Sustainable building has become an important part of the construction landscape in Western Pennsylvania and looks to become even more prevalent in the future. However, the process carries with it many hurdles and potential pitfalls that can quickly derail a project and affect you or your clients’ bottom line. Whether you are new to green building or are looking to enhance your green building practices, this seminar is for you. From planning and site acquisition through end certification, we will address various key areas that those in the real estate and construction industry face when building green.
Hosted by: Patricia E. Farrell , Esquire - Chad I. Michaelson, Esquire - Joshua R. Lorenz, Esquire
Date: February 19, 2009
Time: 8:30 - 10:00 am
Location: Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP
RSVP to: Beth Ansell at (412) 456-2552 or rsvp@muslaw.com by Monday, February 16 - Enrollment is limited.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Law Costs Contractors
By: Chad I. Michaelson, Esquire cim@muslaw.com
A new law meant to protect consumers from unscrupulous home remodeling contractors likely will increase the business costs of all contractors.
The Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act imposes a host of new requirements on contractors in the home improvement business.
For one thing, contractors performing work on private residences will have to register with the Bureau of Consumer Protection every two years, starting July 1, 2009. Any contractor who earns more than $5,000 annually will have to register.
While the registration cost is only $50, it will be a little more expensive for contractors to include their new registration number on all advertisements, as the law requires. Contractors will have to pay for new billboards, car insignia, letterhead, business cards and other marketing material.
The new law also states that all remodeling contracts must contain a number of detailed terms and conditions. Under the new law, contractors also must get written change orders signed by both the contractor and customer for every change to the scope of work.
The new law requires contractors to maintain liability insurance covering a minimum of $50,000 in both personal injury and property damage. While many contractors currently have insurance, for some smaller ones, buying insurance will be a new business cost.
The largest cost burden of the new law will be borne by contractors who commit the new criminal offense of "home improvement fraud," for which the penalty could be as much as ten years in jail and a fine of $25,000.
A new law meant to protect consumers from unscrupulous home remodeling contractors likely will increase the business costs of all contractors.
The Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act imposes a host of new requirements on contractors in the home improvement business.
For one thing, contractors performing work on private residences will have to register with the Bureau of Consumer Protection every two years, starting July 1, 2009. Any contractor who earns more than $5,000 annually will have to register.
While the registration cost is only $50, it will be a little more expensive for contractors to include their new registration number on all advertisements, as the law requires. Contractors will have to pay for new billboards, car insignia, letterhead, business cards and other marketing material.
The new law also states that all remodeling contracts must contain a number of detailed terms and conditions. Under the new law, contractors also must get written change orders signed by both the contractor and customer for every change to the scope of work.
The new law requires contractors to maintain liability insurance covering a minimum of $50,000 in both personal injury and property damage. While many contractors currently have insurance, for some smaller ones, buying insurance will be a new business cost.
The largest cost burden of the new law will be borne by contractors who commit the new criminal offense of "home improvement fraud," for which the penalty could be as much as ten years in jail and a fine of $25,000.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Congratulations to our “2009 Best Lawyers in America”
This year fourteen Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP attorneys have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America, 2009 edition, published by Woodward/White. Inclusion is widely considered a significant honor because lawyers are selected on the basis of peer evaluations.
Those named include Kevin F. McKeegan, the firm’s Managing Partner, Robert Mauro, W. Grant Scott and Richard G. Kotarba all for their practice of real estate law. Kevin F. McKeegan was also recognized for his work in land use & zoning law. Richard G. Kotarba and James R. Mall were both selected for their work in construction law. Also named were Dennis Unkovic, for his international trade and finance law practice, Joel Pfeffer for his work in immigration law, Joel M. Helmrich for his practice in creditor-debtor rights, Thomas A. Berret for his work in personal injury litigation, Laura A. Candris for her labor and employment law practice, John W. Powell for his work in trusts and estates, David G. Oberdick for his work in commercial litigation and intellectual property law, Patricia L. Dodge and Russell J. Ober for their work in commercial litigation. Patricia L. Dodge was also recognized for her product liability litigation practice.
Please contact Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP at 412.456.2800 or postmaster@muslaw.com.
Those named include Kevin F. McKeegan, the firm’s Managing Partner, Robert Mauro, W. Grant Scott and Richard G. Kotarba all for their practice of real estate law. Kevin F. McKeegan was also recognized for his work in land use & zoning law. Richard G. Kotarba and James R. Mall were both selected for their work in construction law. Also named were Dennis Unkovic, for his international trade and finance law practice, Joel Pfeffer for his work in immigration law, Joel M. Helmrich for his practice in creditor-debtor rights, Thomas A. Berret for his work in personal injury litigation, Laura A. Candris for her labor and employment law practice, John W. Powell for his work in trusts and estates, David G. Oberdick for his work in commercial litigation and intellectual property law, Patricia L. Dodge and Russell J. Ober for their work in commercial litigation. Patricia L. Dodge was also recognized for her product liability litigation practice.
Please contact Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP at 412.456.2800 or postmaster@muslaw.com.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Buy-Sell Agreement Needed
By: Carl F. Staiger, Esquire cfs@muslaw.com
A buy-sell agreement is a contract between business partners that describes the framework for transferring ownership of the business. A buy-sell agreement is important for all businesses, and particularly for businesses owned by baby boomers, most of whom will probably be retiring within the next 10 years.
