# Power Line Pkg. v. Hermes Calgon, etc. > Superior Court of Pennsylvania · January 10, 2017 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4114627 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** January 10, 2017 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4114627 ## Opinion text J-A27004-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 POWER LINE PACKAGING, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. HERMES CALGON/THG ACQUISITION LLC, FRANCO S. PETTINATO AND JOSEPH FALSETTI Appellants No. 7 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered November 24, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): 2010-02341-36 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 10, 2017 Hermes Calgon/THG Acquisition LLC, Franco S. Pettinato and Joseph Falsetti (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, which awarded Appellee Power Line Packaging, Inc. (Power Line) restitution, interest and storage fees based upon claims of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and piercing the corporate veil. Upon careful review, we affirm based upon the opinions of the Honorable Gary B. Gilman. This matter arises out of a failed business venture between the parties in which Appellants requested that Power Line manufacture a new product ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A27004-16 line of personal care products. Power Line allegedly spent over $62,000.00 in costs, plus significant time in development and production, for which Appellants failed to reimburse Power Line. Following a non-jury trial held on February 3 and 4, and September 4, 2014, the trial court found in favor of Power Line and awarded the company restitution in the sum of $101,137.21, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $37,390.29. The court also awarded post-judgment interest in the amount of $16.63 per day and storage fees of $138.70 per month after October 2014. Appellants filed timely post-trial motions, which the court denied on November 18, 2015. Thereafter, Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal 1 and court-ordered concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On appeal, Appellants raise the following issues for our review: 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in finding any justifiable reliance on the part of [Power Line] with respect to its claims of misrepresentation. 2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in finding, upon Power Line’s claim for quantum meruit, 1) that Power Line conferred a benefit upon anyone, and/or 2) that anybody appreciated and/or retained any such benefit. Brief for Appellant, at 2. ____________________________________________ 1 Although the court denied the post-trial motions on November 18, 2015, notice of the order was not mailed to the parties until November 24, 2015. Accordingly, the filing of the notice of appeal on December 24, 2015, was timely. -2- J-A27004-16 We note that our role in reviewing non-jury trial verdicts is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court committed error in any application of the law. The findings of fact of the trial judge must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury. We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. We will reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence in the record or if its findings are premised on an error of law. Rissi v. Cappella, 918 A.2d 131, 136 (Pa. Super. 2007). Instantly, the trial court made detailed findings of fact showing that Appellants engaged in a course of conduct that induced Power Line to manufacture the personal care product line and that Power Line justifiably relied upon Appellants’ actions. Likewise, the court’s determination to pierce the corporate veil of Hermes Calgon is supported by the record. See Advanced Telephone Systems, Inc. v. Com-Net Professional Mobile Radio, LLC, 846 A.2d 1264, 1280, 1281 n.12 (Pa. Super. 2004) (corporate veil is pierced when one in control “uses that control or corporate assets to further one’s own personal interests. . . . by intermingling his personal interests with the corporation’s interests[;]” where appropriate, “the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil will be applied to a limited liability company.”) We find that the opinions by the Honorable Gary B. Gilman dated September 30, 2015, and February 24, 2016, comprehensively address the issues raised on appeal, and we affirm on that basis. We direct the parties to attach a copy of both decisions in the event of further proceedings. Order affirmed. -3- J-A27004-16 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 1/10/2017 -4- Circulated 12/16/2016 10:41 AM 164 BUCKS COUNTY LAW REPORTER 2016 BCBA Power Line v. Hermes Calgon/THG [89 Bucks Co. L. Rep. Power Line Packaging, Inc. v. Hermes Calgon/ THG Acquisition, LLC, et al. Defendants appeal this court's order which found that the Defendants had been unjustly enriched as a result ofunlawful failure to reimburse Plaintiff for expenses associated with development and manu- facture of a product line of personal care consumer care products. This Court held that Defendants' issues raised on appeal are without merit. Appealed to the Superior Court. Civil law - Piercing a corporate veil =Admission of testimony of an expert- Quantum meruit= Quasi contract - Misrepresentation by defendant concerning a new product line. 1. The elements necessary to prove unjust enrichment are: (1) benefits conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) appreciation of the benefits on defendant; and (3) acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value. 