have any merit. Moreover, Great Northern’s reliance on Moscatiello is misplaced because, as ADT correctly notes, that case is factually distinguishable from the case at bar. For the most part, the parties’ arguments and cases cited in support thereof track the requirements for evaluating the enforceability of exculpatory clauses in Pennsylvania, however, the Pennsylvania courts and Third Circuit have held that different standards apply when dealing with exculpatory clauses as opposed to limitation of liability clauses. See Valhal Corp., 44 F.3d at 202 (citing DeFrancesco v. W. Pa. Water Co., 329 Pa.Super. 508, 478 A.2d 1295, 1306 (1984); Posttape, 537 F.2d at 755). Thus, those 'cases which involve the enforcement of exculpatory clauses are simply inapposite here A.2d 747, 748 (1958) (<HOLDING>); Behrend v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 242
holding limitation of liability provision limiting damages to replacement or correction of defective material andor installation in service contract for improvements to plaintiffs residence was valid and enforceable citing restatement of contracts  339 cmt g other citations omitted  holding in contract for burglar alarm system limitation of liability provision as to damages resulting from vendors own negligence was enforceable and not against public policy or unconscionable where agreement was between two private businesses and plaintiff had 20 years experience with similar provisions in similar service contracts with a competitor of the defendant holding that where log home construction kit contained defects that could not be repaired contractual provision limiting damages to cost of repair failed of its essential purpose and therefore the limitation on liability was not enforceable holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous holding that an identical or nearly identical limitation of liability clause was valid and enforceable under georgia law