Posts Tagged ‘construction law’

« Older Entries

Help Me . . . Help You

by HDlawblog Posted: Wednesday, 9/21/2016

Most people probably think that “Show me the money!” is the Jerry McGuire quote that best describes lawyers. But that’s not true. The quote that best describes lawyers is “help me . . . help you.” And there are many things that a client can do to help his or her lawyer in a litigation case. Here are some simple, but effective, considerations for a win-win situation. Doing these four things will make your case more efficient, and success more probable.

1. Preserve Evidence. Your lawyer can only defend and prosecute your case with evidence. Also, the failure to preserve evidence can be used against you. Thus, Rule #1: Preserve Evidence. Start by identifying all the potential locations of evidence: Paper format; electronic devices; servers; cloud/online storage; and third party sources. These should be saved to ensure that evidence is preserved. After identifying the sources of documents, help your lawyer by culling and gathering the documents. It is also useful to specifically identify the documents that you think are most relevant to the case. Likewise, identify all potential witnesses and provide your attorney with the last known contact information.

2. Know you’re objective, and what you’re willing to settle for.  At the beginning of the lawsuit, clarify your objectives. Consider the best-case outcomes; consider the worst-case outcomes. And consider the outcomes that you want to achieve. It is also best to consider what you’re willing to concede (or spend), in order to achieve the desired outcome.

3. Understand Risks. Nothing is certain. Nothing is promised. Nothing is guaranteed. Litigation is unpredictable. At least one major fact or witness will turn out completely different than anticipated. The law can be murky, too. An analogy: Imagine that you own a 2007 Honda CRV with a book value of $10,000. Now, imagine that you park the 2007 Honda CRV on the street with a “For Sale Best Offer” sign. What type of offer might you get? Would it matter if your CRV is sold in Lancaster, or Camp Hill, or Gettysburg, or West Chester? The book value might be $10,000; but the reality is that it will be sold on a specific day, at a specific location, with a specific buyer. You might get $10,000 exactly, but probably not. Likewise, the legal books might say that your dispute should be determined one way or another. But the reality is that it will depend on the specific facts of your case, with a specific judge or jury, in a specific location. Just like the sale of the CRV – litigation is not an exact formula.

4. Understand Negotiated Settlement. To avoid unpredictability, and to achieve finality, settlements are wise. But, to get something, you need to give something.

What’s Happening Now . . .

7.5 % Increase

  • Through July 2016, spending on private construction is up 7.5%, compared to 2015.
  • Spending on public construction is up 0.2%.
  • Total construction spending is up 5.6%.
  • Residential construction spending is up 6.5%.
  • Non-residential private construction spending is up 5.1%.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, July 2016 Construction at $1,153.2 Billion Annual Rate (Sep. 1, 2016).

This article is authored by attorney Jeffrey C. Bright and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice.  Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Litigation | Comments Off on Help Me . . . Help You

PA Workplace Misclassification Act

by HDlawblog Posted: Friday, 4/29/2016

In March 2016 the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry produced a white paper report on the “Administration and Enforcement of the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act in 2015.” Under the Act, the DLI investigates and penalizes construction companies that misclassify employees as independent contractors.

Here’s a quick snapshot from the Report:

pic for 4-29-16 blog

But in 2013, under similar circumstances, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that the general contractor’s payments to the subcontractor did not afford protection, and the Prompt Payment Act did not shield the contractor and the surety from liability. Berks Products Corp. v. Arch Ins. Co., 72 A.3d 315.

Those are the cases of Workplace Misclassification that the Bureau of Labor Law Compliance has investigated in the past five years. Notably, there were more investigations in 2015 than the previous four years combined. Also, the investigations netted $217,450 in penalties, which is a 1,612% increase from the 2014 penalty amount. In fact, the Bureau only collected $12,700 in penalties in 2014. Point being, DLI is emphasizing the enforcement of this Act, and all construction companies should take a very close look at how they supply manpower to their projects.

The Workplace Misclassification Act applies to all construction companies working on all types of projects—public, private, residential, or commercial. The Act sets forth a checklist of considerations that are scrutinized when determining if a laborer on a project is actually an independent contractor. If the laborer is misclassified as an independent contractor—when in fact he is really an employee—DLI will levy a fine. In some instances, DLI has the authority to seek criminal prosecutions.

