the early arrival of Easter, we are now ver rapidly moving ‘through the Ordinary Sundays of the year in anticipation of our comments. ration of tHe Holy Season of Lent. The readings’have some very thought provoking lessons whith I find very practical in relation to our parish Jife and comittment. In the second reading today, Saint Paul states: "The body is one and has many members, but all the membels, many as they are, are one body." He is speakitig about the Holy Spirit as being the source’ of unity in the Church. | like to take that same thought in relation to the church|universal, bring it down and apply it to the very life ahd existence of the individual garish itself. For nine years now I have used the phrase "parish family" with the prayerful hope that each and every person of our parish will feel that he or she has a special rble in that family life. St. Paul goed on to say, "even those members of the body whict seem’ less important are in fact indispensable." In other words, every single « person in this parish is 2 living member of the body of the parish and has a vital role to play in ve and health of our total parish family life. I am so grateful for the very supportive {response and concern of so many of our fine parishioners, and pray that soon all membefs will come to tealize and appreciate the vital role they can share in both the spiritukl and physical welfare of our total parish family. 'SINCERE| THANKS" - | would like to express sincere appreciation to Father Grimme.and the membérs of our parish Pro Life Group who tepresented us at the Annual March for. Life in Washington last Wednesday. God blessed the event with-bedutiful weather, and wevall peay that their efforts will bear iruit in the restoration of the dignity of human life. .., WXOUR PRAYERS PLEASE" - For some time now Father Coleman has been struggling with a neqvaus problem afd we have finally been able to arrange for him to receive some excellent professional assistance. The opportunity for this help was quite sudden oo and for that reason he leit immediately. May I ask your prayers for his recovery and also your brayers of gratitude for his service here at St. Benedict's. As has been traditional here at St. Benedict's upon the departure of @ priest, we shall attach a special envelope to the bulletin next Sunday giving you an opportunity to acknowledge =. ‘our appreciation for his prlestly service. "BISHOP McCORT HIGH SCHOOL INFORMATION" - Parents of students attending or planning tb attend Bishop McCort High School next year, and who wish te tequest a 4 tuition reduction are reminded that Student Aid Forms for this purpose must be obtaine at the main office of the high school, filled out.and filed before March Ist. That is the establishel deadline for all financial assistance consideration so if you are planning to apply, pleAse -arrange to do it as soon as possible. “ST. VINGENT DE PAUL SUNDAY" - Today has been designated as SVDP Sunday here in our Barjsh. Special envelopes were attached to the bulletin last week to enable you id to assist dur parish chapter in this very important work‘of aiding the needy of our parish and community. Any assistance you can give will be deeply appreciated. "PARENTS - PLEASE HELP" - We have provided what I consider to be the finest Nursery Room of all the parish churches I have visited. It is large, comfortable, wel aH @ 256 immeciately adjacent to the sanctuary where visibility is excellent. This room is (intended fo be a ‘play room! for children and adults, but it is to provide you with, opportunity of bringing the children to a private area where you cam in a wise ane | prudent parental fashion, attempt to teach them, as age permits, simple prayers and sense of dignity of being in."God's House." Children best ee by exer aintenance [ r i i a mbers p '. you to pliase take your role seriously and faithfully.” Members of oxF pattth eT Nh."FOR PEOPLE OF DESTINY, a + SEEMING DEFEAT, OFIEN LEADS TO VICTORY" . | “yy Lagt Tuesday, “along with willions’of Auericans ond @ ccocernes people throughéut the world, I had the shocking experience of witnessing |S the tragic Elight-of the space shuttle ChsLlenger, and viewing the heccible explosion which appackntly brought inatant death to the six astronauty and the first civilian teachernaut| “to venture into space, 4 woman filled with a dream end teeming vith pride in het profegsion whereby:she could instill the*younget generation with aipire tions of thb highest. And suddenly, in a ghastly explosion and a horcendous stream of emoké, it ail seemed to-be aver. I watched the replays and the ongoing coverage, and-I saw hat millions saw. There werd the faces, stilled in the first glimse of | - the unimagihable.