Monthly Archives: May 2012

The Environmental Protection Agency recently approved an ambitious $2 billion plan by the City of Philadelphia to drastically transform how stormwater and sewer overflows are managed. Known as the “Green City, Clean Waters” plan, Philadelphia’s initiative will implement the use of innovative green solutions to address the persistent problem of excessive and unsanitary stormwater runoff and sewer overflow. It also involves a substantial investment in green construction over the next two and a half decades.

In what could be seen as a far reaching decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently held a firm line in enforcing a 6 month statute of limitations for on-site injury record keeping violations under 29 C.F.R. § 657. The decision – a significant one for those in the construction business – was a firm reminder to the Department of Labor about the principals of separation of powers and its limited power to enforce safety at the project.

Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Superior Court for the first time issued some very important analysis of the lien priority amendments to the Mechanic’s Lien Law in Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A. v. Kessler.

Earlier this year, the UCC Review and Advisory Council (“RAC”) in Pennsylvania declined to adopt the proposed revisions set out in the 2012 ICC Code.

In a very recent case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that a residential construction contractor who personally guaranteed that defective work would be corrected could be held personally responsible for the cost of repairs required to correct defective construction. The case, Bennett, et al. v. A.P. Masterpiece Homes offers an object lesson to contractors on how not to communicate with their customers.

In a May 14, 2012, Memorandum Opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down an NLRB rule that was designed to significantly change the manner in which elections over union representation in businesses would take place. The rule was published on December 22, 2011, and went into effect in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and every other state in the union on April 30th of this year.

I recently attended a legislative breakfast hosted by one of the construction related organizations in which I participate. A number of state legislators were present, as was a representative of the District Attorney’s office in Montgomery County. Because the District Attorney is an elected position in Pennsylvania, this has a certain amount of logic to it. That being said, it is something that is not done very often and caught my attention.

A subsidiary of Skanska avoided criminal prosecution by agreeing to pay a $19.6 million settlement over allegations that Skanska improperly took advantage of government set-aside programs. In conjunction with that settlement, it entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan. At the time of the settlement, Skanska was the low bidder on a large subway construction project and risked not having the contract awarded to it by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

A demand for mediation or arbitration based on a contractual agreement may qualify as a “first filed action” according to the Appellate Division in New Jersey. In a matter of first impression, the court considered whether a demand for mediation or arbitration may be viewed as a first filed action in CTC Demolition Company Inc. v. GMH AETC Management/Development, L.L.C.

It seems legislative bodies are taking notice. With the increase of claims regarding mold and mold remediation, state legislatures are starting to look at the issue more closely. While a policy debate about whether state governments should wade into these waters is perfectly fair, many legislatures are doing it nonetheless. Pennsylvania is no exception.