To comply with the Act, every independent contractor must have a written contract. Further, every laborer should be analyzed with consideration of the numerous other requirements under the Act. DLI generally receives its leads from (1) complaints filed by laborers; (2) findings made during construction site visits; and (3) referrals from other government agencies, particularly the Office of Unemployment Compensation Tax Services. To avoid penalties, it is best to review your laborers and seek legal advice as necessary.

What’s Happening Now . . .

11.2 % Increase

  • Increase in construction spending for first two months of year, comparing 2015 to 2016.
  • Construction spending for January & February 2015 was $141.3 billion.
  • Construction spending for January & February 2016 was $157.1 billion.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau News, February 2016 Construction at $1,144.0 Billion Annual Rate, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (Apr. 1, 2016).

Newsletter written by Jeffrey C. Bright, Esq. , an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and Maryland. For more information, contact an attorney at Harmon & Davies, P.C.

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction | Comments Off on PA Workplace Misclassification Act

Trumbull and Berks Products Payment Bonds

by HDlawblog Posted: Thursday, 3/31/2016

Pennsylvania’s Prompt Payment Act states that “once a contractor has made payment to the subcontractor . . . claims for payment against the contractor or the contractor’s surety by parties owed payment from the subcontractor . . . shall be barred.” The Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act provides similar (but slightly different) language. This is referred to as the “safe harbor” clause.

In 2001, to the pleasure of the bonding industry, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court opined that the general contractor’s payments to the subcontractor barred a claim by the sub-subcontractor on the payment bond. Trumbull Corp. v. Boss Const. Inc., 768 A.2d 368. The court held that the Prompt Payment Act’s language absolved both the contractor and the surety of liability. Even though the subcontractor failed to pay a sub-subcontractor, the claim on the bond was dismissed.

But in 2013, under similar circumstances, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that the general contractor’s payments to the subcontractor did not afford protection, and the Prompt Payment Act did not shield the contractor and the surety from liability. Berks Products Corp. v. Arch Ins. Co., 72 A.3d 315.

The 2013 Berks Products case was widely seen as abrogating the Trumbull decision, and taking away the “safe harbor” provided by the Prompt Payment Act. But a close reading of Berks Products indicates that the Prompt Payment Act’s barring of claims will still be enforced—so long as the bond language is carefully written:

[T]he payment bond drafted by [Surety] . . . provided that the bond shall remain in full force and effect until such time as both [General Contractor] and any subcontractor . . . make full payment for any labor and/or materials . . . .

* * *

[Sub-subcontractor] was entitled to seek recovery under the Bond Law, and the “safe harbor” provision would generally be applicable to [General Contractor]. However, an issue arose as to whether the language of the payment bond . . . waived this provision.

Point being: the Prompt Payment Act’s “safe harbor” clause is still effective. But the bond should be written carefully, to reflect that payment from the Contractor will extinguish the bond obligations. If the bond states that payment by the Contractor and all Subcontractors will extinguish the bond, then, the court might treat it as a Berks Products bond, and hold that it waived the “safe harbor” provision.

When issues pertaining to payment bonds arise, it is best to seek legal advice early and often.

 

What’s Happening Now . . .

Residential Construction

  • Indicators of new residential construction were improved, comparing Feb. 2016 to Feb. 2015.
  • Building Permits: Feb. 2016 is 6.4% above Feb. 2015.
  • Housing Starts: Feb. 2016 is approx. 30.9% above Feb. 2015.
  • Housing Completions: Feb. 2016 is 17.5% improvement.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau News, New Residential Construction in February 2016, U.S. Dept. of Housing (Mar. 16, 2016).

Newsletter written by Jeffrey C. Bright, Esq. , an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and Maryland. For more information, contact an attorney at Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction | Comments Off on Trumbull and Berks Products Payment Bonds

A Construction Law Newsletter Provided by Harmon & Davies, P.C.

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 12/21/2015
Legal Punchlist
What’s Happening Now . . .

       10.7%

·         Increase in construction spending, year-to-date.

·         The first 10 months of 2015 have seen $888.1 billion in construction spending.

·         The first 10 months of 2014 were $802.3 billion.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau News, October 2015 Construction at $1,107.4 Billion Annual Rate, U.S. Dept. of Commerce (Dec. 1, 2015).

Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation

Construction contracts often reference either mediation, arbitration, or litigation. But what’s the difference between these three?