2. The trial court is vested with wide discretion in deciding whether to allow the admission of expert testimony into evidence, and is not subject to reversal absent a clear abuse of discretion. 3. While there is no clear test or well-settled rule in Pennsylvania as to when the corporate veil may be pierced and when it may not be pierced, courts have held veil piercing to be appropriate "when the court must prevent fraud, illegality, or injustice, or when recognition of the corporate entity would defeat public policy or shield someone from liability from a crime." Pearson v. Component Tech Corp., 247 F.3rd 471 (3rd Cir. 2001). 4. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has enunciated four factors that must be considered if the business entity is to be disregarded and the corporate veil is to be pierced. Those specific factors are 1) undercapitalization; 2) failure to adhere to corporate formalities; 3) substantial intermingling of corporate and personal affairs and 4) use of the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud. C.P. Bucks County, Civil Division, No. 2010-02341. Quantum meruit, Piercing corporate veil. Power Line Packaging, Inc. v Hermes Calgon/THG Acquisition, LLC et al. Matthew A. Lipman, for the Plaintiff. William T. Dudeck, Eastburn and Gray, P.C. for the Defendants. GILMAN, J., February 24, 2016. OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Defendants, Hermes Calgon/THG Acquisition, LLC d/b/a SoleburyBrands, Franco S. Pettinato ("Mr. Pettinato"), and Joseph Falsetti ("Mr. Falsetti") ( collectively referred to as "Defendants,") appeal from this Court's Decision and Order of September 30, 2015, which found in favor of Plaintiff, Power Line Packaging, Inc. ("Power Line") and against Defendants on Plaintiff's claims of Breach of Implied Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Quantum Meruit, Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation.1 I In our Decision and Order of September 30, 2015, we determined that Ms. Laura Barry, who was initially a named Defendant, was not an equity holder, officer, director or in control ofHermes Calgon!fHG Acquisition, LLC, and was therefore not individually liable to Power Line. Accordingly, in this Opinion, "Defendants" refers to Hermes Calgon/THG Acquisition, LLC, Franco S. Pettinato and Joseph Falsetti. 22 BUCKS COUNTY LAW REPORTER 165 164 (2016)] Power Line v, Hermes Calgon/THG 2016 BCBA A protracted non-jury trial took place on February 3 and 4, 2014, and on September 4, 2014. After voluminous post-trial submissions by the parties, this Court set forth extensive Findings ofFact, Conclusions of Law and an accompanying Decision and Order in our Opinion dated September, 30, 2015. (That Decision and Order is incorporated herein. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) We determined that the Defendants had been unjustly enriched as a result of unlawful failure to reimburse Plaintiff for expenses associated with development and manufacture of a product line of personal care consumer products for which Defendants and Plaintiff had entered into a binding contract. Those expenses were incurred by Plaintiff while developing the product line of personal care products, a mist, a lotion and a shave gel, with six fragrances each, and by purchasing requisite materials and supplies (the "Product Line"). We also determined that the corporate veil of Defendants' LLC should be pierced and that Defendants, Mr. Pettinato and Mr. Falsetti, should be held individually liable to Plaintiff, along with Defendant Hermes Calgon/THG Acquisition, LLC, for the losses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of Defendants' actions. Accordingly, we awarded Plaintiff Power Line the sum of $101,137.21, which represented reimbursement for expenses Plaintiff had incurred for materials, for labor, for design work, and for storage of materials. Further, we awarded Plaintiff prejudgment interest of $3 7 ,450. 76, for a total award in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants of $138,587.97 in restitution. In addition, we determined that interest was due in the amount of $16.63 per day from the date of the Order and that storage fees of$138.70 per month commencing in October 2014 were to be added to Power Line's award. II. PROCEDURALAND FACTUALBACKGROUND The appellate court is referred to Section I of Exhibit A, attached hereto. We supplement the procedural and factual background as follows: Following our Decision and Order of September 30, 2015, Defendants Hermes Calgon/THG Acquisition, LLC, Franco S. Pettinato and Joseph Falsetti filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief on October 19, 2015, which was denied by this Court pursuant to an Order of November 18, 2015. Subsequently, on December 24, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court. However, the September 30, 2015 Decision and Order of this Court had never been reduced to judgment by any of the parties, so the Superior Court notified Defendants' counsel that his appeal was procedurally improper. According to the docket, this error was subsequently remedied, and on February 16, 2016, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, in the amount noted in our Order of September 30, 2015. We submit this Opinion at this time, then, under the assumption that the Superior Court will consider Defendants' appeal on the merits. On December 30, 2015, this Court Ordered Defendants to file a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P.1925 (b)(1 ). Defendants filed their Statement on January 16, 2016. 