Tag:Pennsylvania

Intercon Constr., Inc. v. Williamsport Mun. Water Auth., 2008 WL 239554 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2008)

This case involved standard breach of contract claims and counterclaims between a general contractor and a public municipal authority.  In addition, the municipal authority also sued a performance bond surety on claims of bad faith. The municipal authority alleged that the manner in which the surety investigated and denied coverage under the performance bond, and its withholding of certain information from the authority, constituted bad faith under the Pennsylvania bad faith insurance statute. Read More

Worth & Co., Inc. v. Dept. of Labor & Ind., 938 A. 2d 239 (Pa. 2007)

In this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided the appeal of a general contractor, whose final payment was being withheld by a public school district on account of the GC’s subcontractor’s failure to pay prevailing wages to its workers.  Under the authority of regulations issued by the Department of Labor & Industry’s prevailing wage division, the Department had instructed the school district to withhold final payment from the general contractor, because workers of the subcontractor remainied unpaid following the subcontractor’s default and eventual bankruptcy. Read More

V.L. Rendina, Inc. v. City of Harrisburg, 938 A.2d 988 (Pa. 2007)

In this case, a plurality of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a municipality may apply its business privilege tax to the gross receipts from construction work performed within its borders regardless of whether the contractor maintained a “base of operations” within the municipality.  Reversing a Commonwealth Court decision in favor of the construction company, the majority focused on whether the company’s activities in Harrisburg fell within the definitive of “business” contained in the City’s tax ordinance. Read More

James Corp. v. N. Allegheny Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 4208589 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Nov. 30, 2007)

In this case, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the trial court properly measured acceleration damages sustained by a general contractor under the “measured mile” theory of recovery.  In a multi-phased construction project entered into by the school district and James Corporation, the district delayed James’ performance by failing to obtain permits in a timely manner, by requiring extra work which interfered with the planned sequence of work, by relocating fencing and reconfiguring the erosion and sedimentation pond, and by requiring removal of asbestos (which was not in the contract).  Amidst the delay, the district abandoned the contract schedule, refused to consider the time impact on the contractor’s planned sequence, and then terminated the contractor after substantial completion.  The trial court awarded James damages for acceleration/compression of work, unpaid invoices, prevailing wages withheld, attorneys’ fees and expenses. Read More

Imperial Excavating and Paving, LLC v. Rizzetto Constr. Mgmt., Inc., 935 A.2d 557 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)

Pennsylvania’s Prompt Payment Act (the “PPPA”) is intended to protect contractors and subcontractors by providing guidelines for prompt payment on construction projects.  Under the PPPA, every subcontractor working on a project subject to the PPPA is entitled to payment, according to the proportion of the subcontract completed, within 14 days of the date when the contractor receives a progress payment on the project.  73 PA.STAT. §507(c).  The contractor is, however, entitled to withhold such payment if it has a good faith claim for deficient performance.  73 PA.STAT. §511.  If a contractor unreasonably withholds payment to the subcontractor, the contractor can be assessed interest on the payment (73 PA.STAT. §509) plus a penalty of 1percent per month of the amount that was wrongfully withheld.  73 PA.STAT. §512.  The amount a contractor may withhold is proper if it “bears a reasonable relation to the value of any claim held in good faith.”  See Ruthrauff, Inc. v. Ravin, Inc., 914 A.2d 880 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).

The Imperial Excavating case involved the construction of two soccer fields located at a high school.  The grading subcontractor completed its work on the project and submitted an application for payment to the contractor.  The contractor submitted its own application for payment to the owner for the subcontractor’s work, certifying that the sub’s work was completed in accordance with the contract documents.  The owner paid the contractor’s application less retainage, and the contractor paid the subcontractor. Read More

Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Auth., 934 A. 2d 100 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)

In this case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a professional engineer can be either “ordinarily negligent” or “professionally negligent” in the performance of his consulting engineering tasks, or both.  He can be accountable in damages for mere negligence under common law theories of trespass, even if a plaintiff is not suing him for professional negligence.

This odd outcome is the result of an engineer directing a contractor to install a water line, without right-of-way, easement or permission, in the wrong place on the property owner’s property, that is, in a location outside of the recorded easement.  When the property owner filed a complaint in the court, but did not file the technically required certificate of merit of professional negligence required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Court, the property owner’s complaint was dismissed.  The property owner appealed, and the Superior Court had to determine whether the property owner’s complaint was asserting ordinary negligence or “professional negligence.”
Read More

Ragnar Benson, Inc. v. Hempfield Township Mun. Auth., 916 A.2d 1183 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court untied the knottiest of two settlement agreements in this case.  Under separate written agreements, Kirby Electric contracted with the Municipal Authority to do its electrical construction, while Ragnar Benson contracted to perform general construction on the Authority’s water pollution control plant.  Each filed a lawsuit against the Municipal Authority, asserting breach of contract, and the Municipal Authority counterclaimed, and cross-claimed accordingly.  Kirby and the Municipal Authority agreed to settle their claims and counterclaims, with the provision that Kirby and Ragnar would continue in litigation and that settlement payments would be calculated based upon the outcome of the two contractors’ litigated dispute.
Read More