Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions
January 04, 2021 —
White and Williams LLPIn a much needed holiday gift for businesses and individuals who continue to be affected by COVID-19, Congress finally approved a $900 billion aid package follow-up to the CARES Act (the Winter Covid-19 Relief Bill), the several trillion dollar stimulus that was enacted early in the pandemic. The bill, part of the larger annual spending bill, will hopefully be signed into law by President Trump in the coming days although the President has indicated his disappointment about the small amount of direct relief to individuals included in the bill. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress by a veto proof majority and is expected to become law whether or not the President chooses to exercise his veto power.
White and Williams has and will continue to provide more detailed updates on important components of the legislation, some of which address matters beyond COVID-19-related relief and support, including a new Paycheck Protection Program and tax deductibility of expenses paid for with PPP funds, extension and expansion of the employee retention tax credit, direct payments to individuals, additional unemployment assistance, restrictions on surprise medical billing, rental assistance and extension of the eviction moratorium, education funding, vaccine distribution, testing and tracing, and other healthcare funding. In the meantime, here is a brief overview of several pieces of the legislation:
Paycheck Protection Program
The Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill provides for $284 billion of funding for a new round of the popular Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was established by the CARES Act and allowed borrowers to receive forgivable loans to be used to retain employees and cover certain other basic operating expenses. New and existing businesses may participate in the program. However, eligibility for PPP Part II is more restrictive and targeted then the original PPP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects
October 07, 2016 —
Mark L. Parisi – White and Williams LLPOwners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).
Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home.
ENTER THE UTPCPL
On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLPMr. Parisi may be contacted at
parisim@whiteandwilliams.com
Where-Forum Art Thou? Is the Chosen Forum Akin to No Forum at All?
May 30, 2022 —
William Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistMany courts enforce forum selection clauses in contracts between parties. In W. Bay Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Sika Corp., No. 3D21-1834, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1637 (W. Bay Plaza), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Court of Appeal) answered the question of whether a mandatory forum selection clause in a manufacturer’s warranty was enforceable as to a condominium association, who was a non-signatory. The trial court enforced the forum selection clause – calling for litigation in New Jersey rather than Florida – and the Court of Appeal affirmed the ruling.
As stated in W. Bay Plaza, in late 2013 and early 2014, West Bay Plaza Condominium Association (W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n) contracted with Built Right Installers International Corporation, R.J. Miranda Consultants, Inc. and UCI Engineering Inc. (collectively, the Construction Defendants) to have repairs done to the exterior of the property. In 2016, Sika Corporation (Sika), a New Jersey corporation, gave a five-year warranty to W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n for three sealant products used to repair the garage at the property. In 2019, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n sued the Construction Defendants for breach of contract and professional negligence. Subsequently, W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n amended its complaint and filed a claim against Sika, alleging that Sika breached its warranty because its products failed to provide a watertight barrier. Sika filed a motion to dismiss the action, alleging that Florida was an improper venue because its’ warranty contained a mandatory forum selection clause. W.B. Plaza Condo. Ass’n argued that it was not bound by the forum selection clause because it was a non-signatory to the warranty and, even if it was bound by the clause, there were compelling reasons not to enforce it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Drywall Originator Hopes to Sell in Asia
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFWith all the talk of problems with drywall coming from China, one company wants to send drywall in the other direction. USG introduced its “Adamant Panel Board” (later Sheetrock) in 1917. But while USG has been a leader in the drywall market in North America, only about 20% of its sales are outside North America.
USG is partnering with Boral Ltd., an Australian building materials manufacturer. Earlier this year, USG sold manufacturing and distribution of certain products to the German company Knauf Verwaltungsgesellschaft. Knauf has sold drywall in the United States that was manufactured in China and found to exit corrosive fumes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final
March 29, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn subcontracts, it is not uncommon to see a provision that says something to the effect:
Should any dispute arise between the parties respecting the true construction or interpretation of the Plans, Specifications and/or the Contract Requirements, the decision of the Owner or the Owner’s designated representative as set forth in the General Contract shall be final.
