Construction Industry News Archives

When is a property owner’s fee interest subject to the lien of an unpaid contractor renovating the property for tenant?

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Construction Industry News on Nov 28, 2017.

Section 1303(d) of the Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963 provides that “No lien shall be allowed against the estate of an owner in fee by reason of any consent given by such owner to a tenant to improve the leased premises unless it shall appear in writing signed by such owner that the erection, construction, alteration or repair was in fact for the immediate use and benefit of the owner.”  However, the terms of the owner’s lease with the tenant may establish the necessary writing to permit the lien.  On November 17, 2017, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania decided Lobar Associates, Inc. v. Edward J. O’Neill, et al., and affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on mechanics’ lien claim in favor of a contractor who renovated property for the owner’s tenant.  The Court held that the provisions of the lease satisfied the “immediate use and benefit standard” of the statute because those provisions made clear the purpose of the lease was to improve the property for mutual benefit, and (a) called for collaboration of landlord and tenant in the renovation project of the Property, (b) required landlord’s prior written approval for changes, alterations and additions to the Property which would negatively impact the value of the Property, and (c) declared all improvements would be property of landlord expiration of the lease term or earlier termination. Because the evaluation of such claims are complicated, legal counsel should be consulted before filing or in connection with defending a lien claim […]

OSHA DELAYS CRANE OPERATOR INDEPENDENT CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Construction Industry News on Nov 21, 2017.

On November 9, 2017,the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a rule delaying for one year, until November 10, 2018, the implementation of a Construction Crane Operator Certification requirement that was scheduled to go into effect on November 10, 2017.  The  crane operator certification requirement, based on an OSHA standard published in 2010, would require an independent third party certification of crane operators via testing and training.  Comments received by OSHA from the construction community questioned whether the independent testing certification standards and evaluation protocol proposed by the OSHA rule were superior to the testing, training, and crane operator certification currently being provided by crane employers. There were also comments made suggesting that the testing and certifications currently being used by crane employers would conflict with the proposed independent certification testing standards.  To study this issue further, OSHA has delayed the implementation of the independent testing standard for an additional year.  In the interim, OSHA has extended for one year its requirement that it is the crane employer’s duty to ensure that its crane operators are competent to operate a crane safely.  Andrew B. Cohn acohn@kaplaw.com 610.941.2549      

Philadelphia Atlas

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Construction Industry News on Nov 8, 2017.

Philadelphia is set to launch Atlas, a  comprehensive database which provides deed information, permits, 311 data, crime statistics, zoning appeals, and the registered community organization (RCO) for Philadelphia properties.  https://philly.curbed.com/2017/11/7/16617296/philadelphia-properties-land-vacant-lot-atlas-map-tool  

Service Rules for Mechanics’ Liens in Pennsylvania must be Strictly Followed

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Construction Industry News on Nov 8, 2017.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas decision in Bertino v. Clark-Dougherty, 2017 WL 4330687 (2017) is a reminder that the service rules for mechanics’ liens in Pennsylvania must be strictly followed.  In Bertino, the court granted preliminary objections and struck a mechanics’ lien claim because service of the notice of filing of the lien was made improperly, even though the property owner actually received the notice.  The Court found that service on the out-of-state property owner by regular mail, after a certified mailing went undelivered, was improper. Further, the lien claimant failed to file an affidavit of service within twenty days of the supposed service, as required by the mechanics’ lien law.  Due to the very technical nature of the lien law’s requirements, and because these requirement will be strict enforced, potential lien claimants should always consult counsel before attempting to perfect lien rights. “Hat-tip to Lynne’s Westclip distribution”  

Under what circumstances will a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement be bound to arbitrate?

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Arbitration/Mediation on Nov 8, 2017.

Two recent decisions deal with this sometimes perplexing problem.  In Burns v. Sky Zone, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s order denying preliminary objections seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement against an injured party whose spouse had signed an arbitration agreement in his name.  To be bound to arbitrate, the Superior Court ruled, the non-signatory must have had an agency relationship with the signatory based upon (1) express authority, (2) implied authority, (3) apparent authority, and/or (4) authority by estoppel.  Finding no proof of agency under any of these bases, the Superior Court held that the non-signing spouse had no duty to arbitrate. In Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania compelled an insurance company to arbitrate under an arbitration clause in another insurer’s policy.  The Court observed that a non-signatory cannot be bound to arbitrate unless it is bound under traditional principles of contract and agency law to be akin to a signatory of the underlying agreement, and that equitable estoppel in this context arises when a non-signatory to an arbitration clause knowingly exploits the agreement containing the arbitration clause despite having never signed the agreement.  These two cases underscore the complex factual and legal issues to be analyzed in deciding whether and when a non-signatory must arbitrate.