- a mother, ker head bent upon her husband's shoulder and her head at her mouth — k “father whose proud eyes were suddenly filled with tears of unbelief, a sister, ghsping to speak - an empty faced high school girl vho did not. even have time to rembve her party hat -— they vere faces, faces staring at death and ceeining defeat and-destruction. For hours we watched, praying that it was just another one of those IV bokror stories which would go avay - but we kitew better, it was real. Like you, Z prayed for those, brave people, and Like many of you, Iam sure, © initially began te question the worth of it all. And then IT heard the story of the. Little figth grader who cherished a aote she had received from the teachernaut 2 few days before the flight - it simply said, "REACH FOR THE STARS." That was her message in life, and that was her challenge in death. Down through the centuries, brave wen’ and women have dared the challenges of the present to help prepare for a better future. Indeed, for people of destiny, seeming ‘defeat often leads to victory! The gospel of the Mass today tells us a similar story. A young mother aiid father being an infant child to the Temple for the Presentation. They too began their day | * ia a spixid of joy and anticipation of the future. And then too, suddenly and without expectatio#, their dreaz is blown,to pieces.. The prophet looks at the young mother and vith edid éraokness simply stdtes ~ "this child is destined .... He is destined for the erdés, and Zor you, the foot of the cross! Those words overshadoved their . lives from|that day until Chat Friday afternoon on Calvary = but they Were not words of defeat, |they were the words which led to Easter Sunday! The new birth of hopel * "In many of our personal.lives, ve too often experience feelings of defeat and euptiness, [and wonder, is it worth all the effort? But we are also people of destiny and not megely of time. We must learn to take moments of seeming defeat and sppsrent eaptinass,|aed tura thea date opportunities of growth and success. We too mist learn to "reach for thé stars" and tot let every experience to halp ts to becoue better, nore mature, and more responsible Chiistians. ‘That is thé meaning and purpose of life! _ -““IMCREASED| OFFERTORY CAMPAIGH".- During the past week, every registered fanity fa ce parish shoUld have received avspecial letter fcon ae explaining out yewly inittany ducreased bffectory campaign. This program has two purposes: Oue, fo encoursge ys y family in ‘the parish to make use of out envelope system which will go 4 Cee The stabilizing ol income and making it possible to budget and plan for the Maths |) + second is ito ask all who are already using the envelopes to consider, if aa weceive slight increase in what they are-now giving. During the coming week you vine eae another Lgteer, with 2 special red and vhite euvelope to be used the oe ns TE you plde to participaté, and T hope and pray you will, please use this SPCC sider eovelope dn plaice of your regular envelope for the folloving Sunday ee you note, this your |inteation to participate in the progrem, you will veceive a FMT Yor the and no fuecher communication will be necessary, Please pray for the es : < Srogram id our parish - it is tov keyed, but will make a trenendous sucts A ed to the “yy GRATITUDE! - as I mentioned last veel, special envelopes are attached for bis * yuilecta doday which you may use to express your, gratitude to Father Cole! . " . prayers i exe ai enedict's,‘and to assute hin of 2 remenbsance in you services Here at St. Benedict's, assute membrange 1 yo eteare niqnastantovem cin 209 s suk ens Tel INS| TD AT 9q oy aya wasp. Jo. osTigu TenixesJO JTW BuO TNT AIOE —stieo uryBTAL OYA S]ATTAC ep ~paecubo sou shay pu ey oped sa, "pedore tvtpec a yo stay Yad uth sre ame ‘etre 2 ajar neon dmnedy oi uv geteesoioy wo Uerpiraeete Pe spsuopyarausd yo oma (eros say ou BUTI, SN “Anurecyad 8} wnudopag sung. * DOME RCT PeT « ‘amb 5y eaqmnp a7 Uy aTTET|UOO 0} . ay} do mupeuar ye «BYR Ay soMMA OTE Ue sw Ey TYCOpeT “Wii ged pore z fx 8 suo am edwoe ow 4 10 saa i) u 15 16 17 1a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deposchin Bishep Armee. dates \[iley given you, do your records indicate