CHIEF COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, L.P. v. ATOS IT OUTSOURCING SERVICES, LLC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHIEF COMMERCIAL
CONSTRUCTION, L.P.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ATOS IT OUTSOURCING SERVICES,
LLC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:23-cv-02127-NR
OPINION1
J. Nicholas Ranjan, United States District Judge
This case concerns a commercial-lease dispute. 	At a high level, Chief owned
the property at issue (office buildings that mostly housed high-capacity IT servers),
and leased the property to Atos under a 2018 lease agreement. When the lease ended
in 2023 and Atos left, Chief claimed that there was significant damage to the
property, for which Atos was responsible under the lease. 	Atos agreed that it owed
Chief some money for certain repairs, but that Chief was basically looking for windfall
in the damage it was claiming and the money it was seeking. 	When the parties
couldn’t agree on a resolution, Chief filed suit, asserting a breach of the lease. 	The
parties tried the case to the Court in a bench trial, consistent with the terms of the
lease, which contained a jury-waiver clause.
1 This Opinion serves as the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). See Fed. R. Civ P. 52(a) (“In an action tried
on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts
specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions
may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion
or a memorandum of decision filed by the court.”).
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 21

- 2 -
As discussed below, considering the evidence admitted at the bench trial, the
Court finds that Atos was responsible for some of the asserted damages and not
others, and will award Chief a total of $445,044.98 in damages under the lease.
FINDINGS OF FACT2
After considering the trial exhibits, stipulations, deposition designations, and
witness testimony, weighing the credibility of the witnesses, and giving due weight
to all of the evidence, the Court finds as follows.
I. 	The Lease and Property at Issue
1. 	Chief is the owner and landlord of a commercial property located at 4920
Campbells Run Road, Robinson Township, Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA
15205. ECF 42 at 1.
2. 	The property at issue consists of a secure data center with a multi-level office
building, and a loading bay, containing 135,590 square feet of space, together
with multiple, large parking areas and driveways serving the building. Id. at
2.
3. 	Chief and its parent company, Wyatt Incorporated, have owned the property
for over 40 years, and leased the property almost continuously to various
tenants since 1983. M. Mangieri Testimony, 174:19-21. Chief first leased the
property to National Steel in 1983, then to GENIX in 1988, and then to
Affiliated Computer Services in 1996. ECF 61.
4. 	Around 1997, Chief leased the property to Xerox (which had acquired Affiliated
Computer Services). 	M. Mangieri Testimony, 69:4-9; Ex. 5 at 5; ECF 61.
2 The Findings of Fact identify certain critical facts, but are not exhaustive. 	The
Court 	finds 	and 	considers 	other 	relevant 	facts, 	which 	are 	described 	in 	the
“Conclusions of Law & Analysis” section below as they relate to the application of
certain legal principles.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 21

- 3 -
Around 2015, Atos acquired Xerox and assumed the then-existing lease
agreement. M. Mangieri Testimony, 69:4-9.
5. 	In 2018, Chief and Atos signed a new lease, which is the lease at issue in this
case. Id. at 69:13-16; Ex. 13. The 2018 lease became effective June 2018 and
expired May 2023. Ex. 13. At some point during the lease, Atos informed Chief
that it did not plan to renew the lease at the end of its term. 	M. Mangieri
Testimony, 72:2-18. 	Indeed, that’s what happened; Atos did not renew for
another term and moved out of the property in May 2023. Id.
6. 	The parties structured the agreement as what is known as a “triple net lease.”
M. Mangieri Testimony, 74:24-75:19. 	In a triple net lease, the tenant, here
Atos, is generally responsible for repairs and maintenance of the property. Id.
Because Atos assumed those costs during its tenancy, Atos paid a lower rate of
rent compared to what Atos would have paid if it did not have to maintain and
repair the property. 	Id. 	Any specific repair obligations were intended to be
controlled by the language of the lease.
7. 	In the lease, the parties agreed to a division of labor for the care of the property.
Ex. 13. 	Under Section 10(a), Atos was generally responsible for maintaining
the property; however, Atos was not responsible for “ordinary wear and tear,”
“Casualty damage,” or for maintaining the “Structural Elements” of the
property. 	Id. 	Under Section 14(a), when Atos left the property in 2023, it
agreed to return the property “in as good a state and condition” as it was in
2018. 	Id. 	But in returning the property to its 2018 condition, Atos still was
not 	responsible 	for 	repairing 	any 	“Casualty 	damage” 	or 	damage 	from
“reasonable use and wear thereof.” 	Id. 	Further, under Section 37, Atos was
responsible for disposing of any furniture that it “brought onto or kept on the
[property].” Id.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 21