23 166 BUCKS COUNTY LAW REPORTER 2016 BCBA Power Line v. Hermes Calgon/THG [89 Bucks Co. L. Rep. III. STATEMENT OF ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL The Defendants' Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), is recited verbatim, as follows: 1. Whether this Court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter oflaw in finding, as part of any liability of Defendants or anyone of them in this matter, any justifiable reliance on the part of Plaintiff, Power Line Packaging, Inc. ("Power Line"). 2. Whether, as the underlying substantive basis for all liability in this matter, this Court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in finding, upon Power Line's claim for quantum meruit, where, as a matter of law 1) Power Line conferred no benefit(s) upon the Company; and 2) the Company did not appreciate and/or retain any benefit(s) from Power Line. 3. Whether this Court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter oflaw in admitting the proffered expert testimony of Peter Fascia, Esquire, CPA, LLM. 4. Whether this Court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in piercing the Company's corporate veil in light of a) the properly admitted and credible evidence at trial and b) the controlling findings, conclusions and holdings set forth in Advanced Telephone Systems, Inc. v. Com-Net Professional Mobile Radio, LLC, 846A.2d 1264, 1278 (Pa. Super. 2004) 5. Whether, in the alternativeto the foregoing,this Court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of law in awarding Power Line any damages for labor or warehousing where the former was speculative and the latter has been incurred at its own election. IV. DISCUSSION Our Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law upon which we based our decisions in this case have been set forth comprehensively in our 66 page Decision and Order, attached as ExhibitA. Since our Decision and Order addresses the majority of Defendants' issues complained of on appeal, our discussion herein is limited to supplemental explications of facts and law which support our decisions. A. Standard of Review In establishing the standard and scope of review applicable in an appeal from a non-jury verdict, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has stated that. [ o ]ur appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by 24 BUCKS COUNTY LAW REPORTER 167 164 (2016)] Power Line v. Hermes Calgon/THG 2016 BCBA competent evidence and whether the trial court committed error in any application of the law. The findings of fact of the trial judge must be given the same weight and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury. We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner. We will reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence in the record or if its findings are premised on an error of law. Rissi v. Cappella, 918 A.2d 131, 136 (Pa.Super.2007) (citation omitted). The Superior Court has further indicated that: "We will respect a trial court's findings with regard to the credibility and weight of the evidence unless the appellant can show that the court's determination was manifestly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious or flagrantly contrary to the evidence." Ecksel v. Orleans Const. Co., 519 A.2d 1021, 1028 (1987) (citation omitted). J.J. DeLuca Co. v. Toll Naval Associates, 56 A.3d 402, 410 (Pa. Super. 2012). B. This Court properly concluded that Power Line justifiably relied on Defendants' representations and misrepresentations when it agreed to and in fact did manufacture the new Product Line requested by Defendants. We reference our attached Decision and Order, noting that no less than 15 pages of facts have been cited which thoroughly address Defendants' fraudulent, deceptive, and negligent conduct, along with Power Line's justifiable reliance. See Exhibit A, Findings of Fact# 74 through# 194, pp. 13-28. To be justifiable, reliance upon the representation of another must be reasonable. Porreca v. Porreca, 571 Pa. 61, 811 A.2d 566, 571 (2002) (Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court). "Whether the party claiming to have been defrauded relied upon the false representation is a question of fact." Silverman, 533 A.2d at 114. Eigen v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., 874 A.2d 1179, 1189 (Pa. Super. 