that Father Luddy ang Father Inman were together at any other church other than the Cathearay of the Blessed Sacrament? A. According to the record that's been provided to ne it appears that Luddy and Inman weré assigned to only one parish dn the diocese, according to the record that's before me. UR. ECK: You mean at the same time. A. At the same.tine. Q. And what records are you réferring to? A. These are copies of cards that are used for cross xeferencing that would contain the dates of appointment. Q. Are they the’ diocesan records? ‘A. Yes. Q.. What-assignnent did they share, they being Father Luddy and Father Inman? A. Well,-it appears from the record here that it was the catnedral in Altoona. WR. SERBIN: May I see that? That's it Bishop, thank you. MR. ECK: Bishop, just a few questions. BY MR. ECK: Q. Yesterday you were questioned about Father Willian Kovach and I think your testimony indicated that at some tine you referred him to treatment, for treatment and evaluation at Saint Luke's? A. That's correct.Q- And yesterday you were questioned, you indicateg you had received from Saint Luke's reports of the evaluation ana treatment? A. That's correct. Q. ‘Do you renenber the decument, those ‘reports that you received, do you renember any stamped notatioh on them as to what you as the receiver should do after you reviewed them A, Most of those documentations when they come, being the reports, instruct" the receiver to destroy then. Q. And is thet whet you 4id after receiving and reviewing nOse reports? . > A. I did. . Q. But you did make, at least, note of the portions of the recommendation and the findings? . HRS SERBIN: Objection, leading. > Q. Is that right? A. That‘s correct. Q. As you read that. report and’ then as you retained what you did retain or copy Ztom the report, what was your understanding as to what the report was telling you. about Pather Kovach? A. As I racall in my action to Zollow up on that; the ni inst: thet that report indicate? that this was en instance that happened at *A particular time and had’ not happened since, and that there vas litcle risk in keeping Father Xovach in active ainist: an“nem wy~+Anached is ay editorial that Bridget K Joyce wroteasthe editor of the RooscyeltIunior «ME A Just wire wy ne ih SehoolnerpaperBig And White My Guphtristind pradesh Judgementaly. Many seytic pr" in Te * andisamomber ofthe Cuff the Blessed Sacrimentin Alogu. Brdgetisinvcved "presons on pertonaliesond non wht in the FIRE program atthe Cathedral,as well as iuany schoolactivities. Asapareatyoupride ive ln a materialistic, * Perici world, staying ‘Yourself in your child's aeddemic and school chicvements. But more imporaat than any hallengeo life." ( ‘sademic laurels, my wife and] were so very proud when weread Bridget'sfirstjoumalistic * _Siive to stay as open’ minded as 5 possible. composition. As Christian Catholics, we’are proud that our religious valiies seemingly are Prejudge sorieone befor tey have had the oppe @ ister: ‘imher life, Please read her editorial, andifyou feel that itis appropriate, spent ornare, Gohig anywhere in ae J + ourzelvei on pedestals, While ap thor seis serene an epual Chae pth ewe wll Hate. Ouch Juthntng obo hargorde Diocese Of Altoona, Johnstown - aed 179 Doe oo "any use itto0 frequently ard loasely, Funders, Bishop'sResidence s ee) a but we possess the power of controling it. Whe ae “Deemer 1999 cote lisually they don't aruly ‘hal person bu only oo : ++ the word hate. oma Dev Sis and Bots of tie Housthold of Gods” oe _ | Aimtoneveract spteflly. Recenly,Irealiz : holding grudges seems, Consider the absurdne: Ofce agai, the Diocesof Altona Jbnstows hasbeen in the news iniegard tdine _thegrudge occurred awhileago Peoplechange. " Luddy case. "Thé occasion was the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court'decision. As you. : ¢s¢cont! chance. Anyéne that does not have th + "know, this decision has nothing to do with whether or pot Francis Luddy, aformer priestof. bene/itffom others: + «+1 + *thisDiocese,is guilty ornot. ithastodo, rather. ‘with whetherornotthis Dioceséis responsible- di closing, just-remember a fey final ints " and liable for the actions of a priest a all times and in. a places including those (bat are + Abvays remember your principlesand standard. inappropriate with his priestly tas. . « '_ Mind and others" minds wil become opened. ut ‘Youvwill recall that the State Superior Cour charged this Diocest oFany responsibility, « Wearyou..