- 4 -
8. 	When the lease term started in 2018, Chief never formally inspected the
property to detail its then-current condition. M. Mangieri Testimony, 70:7-21.
9. 	To maintain the property consistent with its lease obligations, Atos hired
Ascent as the property manager. 	T. Blasingim Testimony, 213:8-16. 	Atos
hired Ascent to, among other duties, maintain the facilities and grounds, bring
in 	qualified 	vendors 	when 	necessary 	to 	maintain 	particular 	pieces 	of
equipment, and perform monthly water treatments on the chillers. 	Id. at
213:22-214:6. Atos spent roughly $500,000.00 per year on maintenance of the
property. Id. at 213:8-16.
10. After Atos moved out, Chief inspected the property and found a number of
problems. 	Specifically, Chief believed that Atos was responsible for failing to
(1) remove all the furniture from the property; (2) repair or replace the flooring;
(3) repair the “EIFS”; (4) repair exterior caulking; (5) repair the parking lot; (6)
repair or replace the fire system; (7) repair the cooling system; and (8) repair
the generators. ECF 1.
11. For some issues, Atos disputed liability altogether. For others, Atos disputed
the specific dollar amount that it owed Chief. After the parties were unable to
resolve these issues, Chief filed this suit, alleging a breach of the lease and
damages based on the above eight problems with the property. 	Id. 	Atos, in
response, disputes the extent of breach and damages associated with these
issues.
12. Before this suit was filed, the parties exchanged communications about the
repairs, 	partially 	in 	an 	attempt 	to 	avoid 	this 	lawsuit. 	Many 	of 	these
communications were entered into evidence at trial by both sides, with no
objection. 	See, e.g., Ex. 82. 	Under Federal Rule of Evidence 408, despite no
objection from either side, some of this evidence is not admissible to prove or
disprove the validity or amount of any disputed claim. That, of course, makes
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 21

- 5 -
sense, as offers could be made to simply buy peace or for reasons that aren’t
wholly tied to the legitimacy or value of the claim. So, the Court makes clear:
(1) even though there were no objections, it will not consider the parties’ pre-
suit communications as evidence of the validity or amount of any claim; (2) to
the extent any communications reflect a transmission of quotes or estimates
for repairs, the Court will consider the underlying quotes as evidence of
estimates to repair or replace certain items; and (3) consistent with Rule
408(b), the Court will consider pre-suit communications as it pertains to
certain witnesses’ biases or credibility more generally.
II. 	The Furniture Removal
13. After Atos moved out, Chief alleged that Atos was responsible for removing the
furniture on the property. 	Chief offered testimony and photo evidence to
demonstrate that Atos did not remove all of the furniture when it left the
property. 	See, e.g., Ex. 1 at ¶ 26. 	More specifically, the four-story building
contained “substantial amounts of office furniture, high wall cubicles, [filing]
cabinets, personal items, storage lockers, chairs of various models, conference
room tables, kitchen equipment, appliances, and maintenance materials.” Ex.
1 at ¶ 25.
14. Atos neither disputes the type of furniture left behind in the building nor the
quantity. 	It only argues that it was not responsible for the removal of the
furniture under the lease.
III. 	The Flooring System
15. The property, serving as a data center, had two types of floor panels, one with
Liskey Mark 30 metal panels (which were in building 1), and one with wood
panels (which were in building 2). 	Ex. 1 at ¶ 36. 	The flooring systems were
raised to keep all of the equipment above the concrete and to allow room for
wires, both power and data, to run below the floor and above the concrete. Id.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 5 of 21

