Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act
June 13, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions Yesterday, Governor Tom Wolf signed into law House Bill 566 which make major changes to Pennsylvania’s Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. Owners and General Contractors that fail to take head of the changes could face significant financial consequences.
The Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, known as CAPSA or simply the Payment Act, was passed into law in 1994. The intent was “to cure abuses within the building industry involving payments due from owners to contractors, contractors to subcontractors, and subcontractors to other subcontractors.” Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P., 984 A.2d 497, 500 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). In reality, abuses still occurred. While the Payment Act purportedly dictated a statutory right to payment within a certain amount of time and imposes stiff penalties for failure make payment, including 1% interest per month, 1% penalty per month, and reasonable attorneys fees, the language of the Payment Act left recalcitrant contractors with wiggle room. Particularly, the Payment Act allowed owners and higher tier subcontractors to withhold payment “deficiency items according to the terms of the construction contract” provided it notified the contractor “of the deficiency item within seven calendar days of the date that the invoice is received.” 73 P.S. Section 506. The problem was that the Payment Act did not expressly state where the notice must be in written, what it must say, and what happened if notice was not given.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage
December 30, 2019 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCCertificates of insurance are a common tool used in the construction industry to provide proof of insurance coverage. The legal effect of certificates of insurance has been a source of debate in Washington. Insurance companies have argued that certificates of insurance are “informational only” and do not alter the terms of the applicable insurance policy. Insurance companies have taken the position that if a certificate of insurance provides for coverage that is different than what the policy provides, the insurance company is only bound to provide what the policy provides.
The Washington State Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in an opinion issued on October 10, 2019, and held that an insurance company is bound by the terms of its certificate of insurance – even if it conflicts with the policy. In T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, Selective’s agent issued a certificate of insurance to “T-Mobile USA, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates” and stated that those entities were “included as additional insured” under the policy. The certificate of insurance was issued by Selective’s agent when T-Mobile’s contractor purchased an insurance policy from Selective for a cell tower project. The contractor’s agreement for the project was with T-Mobile Northeast – not T-Mobile USA. The contract between T-Mobile Northeast and the contractor stated that T-Mobile Northeast would be an additional insured. The Selective insurance policy stated that any third party would automatically be an additional insured if the contractor was required to name the third party as an additional insured. The contract did not provide that T-Mobile USA would be an additional insured.
A property owner damaged by the cell tower project sued T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile USA tendered the claim to Selective. Selective denied the claim because the contract between the contractor and T-Mobile Northeast did not require the contractor to name T-Mobile USA as an additional insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Does the UCC Apply to the Contract for the Sale of Goods and Services
July 03, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhat governs the transaction for the hybrid contract that includes both goods and services–the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the common law? A question that is asked in numerous disputes. A good example is the recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Wadley Crushed Stone Company, LLC v. Positive Step, Inc., 2022 WL 1639011 (11th Cir. 2022), dealing with Alabama law.
In this case, the plaintiff (buyer) wanted to build a granite plant in Alabama that would process 500 tons of granite per hour. The plaintiff reached out to a defendant company to start the process of building a granite plant. The defendant company engaged vendors and professionals in the due diligence process to determine the equipment the plaintiff would need. After this due diligence, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract that included equipment and services. Thereafter, the parties modified the contract to reduce the amount for the erection, installation, and electrical work (about $1.5 Million) as plaintiff planned to independently hire the contractor to perform that work. The modified contract was worth $4,059,224.43 of which there were 25 lines items for equipment totaling $3,887,274.43 with the balance (less than 5% of the contract amount) for engineering (done by a third party), installation, setup, and calibration of scales.
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
White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases
July 06, 2020 —
Christian Singewald & Rochelle Gumapac - White and Williams LLPThe Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death.
In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and
Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “D’Oh!”
August 12, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyThe U.S. DOL found itself on June 24 on the wrong end of a preliminary injunction concerning recent changes to the Davis-Bacon Act.
The lawsuit, initiated in Texas federal court by the Associated General Contractors of America and other concerned citizens, sought a preliminary injunction barring implementation and enforcement of “specified portions of § 5.2 and § 5.5(e) of the DOL’s ‘Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations’” – the “Final Rule,” published August 23, 2023.
After determining the appropriateness of the “standing” of the plaintiffs based upon the plaintiffs being “adversely affected” by the Final Rule, the federal court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule. In noting its disagreement with the Final Rule, the court stated:
“… the Final Rule amends the DBA [the Davis-Bacon Act] by imposing a stealth selfimplementing DBA requirement in the contract by an operation-of-law provision that contradicts the express statutory language of the Act [the court bristling at the idea that contracts might exclude with impunity the otherwise mandated DBA clauses]. Further, the Final Rule amends the Act to extend the DBA to apply to workers who are not mechanics and laborers, and to extend the scope of the work covered by DBA to include work is not performed ‘directly on the site of the work.’
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Full Extent of Damage From Turkey Quakes Takes Shape
February 20, 2023 —
Jeff Rubenstone - Engineering News-RecordNearly two weeks after a pair of severe earthquakes rocked central Turkey and northern Syria, the full extent of damage to buildings and other structures is beginning to emerge. With the magnitude 7.8 and 7.5 epicenters located hundreds of kilometers apart, the area affected is vast.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Rubenstone, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Rubenstone may be contacted at rubenstonej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SunEdison Gets Shinsei Bank Funding for Japan Solar Power Plant
March 12, 2015 —
Ehren Goossens – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- SunEdison Inc., a U.S. solar developer, got financing from Tokyo-based Shinsei Bank Ltd. for a large-scale project in the country.
The 9.6-megawatt Tarumizu project on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu will power about 3,000 homes, Maryland Heights, Missouri-based SunEdison said Wednesday in a statement. The project is under construction and expected to be completed in September. Financial details weren’t disclosed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ehren Goossens, BloombergMr. Goossens may be contacted at
egoossens1@bloomberg.net
NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers
February 24, 2020 —
Traub LiebermanIn New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2019 WL 6109144 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2019), New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) defeated the claim of several of its insurers that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to its Superstorm Sandy damages and recovered the full $400 million limits of its property insurance tower. The decision is a big win for the beleaguered transit agency, and for insurance professionals working with complex insurance towers, the decision highlights critical underwriting issues that can dramatically affect the amount of risk transferred by the policyholder or assumed by the insurer.
In NJ Transit, NJT secured a multi-layered property insurance program providing $400 million in all-risk coverage. The first and second layers provided $50 million each, the third and fourth layers provided $175 million and $125 million, respectively, with several insurers issuing quota shares in each layer. The program contained a $100 million flood sublimit, and “flood” was defined to include a “surge” of water. The program did not contain a sublimit for damage caused by a “named windstorm,” which was defined to include “storm surge” associated with a named storm. After NJT made its Superstorm-Sandy claim, some of the third- and fourth-layer insurers advised NJT that the $100 million flood sublimit applied to bar coverage under their policies. NJT sued these excess insurers and won at the trial and appellate levels.
In holding that the $100 million flood sublimit did not apply, the court applied the rule of construction that the specific definition of “named windstorm,” which included the terms “storm surge” and “wind driven water,” controlled over the policies’ more general definition of “flood.” In ascertaining the parties’ intent, the court noted that the omission of the term “storm surge” in the definition of “flood” evidenced an intention that the flood sublimit would not apply to storm surges. Based on this finding, the court rejected several arguments made by the insurers that other policy provisions evidenced the parties’ intent to apply the flood sublimit to all flood-related losses, regardless of whether the loss was caused by a storm surge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