2005). As fact-finder, we determined that Defendants set out on a course of conduct to induce Power Line to manufacture the personal care line. Power Line relied upon the misrepresentations of Defendants that they were operating as a well-funded business and with established contracts for selling the Product Line to third parties. The deceptive PowerPoint presentation made by Defendants for Plaintiff, along with the deceptive "Official Company Info" email Defendants sent to Plaintiff, were illustrative of Defendants' scheme. All of Power Line's efforts were engaged in the formulation, production and completion of the Product Line at Defendants' request, 25 168 BUCKS COUNTY LAW REPORTER 2016 BCBA Power Line v. Hermes Calgon/THG [89 Bucks Co. L. Rep. with deadlines which Defendants represented to Plaintiffs were necessary to meet requirements retailers had imposed upon Defendants. See Exhibit A, Conclusions of Law #89-115, pages 55-58. See also Conclusions of Law #120-128, pages 59-61. Defendants' assertion that Power Line did not justifiably rely on Defendants' numerous representations and/or misrepresentations about Defendants' relationships with purported retailers and their ability to successfully market the new Product Line at stores such as Walgreens and Shoppers Drug Mart ("Shoppers") is wholly without merit. On the contrary, it is clear that Power Line reasonably and justifiably relied upon Defendants' misrepresentations to its detriment. Power Line suffered significant damages as a result thereof. C. This Court properly concluded that Power Line conferred benefits upon Defendants whereby Defendants were unjustly enriched It is well-established that "[ c ]ourts sitting in equity hold broad powers to grant relief that will result in an equitable resolution of a dispute." Williams Two. Bd. of Supervisors v. Williams Twp. Emergency Co., Inc., 986 A.2d 914, 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). In addition, "a trial court must formulate an equitable remedy that is consistent with the relief requested ... "Id. ( citing North Mountain Water Supply Co. v. Troxell, 81 A. 157 (1911)). A cause of action in quasi-contract for quantum meruit, a form of restitution, is made out where one person has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another. "A quasi-contract imposes a duty, not as a result of any agreement, whether express or implied, but in spite of the absence of an agreement, when one party receives unjust enrichment at the expense of another." AmeriPro Search, Inc. v. Fleming Steel Co., 787 A.2d 988, 991 (Pa. Super. 2001). Therefore, a claim of quantum meruit raises the issue of whether a party has been unjustly enriched, and in order to prove such claim a party must successfully prove the elements of unjust enrichment." Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200, 1202 (Pa. Super. 1999). The elements necessary to prove unjust enrichment are: (1) benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff; (2) appreciation of such benefits by defendant; and (3) acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value. Id.at 1203-1204. The application of the doctrine depends on the particular factual circumstances of the case at issue. In determining if the doctrine applies, our focus is not on the intention of the parties, but rather the most significant element of this equitable doctrine, which is whether the enrichment of the defendant is unjust. "The doctrine does not apply simply because the defendant may have benefited as a result of the actions of the plaintiff." Styer v. Hugo, 619 A.2d 347 (1993), aff'd, 637 A.2d 276 (1994). To sustain the claim of unjust enrichment, Power Line established that Defendants "wrongfully secured or passively received a benefit" that was "unconscionable" for them to retain. Mitchell, supra at 1204 (quoting Torchia v. Torchia, 499 A.2d 581, 582 (Pa. Super. 1985)). Here, Defendants requested and 26 BUCKS COUNTY LAW REPORTER 169 164 (2016)] Power Line v. Hermes Calgon/THG 2016 BCBA induced Power Line to develop the Product Line for Defendants, and to purchase and store the requisite materials, with assurances that Power Line would be paid by Defendants for their expenditures and efforts. Power Line did so and conferred on Defendants the benefits of development of, formulation of, and manufacture of the Product Line, along with purchase of and storage of the necessary materials for Defendants' use. Although Defendants repeatedly assured Power Line that they would pay for the purchase and storage of the materials and for the formula development for the Product Line, Defendants failed to pay Power Line for anything. (See further discussion herein, Section F, infra.)2. Defendants' wrongful refusal to actually pay Plaintiff for the Product Line, which has resulted in Defendants not taking physical possession of it, should not result in Defendants being able to defeat this unjust enrichment finding. Power Line conferred substantial benefits upon Defendants, placing them in a position to profit from sale of the Product Line to third parties. Unfortunately, Defendants failed to consummate such sales, and such failure has continued to the present day. It is indisputable, however, that benefits have, indeed, been conferred upon Defendants by Plaintiff, and that Defendants have actual knowledge of these facts. Accordingly, our conclusion that Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiff Power Line is wholly supported by the credible evidence and the law.3 D. This Court properly admitted the testimony of Plaintiff's expert Peter Fascia, Esquire, CPA, LLM The only issue raised in Defendants' Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal that was not exhaustively addressed in our September 30, 2015 Decision and Order, is the admission of the testimony of Power Line's expert accountant, Mr. Fascia. As explained more fully below, we concluded that Mr. Fascia's testimony