- 6 -
at ¶ 37. In maintaining these types of flooring systems, Chief’s expert witness,
Matthew Pia, credibly opined that those in charge of maintenance had to allow
“tempered air to be directed to each piece of equipment, thus keeping the
equipment from overheating.” Id. According to Mr. Pia, Atos would have had
to insert vents into the floor panels to direct air through the floor tiles for each
piece of equipment. Id.
16. The Court finds that some of the panels in both buildings were damaged. Some
of that damage was due to wear and tear, and some of it was due to Atos’s
failure to maintain the panels or the damage it caused to the panels when it
moved out. 	B. Kopenshek Testimony, 327:12-24; J. Bostrom Testimony,
262:14-21.
17. Based on the circumstantial evidence here, including the photographs of the
panels, how the facility was used, and concerns about the condition of the
panels in the intervening time between 2018 and 2023, the Court concludes by
a preponderance of the evidence that some of the panels were damaged by Atos
during that time, and that the damage was not due to normal wear and tear.
J. Bostrom Testimony, 262:14-21; Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 38-41. 	The Court further finds
that Atos failed, at least in part, to maintain the flooring during this time,
instead 	opting 	to 	move 	damaged 	panels 	around, 	and 	failed 	to 	use
humidification within the area, which led to at least some of the damage
(delamination, cupped tiles, etc.). J. Bostrom Testimony, 268:2-18; Ex. 1 at ¶
38; M. Mangieri Testimony, 95:14-17; F. Episcopo Testimony, 44:1-4.
18. The problem Chief has here, though, is identifying which floor panels were
damaged by Atos, and which were just worn due to the passage of time. Chief
has not presented evidence of what the floor panels looked like in June 2018,
which, as discussed below, is the reference point for the condition of the panels.
See M. Mangieri Testimony, 70:7-21 (discussing that Chief never inspected the
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 6 of 21

- 7 -
property right before the 2018 lease). That is, if the panels were in poor shape
in 2018, Atos had no obligation to restore them to a better pre-2018 shape. In
fact, there was evidence presented that when the lease began in 2018, some
parts of the flooring were “beyond end of life.” 	B. Kopenshek Testimony,
327:12-24. Some panels in 2018 were warped, delaminating, and already had
holes cut out from them. Id.
19. Mr. 	Pia’s 	expert 	report—though 	identifying 	problems 	with 	some 	of 	the
panels—sweeps too broadly by essentially assuming all the damage to the
panels was new since 2018 and caused by Atos. See Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 47–52. Thus,
the Court cannot accept this testimony as sufficient for Chief to prove up its
damages here.
20. At best for Chief is the fact that in some internal communications by Atos and
Ascent, Ascent identified 702 wood panels in building 2 that were damaged.
See Ex. 56; ECF 64 at 14. Based on those internal communications, the Court
finds that there is sufficient evidence to find that Atos caused damage, beyond
normal wear and tear, to those 702 panels.
21. Atos obtained quotes to repair and replace the 702 panels. 	The Court finds
that the cost to repair the 702 panels was $59,000.00, but that there was
insufficient evidence to indicate that a repair would be effective, and based on
the evidence submitted to the Court, the Court has doubts that a repair of those
panels would be viable. 	Therefore, the Court finds that the replacement cost
is more appropriate. The Court finds that the estimate of $178.00 per panel to
repair the 702 floor panels is an appropriate and reasonable estimate. 	This
was within the range of quotes that Atos received. Ex. 56. This comes out to
$124,956.00. The Court further finds that simply replacing the entire floor—
what Chief seeks—would result in a windfall to Chief, and so is not an
appropriate measure of any damages.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 7 of 21

- 8 -
22. In sum, the Court finds that when Atos left the property in 2023, it left the
flooring in a worse state beyond normal wear and tear than when the lease
began in 2018, as to the 702 floor panels.
IV. 	The EIFS
23. The “EIFS” is an “exterior insulation and finishing system” that provides a
wear surface and weather barrier for the interior. 	M. Monteith Testimony,
296:1-6. 	Put differently, it is a multi-layered construction element on the
outside of the building (like a stucco) meant to provide thermal insulation and
protect the building from damage caused by the weather. Ex. 1 at ¶ 54.
24. Multiple witnesses observed damage to the EIFS and exterior of the property.
One witness, an employee of Chief’s parent company, noted that it looked like
a truck hit the loading dock, requiring patching, coating, and finishing to
restore it. 	M. Mangieri Testomony, 124:14-23. 	Further, that same witness
noticed damage to the exterior of the building where a sign used to be, as well
as moisture in the lobby from damage to the EIFS. 	Id. at 124:11-13, 202:19-
22. 	Mr. Pia found that in his experience, the damage to the exterior of the
building, specifically the EIFS, was the result of “impact damage and the
removal of Atos’ signage.” 	Ex. 1 at ¶ 56. 	The damage was more than just
ordinary wear and tear. Id. at ¶ 55.
25. The Court finds the testimony regarding the damage to the EIFS and exterior
of the building credible. 	Atos never offered sufficient evidence to rebut the
damage claims to the EIFS, nor did it ever argue that repairs to the EIFS fell
outside of its contractual obligations and instead should be considered a
“structural element.” The Court thus finds that the damage and lack of repair
to the EIFS is a result of Atos’s breach of the lease and that damages are
appropriate.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 8 of 21