Mediation is the use of a third-party to conduct an informal meeting for the purpose of resolving the dispute. There is no judge or jury. It is merely a mechanism to get all the parties in the same room.

Typically, but not always, the mediator is selected and hired by the parties to lead the settlement discussions. It’s also common for mediation conferences to start with all parties in a single room, discussing their grievances and desired outcomes. After the initial group discussion, it is common for each party to relocate to separate rooms, and the mediator will meet with each party individually, to facilitate points for discussion. Generally, a mediator is hoping to bring each party towards middle ground in search of a negotiated resolution.

 

It is important to ensure that mediation is conducted under the confines of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5949. This statute provides that the communications made in mediation are inadmissible as evidence in a court of law. This protection allows the parties to speak freely, in an effort to resolve the dispute. Settlement discussions are also inadmissible in a court of law, under Pa.R.E. 408. Best practice is for all parties to agree in advance, as a ground-rule of mediation, as to whether the statements are fair game for use in court at a later point.

Mediation does not result in a binding decision. It is merely an attempt to facilitate a negotiated settlement. Arbitration, on the other hand, is a formal procedure that results in a binding decision. Arbitration does not use a judge or jury. Instead, an arbitrator presides over the arbitration and acts as the “judge and factfinder.” Arbitrators are usually practicing attorneys who likely have a concentration or level of expertise in the specific area of applicable law. Arbitration is less formal than a trial in court; it is often held in a private office, or a conference room. Although less formal than a trial, the litigants must still present testimony and evidence, in a similar manner as if presenting their case in court.

Sometimes, people use the terms “binding” or “non-binding” arbitration. These are misnomers. By definition, all arbitration is binding. If it is “non-binding arbitration” then, it is better defined as mediation. When agreeing to participate in mediation or arbitration, make sure that it is fully understood and agreed that the process is either binding or non-binding. The best way to make this clear is to use the proper terms: mediation is a non-binding; arbitration results in a binding decision. This should be clarified in writing, between the parties, as a ground-rule for participating in the process.

Litigation, in contrast, is the use of the court process. At the time of entering the contract, and at the time of any dispute arising, it is important to know whether the contract requires mediation, arbitration, or litigation.

Newsletter written by Jeffrey C. Bright, Esq. , an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and Maryland. For more information, contact an attorney at Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Employment          Construction           Business

2306 Columbia Ave. | Lancaster, PA 17603

T: 717.291.2236 | www.h-dlaw.com

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction | Comments Off on A Construction Law Newsletter Provided by Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Legal Punchlist November 2015

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 11/30/2015

Legal Punchlist Newsletter (Nov. 2015)

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction | Comments Off on Legal Punchlist November 2015

Legal Punchlist Newsletter

by HDlawblog Posted: Friday, 10/30/2015

Legal Punchlist Newsletter (Oct. 2015)

 

 

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction, Construction Contracts | Comments Off on Legal Punchlist Newsletter

Legal Punchlist Newsletter

by HDlawblog Posted: Thursday, 4/30/2015

Click to read our Legal Punchlist Newsletter4-30-15 Legal Punchlist Newsletter (Apr. 2015)

 

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction | No Comments »

Harassment on the Worksite; Can the General Contractor be Held Liable?

by HDlawblog Posted: Friday, 4/17/2015

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia recently held that a laborer hired by a subcontractor cannot sue the construction project’s general contractor for same-sex harassment. In the lawsuit, Matthew Allen alleged that an unidentified man from another company made sexual advances towards him. After reporting the incident to the general contractor, D.A. Foster Company, Inc., the man who allegedly made the advances was ejected from the worksite. Allen alleged, however, that he was continually harassed by coworkers who had heard about the incident. Allen filed suit against the general contractor, and Barnes Excavating, the subcontractor, alleging, among other counts, discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and retaliatory termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The court held that claims against an employer under Title VII may only be brought by an employee, not an independent contractor, against an employer. To determine whether the claimant is an employee or independent contractor, courts weigh several factors of the conventional master-servant relationship. While no one factor is determinative, several factors are considered, including: the workers skill required; who provides the tools required; location of the work; duration of the relationship; the hiring party’s right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over working time and hours; the method of payment; and whether the work is part of the regular business activities of the hiring party.