* almast two yearsaga. The plainitts appealed that roling to the State SuprenieCourtatthat _ Hopeflly, offer reading hiv editorial. « Nine, where the matter has resed for the past 20 months. Our attorney informed me on - stems lke en appropriare time for action, Gath - November 24 thatthe Peonsylvaaia Supine Cour fal tied judgmenta he uly « JOrphesoicone who has ofendedyot. ei case. The judgmentcame with Several diftertnt opinion... *» wo7 have offended. This will cd in bringing ti ue jadgeat uhld te enasylvania Super Cont judgment tat Siig Three of . ‘he ChildJesus Parishin Aitoona wasnotliable. But ievesedthe SupeciorCourtsjudgment | The Tabiernaéle' 's Propet Place « regard fo the Diocese of Altodna Tolinstowsil holding tis lzble dn the one isoue that was ; ered Nevertheless, the Supréme Court di sead the cise back tothe Superior Court) earFaerStea kingitto coasiderthe9 or 10 otherissues. Our Attorneys iad originally raised those issues ie as further grounds for ouragpeal twayears ago: However the) Were not considered by the | On Noveaaber 18 wi liaing ony shu Se Supt Court a at Sine ory the State Supreme Cout whe renderings recent arctecual principles and design of Catiolie :} Recently,aratherlengthyarticlewas feature “EW hav con defedan docesnrepiasbiy with icpeittheajisies x west woes oman Feparng the places claimed by Michacl Hutchison, itis always deplorableifachildis injured by theactsofthose ~~ AsYoukno¥, several cw churches have bt ‘whom they should trust, nomatérwhattheirproféssion Atthesuietime, [fee szongly that . seieral years, al ofwhich ve denmphasizedthe + "the Church aceds to be given the saine consideration as any other insttitio in regard to the by lacating the tabernacle ouside ofthe view of ‘practical impossibility of being responsible arourid the clock and in all circumstances‘ind -. eis my understanding that noVote was take places forthe actions of those associated with ft. deeply reget that ur clergy and faithful, -“andTwas completely suprised tobeartheinpst a5 Well as others; continuc to be faced with the particulars ofthis issu + + including our owm Cardital Bevilacqua wh iy "None =tie-fes and in keeping wit ouregal nd mond tspensblies owAtoracys Philadelphia were desirous of sig waite & have filed with the State Supitéme Court oa December, 1999, an"Application ForReargu- extrance into the church. Other Bishops spoke en.” This action was takenon the basis that allowing acvllcourto pass upon heinternal . acti presenct of esusinthe MostBlesict Sac ‘policies"and employmient practices of the Church (especially the hiring, retaining, and to what has actrally occurred in church design .._ supeivising ofpriests) amounts oa volition of redoniofeligous practices. Thi inure, ,". J Would respectfully submit tat we are $ isin violation of the Fist aid Foirteenth Amendments of the United Stafes Constntion. regarding the real présence when we bide the “Meanwhile, the Diocese of Altoona Johnstown has reactivated the bond back op With behavior and dress to occurin the presence of thebank. This simply assures thatthe Diocese will hvethemeans with which 0 pay he’ One Bishop compared te tpes of church Judgment, should that become necessary: ‘gearsto raul - purpose rooms of which we are: Pease renerabe in your prayers the seco ith is para cae, Iw be he Enis be eater of our worshipand t sgatefafto you "> : 2, thateflects the honcrandglory tats duc to 0 : ae ee changes can be made inthe mere recently ¢01 yourigtheLord, ", expressed by Cardinal Berdacaus Arbbisbo Very sitieerely yours, R Thomason, Jr ‘Altoona«By Bishop SToseph * ACHANGE OF EMPHASIS: As I inounced in the last issue of The; Cattolic Register, I have décided to change the emphasis of my cok ‘izan. In order to indicate that chimge, Ihave changed the tite’as well, « ‘Bom “Random Commests” to “For the Good ofthe Household”. Thgpe to share with you in the comin weeks a more direct conffontation of + issues; Which affect our Diocesasi Church. bave mentioned on a muni< bber of octasion’ daring my third pastoral visto parishes thatI consider. it important for our Faithful to bave accurate information: Misinforma- " tion is very divisive and destructive of the unity intended for theTén’s |: ~ ‘Church.