Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance

December 27, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
It is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy. In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why? Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Break out the Neon: ‘80s Era Davis-Bacon “Prevailing Wage” Definition Restored in DOL Final Rule

August 21, 2023 — A. Scott Hecker & Ted North - The Construction Seyt
On August 8, 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its final rule related to the Davis-Bacon Act (the “Act”), entitled “Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations.” However, the official final rule must be published in the Federal Register – likely by week’s end – before going into effect 60 days after publication. DOL issued its notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) in March 2022 and received more than 40,000 comments from interested stakeholders. Evaluating and addressing those comments took the better part of a year, as DOL did not send the rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) for White House approval until December 16, 2022. After languishing for months, OIRA has now concluded its review, allowing DOL to move forward with its final rule. Reprinted courtesy of A. Scott Hecker, Seyfarth and Ted North, Seyfarth Mr. Hecker may be contacted at shecker@seyfarth.com Mr. North may be contacted at enorth@seyfarth.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Subcontractor’s Miller Act Payment Bond Claim

September 07, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Since I wrote my ebook on the application of federal Miller Act payment bonds, I have not discussed a case applying the Miller Act. Until now! Below is a case that reinforces two important points applicable to Miller Act payment bond claims. First, the case reinforces what a claimant needs to prove to establish a Miller Act payment bond claim. Very important. Second, the case reinforces that a subcontractor is going to be governed by its subcontract. This means that those provisions regarding payment and scope of work are very important. Not that you did not already know this, but ignoring contractual requirements will not fly. In U.S.A. f/u/b/o Netplanner Systems, Inc. v. GSC Construction, Inc., 2017 WL 3594261 (E.D.N.C. 2017), a prime contractor hired a subcontractor to run cabling and wiring at Fort Bragg. The subcontractor claimed it was owed a balance and filed a lawsuit against the general contractor the Miller Act payment bond. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud

March 04, 2019 — Scott Judy - Engineering News-Record
A subcontractor employee working on the now-canceled MOX project in South Carolina used football tickets, automobile tires, barbecue grills and other gifts to persuade employees of CB&I AREVA MOX Services and other vendors to help approve thousands of fraudulent invoices cumulatively valued at more than $6.4 million, according to a Dept. of Justice lawsuit filed Feb. 14 that names both companies as defendants. The controversial project at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C., originally scheduled for completion in 2016, was canceled in January after cost and schedule estimates increased significantly. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Scott Judy, ENR
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com

Subcontractor Not Estopped from Enforcing Lien Not Listed In Bankruptcy Petition

March 01, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
In Stock Building Supply, Inc. v. Platte River Insurance Co.,[1] the Court of Appeals dealt with issues of judicial estoppel, bankruptcy, retroactive application of statutory lien amendments, and the full payment defense. The owner, Madison Retail-Suwanee, LLC (“Madison”) hired Cannon/Estapa General Contractors, Inc. (“Cannon”) to be the general contractor for the construction of a shopping center (“the Project”). Cannon subcontracted with Stock Building Supply (“Stock”) to supply labor, materials, and services for the Project. Cannon failed to complete the project and Madison had yet to pay Cannon the full contract price. In 2007, Stock timely filed a lien on the Project and obtained a judgment against Cannon for the amount due under the subcontract. Platte River Insurance Company (“Platte”), the surety, issued a bond to discharge Stock’s lien. Consequently, Stock pursued an action against Platte to collect the judgment in the amount of $93,865.27. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

Housing-Related Spending Made Up Significant Portion of GDP in Fourth Quarter 2013

March 31, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
On the Insights Blog of CoreLogic, Molly Boesel reported that “housing-related spending made up 17.4 percent of GDP in [the] fourth quarter [of] 2013,” according to the latest release by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The numbers published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis demonstrated “upward revisions in overall GDP and housing-related expenditures from the second estimate released in February 2014.” Boesel explained how they determined the housing-related spending number: “To calculate the portion of domestic spending that is related to housing, we look at three expenditures from the release: residential investment (the construction of new single- and multi-family houses), spending on housing services (rent, owner’s equivalent rent and utilities) and spending on furnishings and durable goods. Together, these expenditures made up 17.4 percent of total real GDP in the fourth quarter of 2013, the same as this time a year ago and down from the high of 20.6 percent in the third quarter of 2005.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A West Virginia couple has sued the manufacturer of their home for construction defects and damage. Darrell and Teri Pearson claim that the home they purchased from Giles Industries was defective. They further claim that Kitchen’s Construction failed to set the home up properly and that the firm did not repair damaged sections of home. The suit also names the firm that sold the home and others. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES