Rogers & Associates, LLC 25 Elliott Ave. Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 610.649.1880 877.649.

1880 (fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Filed and Attested by PROTHONOTARY 11 FEB 2013 02:52 pm

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION

CLAUDE GIROUX Plaintiff, v. COPF, INC. DBA FREDERICK CHEVROLET NFP PROPERTY & CASUALTY SERVICES, INC. Defendants.

: : : : : : : : : : :

February Term, 2013 No.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT Claude Giroux, by and through his attorneys, Rogers & Associates, LLC, hereby files the following Complaint and in support thereof avers as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Claude Giroux is a professional hockey player who competes in the National Hockey League (the NHL) as team captain for Philadelphias NHL franchise, the Philadelphia Flyers. In April of 2011, Defendant COPF, Inc. d/b/a Frederick Chevrolet on the Boulevard (Frederick) approached Plaintiff Giroux and offered him the use of a new Chevrolet Camaro vehicle (the Vehicle) in return for his participation in certain sponsorship events designed to heighten Defendant Fredericks prominence based on Plaintiff Girouxs celebrity status.

Case ID: 130200903

In April of 2011, Plaintiff Giroux entered into an agreement (the Agreement) with Defendant Frederick providing him with use of the Vehicle. Among other requirements set forth in the Agreement, Plaintiff Giroux was required to procure automobile insurance covering his use of the Vehicle. In an effort to satisfy this requirement, Plaintiff Girouxs representatives contacted Defendant NFP Property & Casualty Services, Inc. (NFP), an insurance broker. Representatives of Defendant NFP contacted potential insurance underwriters on Plaintiff Girouxs behalf and were ultimately unable to insure the Vehicle because the Agreement did not provide Plaintiff Giroux with an insurable interest in the Vehicle. On more than one occasion throughout this process, Plaintiff Girouxs representatives were assured that Defendant Frederick was aware of the inability to procure insurance and, furthermore, that the Vehicle was covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance. Based on these representations, Plaintiff Giroux continued to drive the Vehicle and performed his sponsorship obligations pursuant to the Agreement. In December of 2011, Plaintiff Giroux was involved in an accident while driving the Vehicle. When Plaintiff Giroux sought insurance coverage from Defendant Frederick, he was shocked to discover that Defendant Frederick denied that the Vehicle was covered by its insurance policy. Through absolutely no fault of his own, Plaintiff Giroux is now without insurance coverage for the accident. While Defendant Frederick was willing to say anything to get Plaintiff Giroux into one of its cars in order to capitalize on his celebrity status, it is now unwilling to honor its representations.

PARTIES 1. Claude Giroux is an adult individual and Canadian citizen who plays professional

hockey for the NHLs Philadelphia Flyers franchise. During the hockey season, Plaintiff Giroux

Case ID: 130200903

resides in the Philadelphia region. 2. Defendant Frederick is a Pennsylvania Corporation with a current address of 1505

Quentin Road, Lebanon, Pennsylvania 17042. 3. Defendant NFP is a New York Corporation with an address of 707 Westchester

Avenue, White Plains, New York 10604.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 931(a) and 42

Pa. C.S. 5301, et. seq. All parties do business in Pennsylvania and have sufficient contacts to exercise jurisdiction. 5. Venue is appropriate under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1006. This

matter arises from a transaction commenced and effectuated in Philadelphia County. In addition, the surrounding events relevant to this matter took place in Philadelphia County.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiff Giroux and Defendant Frederick entered into a written agreement dated

April 21, 2011 (the Agreement) with regard a 2011 Chevrolet Camaro (VIN # 2G1FK1EJXB9101964) (the Vehicle), by which Plaintiff would be permitted to use the Vehicle in exchange for certain promotional services. A true and correct copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. At that time, Frederick owned a dealership known as Frederick Chevrolet on the

Boulevard, located in Philadelphia County.

Case ID: 130200903

3.