- 9 -
V. 	The Caulking
26. The testimony was consistent regarding the caulking. 	Chief’s witnesses
seemed to agree that the caulking was damaged before the parties signed the
2018 lease. The president of Chief’s parent company testified that 90% of the
property’s caulking was “bad” by 2017. F. Episcopo Testimony, 52:23-53:1. Mr.
Episcopo’s letter from 2017 supports his testimony that the caulking was
already damaged prior to the lease. Ex. 10. Another of Chief’s witnesses, Mr.
Mangieri, testified that the caulking looked “very much the same” from when
the lease began until the time of trial. M. Mangieri Testimony, 205:20-23. Mr.
Pia credibly testified that the damage to the caulking was a result of exposure
to sunlight and aging. M. Pia Testimony, 144:5-8.
27. The Court finds that the caulking was already extensively damaged before the
lease commenced in 2018. Chief never offered any credible evidence that any
damage to the caulking, outside of normal wear and tear, occurred after the
lease took effect in 2018.
VI. 	The Parking Lot
28. Part of the property during Atos’s tenancy included a large and mostly unused
asphalt parking lot. 	When Atos moved out, the parking lot was in poor
condition. 	There was cracking through the surface of the asphalt, known as
alligator cracking, and leveled gaps between parts of the asphalt. M. Monteith
Testimony, 291:2-19. The asphalt was failing. Id.; Ex. 1 at ¶¶70–71. To fully
repair the parking lot, contractors would have to first mill approximately
10,800 square yards of asphalt. Ex. 1 at ¶ 74.
29. But these problems largely existed before Atos signed the 2018 lease. 	The
parking lot was old and needed major repairs even in 2018. 	Mr. Mangieri
testified that the parking lot before the lease looked “much the same as it does
now.” 	M. Mangieri Testimony, 181:2-4. 	Though both parties noted that the
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 9 of 21

- 10 -
parking lot required repairs, neither party repaired the parking lot before the
lease became effective. 	Id. at 181:20-25. 	Atos offered credible evidence that
the type of asphalt used is more than 27 years old—more than double the
expected lifespan for this type of asphalt lot. M. Monteith Testimony, 292:10-
14.
30. During the term of the lease, Atos performed repairs, including in 2020,
spending about $25,000 in sealcoating the asphalt and performing crack
repairs. 	M. Mangieri Testimony, 182:1-185:10. 	While Atos could have
performed some more crack repairs, the parking lot wasn’t used much (e.g.,
four cars using 90 spots), and so the Court finds that the repairs that were
performed were sufficient to maintain the upkeep of the parking lot. 	J.
Bostrom Testimony, 276:2-277:24.
31. The Court finds that the parking lot was in substantially the same condition
in 2023 as it was when the lease began in 2018, and that the maintenance that
Atos performed (sealcoating and patching cracks) was enough to maintain an
already failing parking lot. In sum, Atos was not required to mill a brand-new
parking lot, and there was insufficient evidence to show that the state of the
parking lot was worse in 2023 than in 2018, outside of normal wear and tear.
VII. 	The Fire Protection System
32. Another component of the property during Atos’s lease was an operational fire
protection system. During the lease, the fire marshal inspected the fire alarms
regularly, and Atos never failed a single inspection. T. Blasingim Testimony,
246:10-16; M. Mangieri Testimony, 189:1-2; J. Bostrom Testimony, 289:24-25.
When 	Atos 	left 	the 	property 	in 	2023, 	the 	fire 	protection 	system 	was
operational. 	T. Blasingim Testimony, 246:15-16; J. Bostrom Testimony,
289:22-23.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 10 of 21