This is a provision in a subcontract dealing with dispute resolution, typically when there is a dispute as to whether the subcontractor is performing extra-contractual or base contract work regarding an “interpretation of the Plans, Specifications, and/or the Contract Requirements.” It is not uncommon for there to be a dispute as to whether certain work is within the subcontractor’s scope of work or outside the subcontractor’s scope of work and subject to a change order.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
ASBCA Validates New Type of Claim Related to Unfavorable CPARS Review [i]
May 03, 2017 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCFor government contractors, an unfavorable performance rating review posted to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”) can be extremely costly. Many of the government-negotiated solicitations include past performance as an important, and sometimes even primary, evaluation factor for contract award. An unfavorable CPARS review on a past contract can cause the contractor to incur substantial extra costs in addressing the unfavorable review with contracting officers on future solicitations, and, in some instances, the contractor saddled with an unfair or inaccurate CPARS may have to challenge the review and recover some of these costs.
Both the Federal Court of Claims and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) have held that they have jurisdiction to hear Contract Dispute Act claims regarding unfair and/or inaccurate CPARS review. The relief available to contractors until this year was a declaration from the Court of Claims or Board that an unfair or inaccurate CPARS review was arbitrary and capricious. Neither the Board nor the Court had the authority or power to order the contracting officer to change the unfavorable review. The contractor who received a declaration from the Court or the Board regarding an unfavorable CPARS review may use it in the future to explain the unfavorable review when bidding new government work; however, the unfavorable review remains in the CPARS system and shows up on all future solicitations, the Board or Court decision notwithstanding.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion
May 21, 2014 —
Hui-yong Yu – BloombergBlackstone Group LP (BX) agreed to sell five office properties in Boston to a venture led by Toronto-based Oxford Properties Group for about $2.1 billion, according to two people with knowledge of the transaction.
The buildings total almost 3.3 million square feet (306,000 square meters) and are mostly in downtown Boston, said the people, who asked not to be named because the sale is private. The sale is Blackstone’s largest of U.S. office properties since the real estate market crash.
Oxford plans to purchase 100 High St. and 125 Summer St., and team with JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s asset-management unit to buy three other properties: 60 State St., 225 Franklin St. and One Memorial Drive in nearby Cambridge, the people said. Blackstone also is selling its roughly half-stake in Boston’s Rowes Wharf to part-owner Morgan Stanley (MS) for about $200 million, according to one of the people.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hui-yong Yu, BloombergHui-yong Yu may be contacted at
hyu@bloomberg.net
TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Fall Meeting in Washington, D.C.
November 13, 2023 —
Marissa L. Downs & Jennifer M. Kanady - The Dispute ResolverOver 500 construction lawyers, experts, and consultants descended on Washington last week for the Forum’s 2023 Fall Meeting. Newly minted Forum Chair John Cook and Program Coordinators Catherine Delorey and Brian Zimmerman put together a stellar program focused on navigating government construction. For this installation of the post-meeting post, I'm teaming up with guest contributor, Jennifer Kanady, to bring you 10 of our top take-aways from this unique program.
10. Contracting with the government is replete with risk that could easily trap the unwary. Nobody likes to be taken advantage of. But hell hath no fury like the U.S. Government scorned. Erin Cannon-Wells and Aaron Silberman, gave a (truly) delightful, Indiana-Jones-inspired presentation on the regulations that can doom the unwitting contractor who is less than perfectly forthright in its dealings. The government has created financial incentives for members of the public to report your company’s violations as part of a qui tam action. When you consider the number of potential whistleblowers in the bidding process and the contracting chain, a qui tam action would seem more likely than not. Add to that the sanctions contractors might face for even innocent errors either by their own companies or their downstream subs, and government contracting begins to sound increasingly like the Temple of Doom. Oh, and in case you were only focused on affirmative claims, beware the “reverse false claim” which is concealing information that would rightfully entitle the government to a credit…
Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLP and
Jennifer M. Kanady, FAC Services, LLC
Ms. Downs may be contacted at mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
Ms. Kanady may be contacted at JKanady@facfin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