Defendant Frederick recently sold the Philadelphia dealership, but owned the

dealership at all times relevant hereto. 4. Defendant Frederick enticed Plaintiff Giroux to drive one of its vehicles in order

to benefit from Plaintiff Girouxs popularity as a player for Philadelphias NHL hockey franchise, the Philadelphia Flyers. 5. 6. Plaintiff performed all services required by the Agreement. In an attempt to procure automobile insurance for the Vehicle, Plaintiff Girouxs

representatives contacted Defendant NFP, an insurance broker, in or about April of 2011. 7. Specifically, Plaintiffs representatives contacted Mr. Graham Leveston, a

representative of Defendant NFP. 8. It is believed and therefore averred that Mr. Leveston was, at all relevant times, an

agent and representative of Defendant NFP. 9. At various points throughout the process by which NFP was attempting to secure

insurance for the Vehicle, Mr. Leveston communicated with Plaintiff Girouxs representatives. 10. Specifically, in late April and early May of 2011, Mr. Leveston communicated to

Plaintiffs representatives that NFP had contacted Defendant Frederick and that Defendant Frederick confirmed that the Vehicle was covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance policy. 11. In reliance on these representations, Plaintiff began utilizing the Vehicle and

performing his obligations pursuant to the Agreement. 12. Plaintiff would not have driven the Vehicle or performed his obligations pursuant

to the Agreement if he knew or believed that the Vehicle was not covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance.

Case ID: 130200903

13.

In August of 2011, Defendant NFPs representative, Tara Lindenberg, sent an e-

mail to Graham Leveston which was subsequently sent to Plaintiff Girouxs representatives. 14. In that e-mail, Ms. Lindenberg wrote: Travelers denied adding the car onto the

policy. No coverage under his [i.e. Plaintiffs] Travelers policies. The dealership is aware of this and they stated he is covered on there [sic] policy. 15. Plaintiffs representatives were informed that Plaintiff could not obtain insurance

coverage for the Vehicle because he did not have an insurable interest in the Vehicle. 16. Plaintiff Giroux continued to operate the Vehicle under the belief that he was

covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance. 17. On December 10, 2011, Plaintiff was involved in an accident in Philadelphia

County while driving the Vehicle. 18. Following the accident, Plaintiff Giroux was shocked to discover that despite the

prior representations to the contrary, Defendant Frederick now claimed that the Vehicle was not covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance policy. 19. The driver of the other vehicle involved in the December 10, 2011 accident

submitted a claim to her insurance company. 20. The other drivers insurance company has demanded payment from Plaintiff

Giroux to cover its expenses. 21. The driver of the other vehicle has retained an attorney who has contacted

Plaintiff Girouxs representatives. 22. Defendant Frederick has consistently refused to cooperate in resolving this matter

and, instead, has denied all responsibility in this matter.

Case ID: 130200903

23.

It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant Frederick made representations

that the Vehicle was covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance while knowing that Plaintiff Giroux would rely on such representations to his detriment. 24. untrue. 25. Defendant Frederick knew that Plaintiff Giroux was unsuccessful in obtaining Defendant Frederick knew or should have known that such representations were

insurance for the Vehicle and made material misrepresentations about the status of its insurance coverage so as to coax Plaintiff Giroux into maintaining the Agreement which benefitted Defendant Frederick. 26. The Agreement required that Plaintiff Giroux provide a certificate of insurance to

Defendant Frederick. 27. Defendant Frederick neither received proof of insurance nor inquired about the

status of insurance during the term of the Agreement. 28. Defendant NFP communicated to Plaintiffs representatives that the Vehicle was

covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance policy. 29. To the extent that those representations were untrue or misrepresentative,

Defendant NFPs conduct caused harm to Plaintiff Giroux.

COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Giroux v. Defendant Frederick 30. 31. Plaintiff Giroux incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. As stated above, Plaintiff Giroux and his representatives received assurances that

Plaintiff was covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance policy while operating the Vehicle.

Case ID: 130200903

32.

In reliance on these assurances, Plaintiff Giroux continued to operate the Vehicle,

including at the time of the accident. 33. Subsequent to the accident, Defendant Frederick has denied that Plaintiff

Girouxs use of the Vehicle was not covered by its insurance. 34. 2011 accident. 35. Plaintiff Giroux seeks a declaratory judgment as an actual controversy now exists As a result, Plaintiff Giroux is without insurance coverage for the December 10,

as to whether Plaintiff Giroux or Defendant Frederick is responsible for any damages stemming from the December 2011 accident. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court, pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. 7531, et. seq., enter a judgment: a. Declaring that Defendant Frederick is responsible for any and all costs, damages

or items of expense relating in any way to the December 10, 2011 accident. b. Declaring that Plaintiff Giroux be reimbursed by Defendant Frederick to the same

extent as if Plaintiff Giroux was covered by Defendants insurance relating to the Vehicle and the accident. c. Any other relief the Court deems necessary and proper.

COUNT II FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION Plaintiff Giroux v. All Defendants 36. Plaintiff Giroux incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

Case ID: 130200903

37.