- 11 -
33. In 2018, the fire protection system was outdated. By 2020, the servicer for the
system recommended that the entire system needed to be updated because it
was “end of life.” B. Kopenshek Testimony, 321:1-15; Ex. 99. Atos did not pay
for an entire upgrade to the system, but it did complete repairs “as needed to
maintain operation.” 	B. Kopenshek Testimony, at 337:21-338:9. 	The repairs
included repairs to leaking pipes on the fire control, repairs to electronic faults
on the panel, and repairs to ion detector faults. Id.
34. The Court finds that Atos properly maintained the fire protection system and
left it in a substantially similar condition in 2023 as it was when the lease
began in 2018.
VIII. 	The Cooling System
35. The property originally had eight working chillers when the lease began in
2018. Ex. 1 at ¶ 89. When Atos left the property, two of the eight chillers were
not working properly. Ex. 1 at ¶ 90. At that time, Atos did not dispute that it
owed something for the two damaged chillers. 	See Ex. 59; T. Blasingim
Testimony, 250:10-251:2. In line with the evidence and both parties’ positions,
the Court finds that Atos is responsible for the damage to the two chillers no
longer in operation.
IX. 	The Generators
36. When the lease began in 2018, the property had eight working generators. Ex.
1 at ¶ 81. But when Atos left the property, two of the eight generators were no
longer working. 	Ex. 66; M. Mangieri Testimony, 133:12-14. 	Cleveland
Brothers regularly serviced the generators during the lease. M. Pia Testimony,
155:15-21. 	And when Atos moved out, Cleveland Brothers found that there
were two damaged generators. Ex. 66. The Court credits Cleveland Brothers
as a reliable source—both Atos and Chief relied on Cleveland Brother’s
estimates in this case. See id.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 11 of 21

- 12 -
37. The parties dispute how many generators were damaged when the lease ended
in 2023. At trial, Atos argued that only two were damaged when it left, relying
on the Cleveland Brothers quote from when it moved out. Ex. 66. Chief argued
that seven were damaged when Atos left, relying on a later Cleveland Brothers
quote. Ex. 1 at ¶ 84. Weighing the evidence, the Court agrees with Atos, relies
on the first quote, and finds that, when the lease ended, there were only two
damaged generators.
38. The Court does not rely on the second quote for a few reasons. 	First, Chief’s
own expert testified that Cleveland Brothers is a reliable source. 	M. Pia
Testimony, 155:15-24. 	Mr. Pia testified that it would be “reasonable to
conclude” that if Cleveland Brothers did not quote a repair, the generator did
not need to be repaired at that time. M. Pia Testimony, 158:8-12. In the first
quote, only two generators needed to be repaired. 	Ex. 66. 	Second, Chief
received the second quote roughly eight-and-a-half months after the lease
ended. M. Pia Testimony, 159:1-3. Chief did not offer a convincing explanation
for why five extra generators now needed to be repaired eight-and-a-half
months later. Mr. Pia testified that he “assume[d]” seven generators were not
working at the end of the lease because the difference between the two quotes
“seem[ed] a little odd.” M. Pia Testimony, 100:13-20. The first quote is from a
reliable source, took place closer in time to when the lease ended, and Chief
did not offer sufficient evidence or argument as to why the Court should
instead rely on the second quote. 	The Court finds that the first quote better
captures the exact number of generators that were damaged when Atos left the
property in 2023.
39. In sum, the Court finds that Atos is responsible for the damage to the two
generators described in Exhibit 66 that were operational when Atos began the
lease in 2018, but that were no longer operational when Atos left in 2023.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 12 of 21

- 13 -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW & ANALYSIS3
A lease is a type of contract and is thus “controlled by principles of contract
law.” Village Beer & Beverage, Inc. v. Vernon D. Cox & Co., 475 A.2d 117, 121 (1984)
(citing Pugh v. Holmes, 405 A.2d 897 (1979)). 	In a breach-of-lease suit, the law
requires that the plaintiff prove (1) that a lease existed, (2) that the defendant
breached the lease, and (3) the damages as a result of the defendant’s breach. 	Pa.
Supply, Inc. v. Am. Ash Recycling Corp. of Pa., 895 A.2d 595, 600 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)
(citing Corestates Bank, N.A. v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053, 1058 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999)).
It is the plaintiff’s burden to prove these elements by a preponderance of the
evidence. 	Discover Bank v. Booker, 259 A.3d 493, 496 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021) (citing
Snyder v. Gravell, 666 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)). In its trial briefs, Chief
argued that although it bore the ultimate burden, Atos bore the burden to prove
which damages were from normal wear and tear and which weren’t. 	ECF 61, ECF
65. Under Chief’s view, Chief would have the burden to show damages, but then Atos
would be burdened to prove the extent to which those damages were normal wear and
tear. 	The Court disagrees with Chief’s argument that “the party invoking a
contractual provision for its benefit bears the burden of proving the provision
applies.” See ECF 61.
The cases that Chief cites to support of its position do not apply because they
arise in materially different contexts. 	The cases primarily focus on insurance
disputes, see generally Consolidated Rail v. ACE Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 182
3 The Court’s legal analysis below will serve as the “conclusions of law required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).” Reubush v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 85-3576, 1986
WL 12033, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 1986); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) (“In an action
tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts
specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions
may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion
or a memorandum of decision filed by the court. 	Judgment must be entered under
Rule 58.”).
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 13 of 21

