IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO

HERBERT HOMEOWNER

Plaintiff,

v.

XYZ ROOFING AND SIDING CO., INC.

Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) * * *

Case No. CI-201209999-000

JUDGE BATES

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

JOSE B. BAEZ (9876543) 123 Smith Road Toledo, OH 43616 (419) 555-1212 JBaez@Defense4U.com Attorney for Defendant

Now comes Defendant, XYZ ROOFING AND SIDING CO., INC., by and through counsel, answers as follows:

1. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 1 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 2. Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 3. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 3 that XYZ Roofing and Siding Co., Inc. did enter into a contract with Mr. Homeowner to install, repair, and maintain a new roof. Defendant denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation that

Exhibit A is the contract contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs Complaint is the contract which was entered into by Plaintiff and Defendant. 4. Defendant denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 5. Defendant denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Complaint. 6. Defendant denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs Complaint and thereupon denies said allegations. 7. Defendant denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs Complaint and thereupon denies said allegations. 8. Defendant denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Complaint and thereupon denies said allegations. 9. Defendant denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Complaint and thereupon denies said allegations. 10. Defendant denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Complaint and thereupon denies said allegations. 11. Defendant denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11of Plaintiffs Complaint and thereupon denies said allegations.

Answer to First Count

12.. In answer to the Paragraph 12 of Count One, wherein Plaintiff incorporates by reference certain paragraphs of the General Allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits, denies, and alleges to the same effect and in the same manner as he admitted, denied, and alleged to those specific paragraphs previously in this answer. Defendant also denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation of a duty owed to Plaintiff regarding the manner in which the gutters were to be secured in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.

13. In answer to Paragraph 13 of Count One, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations and therefore denies each and every allegation of negligence contained therein. Answer to Second Count

14. In answer to the Paragraph 14 of Count Two, wherein Plaintiff incorporates by reference certain paragraphs of the General Allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendant admits, denies, and alleges to the same effect and in the same manner as she admitted, denied, and alleged to those specific paragraphs previously in this answer. Defendant also denies having sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation of a contract stipulation requiring maintenance of the roof and gutter system for two years after installation and thereupon denies said allegation. 15. In answer to Paragraph 15 of Count Two, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation and therefore denies each and every allegation of breach of contract contained therein. 16. In answer to Paragraph 16 of Count Two, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation that Plaintiff hired LMN Roofing to repair the alleged damage at 2345 Goddard Street and thereupon denies said allegation. Defendant is also without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation that said repair cost was $2,000 and thereupon denies said allegation.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 17. As for an affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that through the discovery of certain evidence it may be shown that Plaintiffs action should be dismissed due to Defendants failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 18. Defendant further alleges that through the discovery of certain evidence it may be shown that Plaintiffs action should be dismissed due to Defendants assumption of the risk involved with standing outside during a heavy storm to observe the operation of new gutters.

Wherefore Defendant prays: 1. That the court enters a judgment dismissing the complaint; 2. That Defendant be awarded court costs incurred herein; and 3. Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the court may deem just.

Dated: June 6, 2012

____________________________ JOSE B. BAEZ Attorney for Defendant 123 Smith Road Toledo, OH 43616

Jury Demand
19. Answering further, Defendant specifically objects to a jury determination of any equitable issues in this action or any other issues not triable to a jury.

____________________________ JOSE B. BAEZ Attorney for Defendant 123 Smith Road Toledo, OH 43616