As set forth above, NFPs representatives assured Plaintiff Girouxs

representatives on several occasions that Plaintiff Giroux was covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance policy while operating the Vehicle. 38. Defendant NFP communicated to Plaintiffs representatives that Plaintiff Giroux

was unable to obtain insurance coverage for the Vehicle. 39. To the extent that any of those representations were untrue, the representations

caused harm to Plaintiff Giroux in that it caused him to unknowingly drive without insurance coverage and potentially incur liability as a result of the December 10, 2011 accident. 40. If Defendant NFP accurately communicated Defendant Fredericks assurances

regarding insurance coverage, Defendant Frederick made material misrepresentations to Plaintiffs representatives through Defendant NFP. 41. Defendant Fredericks false and misleading representations caused harm to

Plaintiff Giroux in that it caused him to unknowingly drive without insurance coverage and potentially incur liability as a result of the December 10, 2011 accident. 42. The defendant that misstated the truth was aware that it was making a false

statement at the time it was made and that Plaintiff Giroux would ultimately rely on the false statement to his detriment by unknowingly driving without insurance coverage. 43. As a result of the above, Plaintiff Giroux has suffered and will continue to suffer

damages as a result of being uninsured at the time of the December 2011 accident. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Giroux respectfully requests judgment in his favor and against the defendant that made a misrepresentation in this matter together with an award of damages, costs, interest, attorneys fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

Case ID: 130200903

COUNT III NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION Plaintiff Giroux v. All Defendants 44. 45. Plaintiff Giroux incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. As stated above, Plaintiff Girouxs representatives were assured by Defendant

NFP that the Vehicle was covered by Defendant Fredericks insurance policy. 46. Defendant NFP also represented to Plaintiff Girouxs representatives that Plaintiff

could not obtain coverage for the Vehicle. 47. To the extent that any of those representations were untrue, the representations

caused harm to Plaintiff. 48. If Defendant NFP accurately restated Defendant Fredericks assurances regarding

insurance coverage, Defendant Frederick made material misrepresentations to Plaintiffs representatives through Defendant NFP. 49. The defendant that made the false statements was aware of the falsity of the

statements or made such statements with negligent disregard of the truth or falsity of the statements. 50. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff Giroux would rely on the statements and

Plaintiff did rely on the above statements to his detriment. 51. As a result of the above, Plaintiff Giroux has suffered and will continue to suffer

damages as a result of being uninsured at the time of the December 2011 accident. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Giroux respectfully requests judgment in his favor and against the Defendant that is determined to have made a misrepresentation in this matter together with an award of damages, costs, interest, attorneys fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

Case ID: 130200903

COUNT IV UNJUST ENRICHMENT Plaintiff Giroux v. Defendant Frederick 52. 53. Plaintiff Giroux incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Defendant Frederick received a substantial benefit from the services provided by

Plaintiff Giroux. 54. As described above, Defendant Frederick misled Plaintiff Giroux about the status

of insurance coverage on his use of the Vehicle, which caused him to unknowingly drive without insurance coverage. 55. Defendant Frederick received the full benefit of Plaintiffs services and failed to

protect Plaintiff Girouxs interests in accordance with Defendant Fredericks statements. 56. As a result, Defendant Frederick has been unjustly enriched at the expense of

Plaintiff Giroux. 57. As set forth above, as a result of Defendant Fredericks conduct, Plaintiff Giroux

has been injured. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Giroux respectfully requests judgment in his favor and against Defendant Frederick together with an award of damages, costs, interest, attorneys fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

COUNT V PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL Plaintiff Giroux v. Defendant Frederick 58. 59. Plaintiff Giroux incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. As stated above, Defendant Frederick made a promise to Plaintiff Giroux

regarding insurance coverage relating to the Vehicle.

10

Case ID: 130200903

60. 61. 62.

That promise was intended to and did induce reliance by Plaintiff Giroux. Plaintiff Girouxs reliance caused him harm, as set forth above. Injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise of Defendant Frederick.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Giroux respectfully requests judgment in his favor and against Defendant Frederick together with an award of damages, costs, interest, attorneys fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

______/s/ Lance Rogers__________ Lance Rogers Kent E. Conway Attorney ID Nos. 87546/88063 Rogers & Associates, LLC 25 Elliott Avenue Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 Telephone: (610) 649-1880 Fax: (877) 649-1800 email: lance@rogerscounsel.com email: kent@rogerscounsel.com

11

Case ID: 130200903