“An Svertding priority of mine a the Bishop has bees to bring * about a greater liturgical azid pastoral unity to our Diocesan, Church, I + Ve been know to say that iFai epitaph were to be put on iay tomb ” (which we donot do for'var bishops), I would like it to be: “He tried to.” ~ ~ make of a one Church:”A lot of fisinformation has bécn thrown’ your“ "= * "wy tet py hi cofumy wl hep iteepinguson amore een is is one of tose rates that have-perduced vis the enti fifteen-year period of my being yourDioctsai Bishop. Tehas also bec one of thoseiiters, which has precipitated a significant = suhdunt 6f misinformation, [hive becn willing to defend this Diocesan. = * CChirch against blame whed itought not to cany thet stigma Of couse, «there ing argument 2s to whether Luddy is guily of moléstation. HE admitted that he was; but, not inthis case. (And, the lidgation has beea ‘Shout this‘one particular casé) In receat days, ont ofthe brothers Hes «come forward and Said as much. I wopld like to make it clear and fave: « nderstood thatthe Diocede did dot go looking for sich testsiony fra,” hint: The brother, om his own, contacted'both attomeys and the judge and, then, tiade'piblic his allegetiog that his Brother and his mother, along-with dic attire, caade up the story in ondeeto get money For thé Diocese. They, understandably, are edacemedandate now accusiig = * the Diocese of delaying tactics TP all egal sift Butt bas also bes ~ come a part ofthe life of the Church if these days, Unfortunately, the nevespapers havea field day with it And, I fecl badly tha our clergy and faithful bave tobe Eontinualy subjected to it However, tre is no rex son tb déspair. When one eviews the bistory ofthe Church, today's sits- atiox could even be considered normal forthe Church to somue extent —un es ved mums fi uinng a aia eue CATHole f ey fog 10, 197 Welcomes Discontintiatice OfLawsuit - “This moming we were advised that Samuel C. Hutchison has fled an grcement to dscontinc is civil ston agaist Father Francs Lady. the Diocese of Altcona-Johnstow. and several other Church oficial No monetary compensation of damages wer. or acto be pu to Me Hutcie san, nor was aay admission of liability made by the Dieeee, Father Luddy. orany ofthe other defendants. ‘Me: Hutchzon fas formally withdrawn, wih prejudice is await from the Somerset Cosnty docket, i exchange forthe ioces’'s and the other defendant agreement not t bring any legal action agains Him oF is atomeys. Richard Sein and Joseph Nypaver of Akoor, Fr having Filed a fivalous and merless lawsuit which began in 1988, (On August 4, 1992, Mr, Hutchisch’s tare, Me. Serbia, led 2 Praecpe to discontinue the lawsuit, with prejudice, meaning at there is 10 implication of guilt on our part. an the ease may never be renpened Zarin, However. in that Proccipe, he Indicated tat the case Bad been st thed and sxtisfied™ There was, infect a9 money consideration pad and 0 scilemen achieved asthe pint simply, for his own undisclosed ea sons discontinue his ai an the Ev. Discontinuances are governed by Rule of Civil Procedure 229. which states that they ate "the exclsive method of veluntty termination of an by the pln before commencernet ofthe sk.” A diconin« suance is 3 plaintiff's choice to terminate his lawsuits | “The other defendants ocuded eid Bishop James Hogan, Monsenor cr Roy Klize, Monsignor Paul Panza. Mon~ Signor Ignatids Wadas, Salt Mary's Catholic Church in Windber the ‘Archdiocese of Philadelphia. and ried Cardinal Joba Krol “These defendants, 2 well as Falher Luly. have, rom th commence- reat of hs awaut dened al oF Me Hatchzos las as ng bales _and without merit. 28 well as claims asserted by Me. Hutchison's brother, ‘who has filed a similar setion in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County. c 5 Child abuse continues to be 2 serious problem in cur society. Because (oF the Church's respect for the dignity of the human person, we remain committed to doing all that we can to compassionately address the needs of the victims and those accused of child abuse. 2.Hews. & Events ‘Whats Newin the Household of God? | Upcoming Evens | Words From the Members What's New in the Household of God? © Bishop’s Statement concerning CIVIL LITIGATION vs. DIOCESE Most Reverend Joseph V. Adamec . e February 13, 2003 7 wre It is regrettablé that sexual and physical abuise of minors has occurred and that there are individuals continuing to suffer as a result. It is deplorable that sexual abuse of. minors has occurred at the hands of priests within the Roman Catholic Church. . This week, the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown and its Bishops were served notice that they were named defendants in civil litigation in two separate legal