was relevant and was properly admitted into evidence. On January 22, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion in Limine to Preclude the Expert Testimony of Mr. Fascia. That Motion raised an issue that was reiterated in Defendants' Motion for Post-Trial Relief. Defendants asserted that Mr. Fascia's written report of July 29, 2013 supported their claim that he should not be permitted to testify as an expert witness in this matter because of the following: a. Expert testimony is not necessary on these subjects of factual inquiry; b. He is doing nothing more than acting as a sort of co-counsel and parroting the arguments ofPower Line's counsel with a request that they now be received as and accorded the weight of the testimony; c. ~~~~~~~~ He is invading the province of the fact-finder; and 2 Additionally, see Exhibit A, Conclusions of Law #1-14, pp. 38-40. 3Note that we found Defendants liable to Plaintiff on several alternative theories, which included more than unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel. We also found Defendants liable for breach of implied contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. 27 170 BUCKS COUNTY LAW REPORTER 2016 BCBA Power Line v. Hermes Calgon/THG [89 Bucks Co. L. Rep. d. Even if none of the foregoing were true, his opinions are not relevant to a limited liability company as opposed to a corporation. (Defendants' Motion in Limine, 1/22/14, p. 2, Defendants' Motion for Post-Trial Relief, 10/19/15, p. 2) At the outset of the trial we heard brief argument on Defendants' Motion in Limine. Understanding Defendants' concerns that Mr. Fascia is an attorney, we addressed the motion as follows: I understand that Mr. Fascia is an attorney, so there are some issues addressed in the report that come close to attorney opinions as opposed to economic opinions ... [t]he motion at this point is denied without prejudice to Mr. Dudeck (Defendants' counsel) raising objections given the testimony. N.T. 2/3/14, pp 4-5. Expert testimony is admissible under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence ("Pa.RE.") 702, which provides: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge is beyond that possessed by the average layperson; (b) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; and ( c) the expert's methodology is generally accepted in the relevant field. Pa.RE. 702. A trial court is vested with wide discretion in deciding whether to allow the admission of expert testimony into evidence, and is not subject to reversal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Daddona v. Thind, 891 A.2d 786, 805 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Mr. Fascia is a Certified Public Accountant with an LLM in taxation. He also happens to be an attorney. As a CPA, he reviewed the relevant company formation documents, the Operating Agreement, and the financial records and tax returns of Defendant Hermes Calgon/THG Acquisition, LLC. He rendered opinions regarding the capitalization and solvency of the Hermes entity. Mr. Fascia expressed his professional opinion that the company did not adhere to traditional formalities necessary for the operation of a limited liability company, nor did it adhere to the requirements contained in the Operating Agreement. Mr. Fascia also opined on other technical accounting issues. This Court was aware that Mr. Fascia is an attorney as well as a CPA, and we were careful to evaluate his opinions only as they pertained to accounting as opposed to legal issues. 28 BUCKS COUNTY LAW REPORTER 171 164 (2016)] Power Line v. Hermes Calgon/THG 2016 BCBA Mr. Fascia's testimony clearly related to issues that were beyond the skills and knowledge of a layperson. His opinions were provided following generally accepted accounting analysis. The weight to be afforded his expert testimony was a determination within this Court's discretion. Accordingly, Mr. Fascia's testimony was properly admitted into evidence, and Defendants' assertion that admission of his expert accounting opinions constituted an abuse of discretion is meritless. E. This Court properly Pierced the Corporate Veil of Hermes Calgon/ THG Acquisition, LLC Based on the Testimony and Evidence Elicited, Along With Application of Pertinent Law While there appears to be no clear test or well-settled rule in Pennsylvania as to exactly when the corporate veil may be pierced and when it may not be pierced, courts have held veil-piercing to be appropriate "when the court must prevent fraud, illegality,or injustice, or when recognition of the corporate entity would defeat public policy or shield someone from liability for a crime." Pearson v. Component Tech. Coro., 247 F.3d 471, 484 (3d Cir. 2001). "It has been held that the corporate veil is properly pierced whenever one in control of a corporation uses that control or corporate assets to further one's own personal interests. In such circumstances, the shareholder, in effect, pierces the corporate veil by intermingling his personal interests with the corporation's interests." Advanced Telephone Systems, Inc. v. Com-Net Professional Mobile Radio, LLC, 846 A.2d 1264, 1280 (Pa. Super. 2004) ( citing College Watercolor Group, Inc. v. William H. Newbauer, Inc., 360 A.2d 200, 207 (1976)). See also E. ComfortAssisted Living (ECAL) IV & Vv. Department of ruu. vveuare, n __ ,_ ..,..,,,~ - 2014HTT vv L 5•rns4rp <+O