- 14 -
A.3d 1011 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018), clauses that limited “a contractor’s remedy to
additional time to perform [] work” (“exculpatory provisions”), John Spearly Const.,
Inc. v. Pa. Valley Area Sch. Dist., 121 A.3d 593, 604 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015), or are
from outside of Pennsylvania, Apple Glen Invs., L.P. v. Express Scripts, Inc., C.A.
8:14-cv-1527, 2016 WL 909322 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2016). Here, it is the Court’s job
to apply Pennsylvania law as it finds it. In a breach-of-lease case like this, the Court
finds that Pennsylvania law has not carved out a burden-shifting scheme wherever
“normal wear and tear” language is present. 	The language merely sets the lease’s
parameters for the damages that Atos must ultimately fix; it is not a standalone
“exculpatory provision.”
In interpreting the meaning of a lease agreement, courts must start with the
plain text of the lease. 	See Village Beer, 475 A.2d at 121 (cleaned up). 	When the
language is “clear and unambiguous,” courts ought to give the words in the lease their
ordinary meaning. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. 69th St. Retail Mall, L.P., 126 A.3d
959, 977 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015) (cleaned up). 	After reviewing the lease in detail, the
Court finds that the relevant provisions are both clear and unambiguous. The Court
thus gives effect to the ordinary meaning of the lease’s provisions to follow.
A central question in determining damages here is which year ought to serve
as the reference point for the condition of the property. 	That is, in returning the
property back to its previous condition (minus ordinary wear and tear), what year is
that? 	Atos argues that the reference point should be 2018, when the lease began.
Chief argues that the reference point should date as far back to when Atos or its
predecessor entities first occupied the property, which would have been under several
prior leases. 	Turning to the words of the lease, the Court finds that the answer is
2018.
There are several provisions in the lease answering this question of how far
back the Court ought to look. First, the lease defines the “Effective Date” as June 1,
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 14 of 21

- 15 -
2018. 	Ex. 13. 	Second, Section 3(a) states in part that “[t]he term of this lease and
[Atos]’s obligation to make any and all payments required under this lease shall
commence on the Effective Date (also known herein as the ‘lease Commencement
Date’).” 	Id. 	Third, Section 3(c) states that absent any express language to the
contrary, the “Prior Lease shall be deemed to have terminated upon the Lease
Commencement Date.” 	Id. 	Finally, Section 14(a) reads that Atos “will quit and
surrender the Premises in as good a state and condition as they were as of the Lease
Commencement Date of the Lease, reasonable use and wear thereof. . . excepted.” Id.
(emphasis added).
Read together, these provisions make clear that the reference point for how the
property ought to look when the lease ended (minus ordinary wear and tear) is how
the property looked in 2018. 	The parties expressly terminated any prior lease
agreement and clearly defined the “Lease Commencement Date” as June 1, 2018.
During trial, Chief viewed this lease as a continuation and incorporation of the prior
leases. 	M. Mangieri Testonomy, 71:14-18. 	But that is in direct conflict with the
express language that Chief ultimately approved in its lease. In assessing how much
damage Atos is liable for, the Court must compare the property’s condition in 2023 to
the property’s condition in 2018.
Under Section 10(a) of the lease, Atos had to maintain and repair all parts of
the property discussed above. 	Id. 	With three carve-outs, Atos was responsible for
fixing any damage to the property from 2018 to 2023. See id. Under Sections 10(a)
and 14(a), if the damage was “ordinary wear and tear,” “Casualty,” or “Structural,”
then Atos was not liable to pay. Id. During trial, neither party argued that any noted
damages were either “casualty” or “structural.” Thus, incorporating the Court’s
findings above, the Court addresses each item of alleged damage, in turn.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 15 of 21