“Integrated Project Delivery: Collaborative Innovation in the Construction Industry”

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Construction Industry News on Oct 24, 2017.

On October 23, 2017, Kevin Amadio, a principal in Kaplin Stewart’s Construction Department, presented a program on “Integrated Project Delivery: Collaborative Innovation in the Construction Industry” for the Subcontractor’s Association of the Delaware Valley and moderated a panel discussion with a group of construction industry representatives about their experiences with IPD projects in the Philadelphia area.  

Service Rules for Mechanics’ Liens in Pennsylvania

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Construction Industry News on Oct 17, 2017.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas decision in Bertino v. Clark-Dougherty, 2017 WL 4330687 (2017) is a reminder that the service rules for mechanics’ liens in Pennsylvania must be strictly followed.  In Bertino, the court granted preliminary objections and struck a mechanics’ lien claim because service of the notice of filing of the lien was made improperly, even though the property owner actually received the notice.  The Court found that service on the out-of-state property owner by regular mail, after a certified mailing went undelivered, was improper. Further, the lien claimant failed to file an affidavit of service within twenty days of the supposed service, as required by the mechanics’ lien law.  Due to the very technical nature of the lien law’s requirements, and because these requirement will be strict enforced, potential lien claimants should always consult counsel before attempting to perfect lien rights.  

Pennsylvania Superior Court Decided

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Construction Industry News on Oct 6, 2017.

On September 27, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided that the Bilt-Rite case, which held that an architect could be liable to a contractor for negligent misrepresentation, applies to other professionals as well.  The Court therefore reversed a trial court decision in favor of an accountant, stating that: “We find the court applied a too narrow reading to Bilt-Rite in determining that the case only concerns disputes involving an architect/contractor scenario. Rather, we conclude Bilt-Rite can be applied to other factual scenarios where a party is providing professional information that is designed to be relied upon by a third party.”  The case may be found at this link: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/24161563.       

Scheduling Experts Have A Variety Of Methods Available

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Construction Industry News on Sep 28, 2017.

Scheduling experts have a variety of methods available to them for analyzing delays, but all methods are not equally reliable or persuasive, a point well illustrated by the April, 2017 decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims in K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed.Cl. 275 (2017).  That decision provides a detailed analysis of the competing opinions of the parties’ scheduling experts, and the court found that the scheduling analysis method employed by the defendant was more persuasive.  The court stated: “The parties present diametrically opposed descriptions of the critical path of performance—plaintiff submits that the critical path of performance should be based on an as-planned, forward-looking schedule, and defendant contends that the critical path of performance should be based on an as-built, backward-looking schedule. The court agrees with defendant that the proper way to determine what activities were on the critical path of performance in this case is to examine what actually occurred during contract performance. There are two reasons for this conclusion. First, a critical path schedule that relies solely on the schedule set forth in the contract specifications does not account for any subsequent changes to the schedule authorized by the contracting agency…. Second, the use of a contractually based critical path schedule does not reflect that plaintiff did not actually perform in accordance with the schedule set forth in the contract specifications.”

Bad Faith

On behalf of Kaplin Stewart Meloff Reiter & Stein, P.C. posted in Bonding and Surety on Sep 28, 2017.

On September 28, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, held that in order to recover in a bad faith action against an insurer under 42 Pa.C.S. §8371, the plaintiff must “present clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.” Further, the Court held that proof of an insurance company’s motive of self-interest or ill-will is not a prerequisite to prevailing in a bad faith claim under Section 8371, observing that evidence of the insurer’s knowledge or recklessness as to its lack of a reasonable basis in denying policy benefits is sufficient.  

Page 1 of 812345...Last »
  • Best Lawyers | Best Law Firms | U.S.News | 2015
  • Philadelphia Ranking Tier 1 - Land Use & Zoning Litigation
  • msi Global Alliance | Member of Independent Legal & Accounting Firms
  • Business Journals Law Firms | Top 50 | 2012