In the case at hand, D.A. Foster was the general contractor who subcontracted excavating work to Barnes. Barnes directly hired Allen as a laborer and assigned Allen to work on the project supervised by D.A. Foster. Although D.A. Foster provided some guidance and training for the project, and the company does regularly perform work in this industry, the level of control over Allen did not rise to the extent necessary to establish an employee-employer relationship. The court held that, with respect to D.A. Foster, Allen was an independent contractor. Most tools were provided to Allen by Barnes Excavating, not Foster. Allen worked under the direct supervision of and was paid by Barnes. The court found that Allen could not reasonably believe that he was an employee of D.A. Foster. Thus, the court granted summary judgment in favor of D.A. Foster.

While in the case at hand the general contractor was not subject to liability on the claim, employers still need to be weary of the current trend to try towards expanding the definition of who is the “employer.” Particular attention should continue to be paid to the IRS independent contractor test and, in particular, the most recent movement of the NLRB to redefine joint-employer status. The consequences of misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor can be significant. The case should also serve as a reminder to all contractors that they need to take steps to make sure that their jobsites are free from any kind of harassment.

This article is authored by attorney Lori L. Buntman and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice.  Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction, Disability Discrimination, Sex discrimination | Comments Off on Harassment on the Worksite; Can the General Contractor be Held Liable?

Legal Punchlist Newsletter

by HDlawblog Posted: Wednesday, 4/1/2015

Click to read our Newsletter 4-1-15 Legal Punchlist Newsletter (Mar. 2015)

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Construction, Construction Contracts | Comments Off on Legal Punchlist Newsletter

New Mechanics’ Lien Law Amendments

by HDlawblog Posted: Tuesday, 8/12/2014

Last month, the General Assembly amended the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law. The amendments will go into effect on September 7, 2014, which is 60 days after the passage date.

New Homeowner Protections. It has long been the law in Pennsylvania that subcontractors could lien property, even if the owner already made payment to the general contractor for the work. See Fahringer Corp. v. Newman, 1 Pa. D.&C.3d 115, 118 (C.P. Somerset Co. 1976). Under this old law, because an owner’s payment to a general contractor is not a defense to a lien, an owner could ultimately pay twice for the same work.

The revised Mechanics’ Lien Law changes this. Now, a subcontractor cannot lien residential property if the owner paid the full contract price to the general contractor. 49 P.S. § 1301 (effective September 7, 2014).

This new law is only applicable to residential properties. Regardless of this new protection, it is still advisable for owners to require lien waivers and diligent payment-tracking processes. For subcontractors, it is now very important to immediately address any delinquent payment issues.

New Lender Protections. The lending and title insurance industries was quite anxious after the 2012 Pennsylvania Superior Court decision, Commerce Bank v. Kessler, 46 A.3d 724. In Commerce Bank, the owner contracted to build a luxury home. The house was fully constructed; however, the owner failed to make payments to the homebuilder, and also failed to make payments on the mortgage. Both the bank and the homebuilder obtained default judgments. The bank believed its mortgage had priority lien rights against the property, based upon a provision in the Mechanics’ Lien Law.

The appellate court disagreed. It ruled that the mechanic’s lien took priority lien status over the mortgage. The court reasoned that the Mechanics’ Lien Law only affords priority lien status to open-end mortgages if the loan is used solely for “erection, construction, alteration, or repair.” As is typical, the loan in Commerce Bank included disbursements for tax claims, closing costs, pay-off of a prior mortgage, and other liens. Because of these other disbursements, the mortgage did not receive priority status.

Banks need not worry anymore. The amended Mechanics’ Lien Law provides that open-end mortgages take priority so long as 60% of the loan proceeds, at a minimum, go towards construction costs. The amendment also broadens the definition of construction costs to include common items paid by the loan, such as taxes, surveys, attorney’s fees, engineering fees, architectural fees, satisfaction of old mortgages, etc.

Entering contracts, getting paid, making payments, and litigating lien rights can be complicated. Owners, contractors, subcontractors, and lenders should double-check their contracts and seek proper legal advice.

What’s Happening Now . . .

7.5%

Construction Industry Unemployment Rate (unadjusted).

  • The construction industry added 22,000 jobs last month. This is the lowest unemployment rate in the construction industry since November 2007.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series ID LNU04032231.  

* This Blog is not legal advice. Unlike this Blog, legal advice is specifically tailored to the facts, law, and objectives unique to each circumstance. To join or remove yourself from the subscription list, email jbright@h-dlaw.com or call 717-291-2236.

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction, Mechanics' Liens | No Comments »
« Older Entries