- 16 -
I. 	The Furniture Removal
Under Section 37 of the lease, Atos was ultimately responsible for disposing of
any furniture that Atos “brought onto or kept” on the property. 	Id. 	Atos argued
against liability with respect to the furniture because most of the furniture was
already there when Atos first assumed the prior lease. 	See ECF 64. 	Chief agreed
that “the office furniture was there when [Atos] acquired the lease or was assigned
the lease.” 	M. Mangieri Testimony, 108:20-22. 	Because Atos did not own the
furniture or originally purchase the furniture, in Atos’s view, it was not responsible
for disposing of it when moving out. The Court disagrees.
Section 37 of the lease uses the language “brought onto or kept.” 	Ex. 13
(emphasis added). Even if Atos inherited the furniture, there’s no question that Atos
“kept” the furniture on the property throughout its lease term. So Atos has to pay to
remove it.
Next is the question of damages. To prove damages, Chief relied on the report
and testimony of its expert, Mr. Pia. In calculating how much it would cost to move
the furniture out, Mr. Pia relied on a quote that he obtained from “burkeMICHAEL+.”
burkeMICHAEL+ provided Mr. Pia with one quote containing two estimates, one
estimate for costs with union labor, and one estimate for costs without union labor.
Ex. 1 (Exhibits C and D therein). The two costs varied substantially, with the union
estimate costing $258,512.00 and the non-union estimate costing $143,608.98. 	Id.
Mr. Pia opined that the costs were reasonable in his professional experience. 	Id. at
¶ 33.
The Court finds that the lower $143,608.98 estimate is an appropriate and
reasonable amount for removal of the furniture. 	As discussed above, there was a
significant amount of furniture left on the property in the four-story building, and so
the Court would expect that the cost to be somewhat significant.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 16 of 21

- 17 -
That said, the higher union quote seems to be unreasonably inflated, and
nothing in the lease would require any repairs to be done by union labor, and so the
Court does not use that to assess the amount of damages.
In sum, the Court finds that Chief has proven breach of Section 37 of the lease,
and awards Chief damages pertaining to the removal of the furniture in the amount
of $143,608.98.
II. 	The Flooring System
Based on the evidence presented at trial and as detailed in the Court’s findings
of fact, the Court finds that Chief met its burden in proving that Atos breached the
lease with respect to the flooring system at the property. That leaves the question of
damages.
The Court found above that Atos offered credible testimony proving that it is
not responsible for all damage to the floors. 	Some of the floors were damaged from
normal wear and tear. 	Some of the floors were damaged before 2018. 	Chief is not
entitled to windfall damages from Atos. Chief is entitled to a damages amount that
accurately captures the costs that Atos is responsible for with respect to the damaged
flooring.
The Court cannot rely on Chief’s expert report by Matthew Pia in assessing
damages here. Mr. Pia only opined what it would cost to replace all of the damaged
panels. 	Mr. Pia never offered an alternative damages calculation where he limited
damaged panels 	to post-2018. 	And he 	never offered an 	alternative damages
calculation that accounted for normal wear and tear. 	Mr. Pia likely never offered
these alternative calculations, in part, because he had “no information about what
this property was like in 2018.” M. Pia Testimony, 166:9-11. In essence, what Chief
gave the Court was an all-or-nothing approach. It offered a method, calculations, and
an amount to fix all of the damaged floors. 	But it never explained how the Court
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 17 of 21