proceedings. Prior to that, the plaintiffs and their attorney held a news media conference and informed the public of their interition to bring this legal action against the Church. For the benefit of our faithful, religious, and clergy in their having to experience another day in court, as well as for that of the general public, it is incumbent upon me to respond. Otherwise, the perception left would not be accurate. This is especially necessary in light of the number of inaccuracies in the mass media reports, as well as in the legal complaints. The complaints accuse the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, along with former Diocesan Bishop Hogan and me, of not handling cases of alleged minor abuse by priests appropriately. I believe that eack one of us did, given the facts and circumstances, properly handle such cases. The assertions contained in the complaint have to do with allegations of sexual abuse @ of minors by two priests, the former Father Francis Luddy and Monsignor Francis McCaa, who were functioning in the Diocese at the time of the alleged abuse. The allegations of the complaints reference claimed abuse that occurred in 1976-78 with respect to former Father Luddy and 1980-85 with respect to Monsignor McCaa. Neither of these priests has served in parish ministry since 1985 with respect to Monsignor McCaac e general. ; ~. .and 1987 with respect to former Father Luddy. The statute of limitation in civil lavy hi long expired. : oe ‘Here, Irwish to repeat what I have said before. No one has come forward with ariy allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest of this Diocese that would have occurtzi during the past decade and a half. Furthermore, no priest ordained within that period of time has been accused of inappropriate behavior in this regard. : It would appear that the filing of this legal action is an attempt to have the statute of lintitations avoided and reinterpreted. Several mechinizations are used, including that of alleging that some sort of conspiracy exists within this Diocesan Church that allows and even promotes inappropriate behavior on the part of its priests in regard to minors, I deny and know of no stich conspiracy; certainly, not within the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. Bishop Hogan and I have both furictioned individually, as the one entrusted with the overseeing of this Diocesan Church in his own particular time. Both of us have made decisions with the overall good of God’s people in mind. These decisions were based upon the best available data and professional advice available at those times. Current decisions’ are based upon the best available data and professional advice of today. As in other areas, this has changed over a period of times and, not only for the Church but for society in. In 1987, we put into writing our diocesan policy of taking allegations against our clergy seriously, méeting with both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator, seeking professional evaluation, assisting those injured, and following the advice of the a professional evaluators in regard to continuance-or discontinuance of public ministry. In all this, the confidentiality, to which all parties have a right, was maintained. Of course, the parties themselves could decide otherwise. . As for reporting to civil authorities, at the time of the abuse as alleged in the present complaints, there was rio obligation or law requiring clergy to do so. This was changed in 1995. Then; as now, those who feel victimized have the freedom: to report the matter to - proper authorities. Today, that is very much encouraged. And, clergy are now, since 1995, required to report in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. While legal requirements (both civil and canonical) play a great part in how d bishop responds to a situation, he is required to respond in a pastoral manner to the extent possible, This we have attempted to do in every case, within the framework of what is required of a bishop in shepherding his diocese. @ Itis my intention to follow the CHARTER adopted by the United States Conference of. © Catholic Bishops and the NORMS approved by the Holy See. These become effective in March of this year. However, they have been a tremendous guidance to us bishops already and have bound us to stricter disciplinary actions than those to which we were bound decades ago. We are now assisted in this by an Allegation Review Board, which provides