- 18 -
ought to consider the damages that Atos was not responsible for during its time at
the property.
One element of Chief’s burden was to prove damages. See Pa. Supply, Inc., 895
A.2d at 600. Finding that there was a breach does not authorize this Court to merely
surmise an appropriate damages amount. It was Chief’s burden to ensure that there
was evidence on the record that the Court could rely on in awarding a damages
amount. In reviewing the evidence, the Court finds that the only competent evidence
of a damages amount here is from some of the quotations obtained by Atos as it was
in the process of exiting the property.
As noted above, and as reflected in Exhibit 56, the Court finds from the
evidence and the reasonable inferences from the evidence, that 702 panels were
damaged 	and 	should 	have 	been 	replaced, 	and 	that 	the 	replacement 	cost 	of
$178.00/panel is a credible measure of the replacement cost. 	That amounts to
$124,956.00.
The Court thus finds $124,956.00 in damages for the flooring to be appropriate.
III. 	The EIFS
Above, the Court found that Atos was responsible for the damage to the EIFS.
Like the first two disputes, the Court must now assess the damages.
Here, 	Mr. 	Pia 	credibly 	opined 	that 	Chief 	must 	“ensur[e] 	the 	system’s
waterproofing and insulating functions are fully restored.” Ex. 1 at ¶ 61. In repairing
the EIFS, “based on how the system must be installed, existing panel areas must be
coated to match the newly repaired panels.” Ex. 1 at ¶ 63. According to Mr. Pia, the
total cost in repairing the EIFS is $119,450.00. 	Id. 	These costs ultimately derive
from quotes from RAM Corporation. Ex. 1 at ¶ 65 (Exhibit E therein).
The Court finds that Mr. Pia’s opinion here is both reasonable and supported
by the evidence. Mr. Pia testified that having worked with RAM Corporation in the
past, he found this quote to be reasonable and representative of the “industry
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 18 of 21

- 19 -
standard.” 	M. Pia Testimony, 77:21-78:3. 	Atos’s own expert did not question the
reliability of RAM Corporation. 	M. Monteith Testimony, 314:9-12. 	Having been
presented with credible evidence without a convincing rebuttal, the Court is inclined
to rely on Mr. Pia and RAM Corporation’s estimate here.
The Court finds $119,450.00 in damages for the EIFS to be appropriate.
IV. 	The Caulking
The caulking was in substantially the same condition in 2023 as it was back in
2018. Under the terms of the lease, Atos only had to return the property to the same
condition that it was in 2018. So the Court finds no breach here.
V. 	The Parking Lot
Like the caulking, the Court finds that the parking lot was in substantially the
same condition in 2023 than it was in back in 2018. The Court finds no breach.
VI. 	The Fire Protection System
When Atos’s lease began, the fire protection system was operational. 	When
Atos’s lease ended, the fire protection system was operational. The Court finds that
Atos did not breach the lease with respect to the condition of the fire protection
system. Chief is not entitled to damages for the fire system.
VII. 	The Cooling System
Finding that Atos breached its lease for failing to repair the two broken
chillers, the Court now turns to damages.
The dispute between the parties here is relatively small. 	In 2023, Atos
provided Chief with a quote for $27,283.00 to fix the two chillers. 	M. Mangieri
Testimony, 216:1-217:5. Chief declined that offer, and now it seeks $30,964.00 to fix
the two chillers. Id. The scope of the work remained the same, the additional request
appears to be because of inflation. Id.
The Court finds that $27,283.00 is the appropriate amount of damages here.
Under the lease, Atos was obligated to cover the costs to fix the two chillers. 	Atos
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 19 of 21

- 20 -
attempted to fulfill its obligations under the lease with respect to the chillers back in
2023. 	Chief said no. 	The Court will not hold Atos responsible for the additional
$3,681.00 where it previously tried to make Chief whole for the damaged chillers.
The Court awards Chief $27,283.00 for the damaged chillers.
VIII. 	The Generators
Above, the Court found that Chief is entitled to damages for the two broken
generators at the property. The Court now turns to a specific damage amount.
The Court finds that $29,747.00 is the appropriate amount of damages here.
In its findings above, the Court relied on Exhibit 66, a quote that Atos obtained from
Cleveland Brothers, to determine that two generators were damaged and needed
repairs. 	The Court again relies on Exhibit 66 to determine a specific damages
amount. 	Cleveland Brothers estimated that repairs to the two broken generators
would cost a total of $29,747.00. Ex. 66. And that is what Atos ought to pay here.
The Court awards Chief $29,747.00 for the damaged generators.
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 20 of 21

- 21 -
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will, by separate order, enter judgment in
favor of Chief and against Atos, and award Chief damages in the amount of
$445,044.98. The breakdown of damages is as follows:
Category 	Damages Amount
Furniture Removal 	$143,608.98
The Flooring System 	$124,956.00
The EIFS 	$119,450.00
The Cooling System 	$27,283.00
The Generators 	$29,747.00
Total 	$445,044.98
This amount is exclusive of any interest, administrative fee, costs, or attorneys’
fees, which may be addressed by a post-judgment motion.
DATE: November 25, 2025 	BY THE COURT:
/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan
United States District Judge
Case 2:23-cv-02127-NR Document 73 Filed 11/25/25 Page 21 of 21