The buy-sell agreement is a "last will and testament" for business partners that determines the process for transferring ownership if the partners want to split or if one partner dies, retires, becomes disabled, is divorced or just wants out. The agreement should address not only the events that trigger a transfer of ownership, but also the method for valuing the company.
Partners often don't think about how they will fund the purchase of the business under the agreement. Neither partner may have enough money to satisfy the obligation to buy the business. To make sure there is money to enable the business to be purchased by a partner, the partners should consider funding buy-sell obligations with life insurance.
Finally, a business owner shouldn't assume that a one-size-fits-all buy-sell agreement exists. Every business situation is different. For example, the terms of a buy-sell agreement between unrelated business partners may be significantly different than the terms of a buy-sell agreement between family members. Tax issues also may play an important role in structuring a buy-sell agreement.
A buy-sell agreement is a contract between business partners that describes the framework for transferring ownership of the business. A buy-sell agreement is important for all businesses, and particularly for businesses owned by baby boomers, most of whom will probably be retiring within the next 10 years.
The buy-sell agreement is a "last will and testament" for business partners that determines the process for transferring ownership if the partners want to split or if one partner dies, retires, becomes disabled, is divorced or just wants out. The agreement should address not only the events that trigger a transfer of ownership, but also the method for valuing the company.
Partners often don't think about how they will fund the purchase of the business under the agreement. Neither partner may have enough money to satisfy the obligation to buy the business. To make sure there is money to enable the business to be purchased by a partner, the partners should consider funding buy-sell obligations with life insurance.
Finally, a business owner shouldn't assume that a one-size-fits-all buy-sell agreement exists. Every business situation is different. For example, the terms of a buy-sell agreement between unrelated business partners may be significantly different than the terms of a buy-sell agreement between family members. Tax issues also may play an important role in structuring a buy-sell agreement.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Construction Manager Safety Responsibilities
By: David E. Sweitzer, Esquire des@muslaw.com
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that under certain circumstances a construction manager can be held responsible for injuries to employees of its subcontractors.
Here’s what happened: a construction worker was killed when he drove a dump truck off a temporary road and down an embankment. The family sued the construction manager, but the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissed the case, ruling that the construction manager owed no legal duty to the worker, who was the employee of a subcontractor. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then overruled the lower court, saying that the general contractor was responsible for safety and that a trial must be held to determine if the construction manager had in any way been negligent.
The problem is that there is no rigid definition of the duties of a construction manager. In determining negligence and liability, courts must analyze each contract for a definition of those duties.
In the case in question, the construction manager agreed in the contract to assume an active role in developing, implementing, maintaining and monitoring a safety program for the project. The court said that meant the construction manager assumed an obligation to ensure the safety of the employees of its subcontractors.
The lesson for construction managers is obvious: review contracts carefully and make sure there is adequate insurance to cover potential liabilities.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that under certain circumstances a construction manager can be held responsible for injuries to employees of its subcontractors.
Here’s what happened: a construction worker was killed when he drove a dump truck off a temporary road and down an embankment. The family sued the construction manager, but the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissed the case, ruling that the construction manager owed no legal duty to the worker, who was the employee of a subcontractor. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court then overruled the lower court, saying that the general contractor was responsible for safety and that a trial must be held to determine if the construction manager had in any way been negligent.
The problem is that there is no rigid definition of the duties of a construction manager. In determining negligence and liability, courts must analyze each contract for a definition of those duties.
In the case in question, the construction manager agreed in the contract to assume an active role in developing, implementing, maintaining and monitoring a safety program for the project. The court said that meant the construction manager assumed an obligation to ensure the safety of the employees of its subcontractors.
The lesson for construction managers is obvious: review contracts carefully and make sure there is adequate insurance to cover potential liabilities.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Approves Measured Mile Method to Calculate Contractor’s Productivity Damages
By: David E. Sweitzer, Esquire des@muslaw.com
For the first time, a Pennsylvania appellate court has affirmed the use of the Measured Mile method to calculate a contractor’s loss of labor productivity as the result of a public owner’s ordered acceleration of work. In James Corporation v. North Allegheny School District, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s verdict in favor of the general contractor which included $215,000 for acceleration costs.
In accordance with Pennsylvania’s Separations Act, separate prime contracts were entered into for asbestos abatement, site preparation, general construction, HVAC, electrical, roofing and plumbing for the renovation and construction of an elementary school. The School District assumed responsibility for construction management, and specifically, maintenance and supervision of the project schedule. In order to comply with its contractual obligations, the School District contracted with a separate construction manager.
There were multiple owner-caused delays before the general contractor could commence its work. There was a two-week delay associated with the issuance of the notice to proceed. There was a six-week delay because of the owner’s failure to obtain the necessary erosion and sedimentation control plan, and the general contractor was delayed for several weeks because of the plumbing prime contractor’s delays.
The District’s construction manger acknowledged these delays and prepared an updated schedule to account for them. The School District disagreed with this acknowledgement and terminated the construction manager’s contract, opting to hire a new construction manager which then took a very aggressive approach with respect to the schedule going forward. The trial court found that the School District acted in such a manner because of its stated belief that accepting the delays would subject it to a claim by the contractor. Not only did the District refuse to acknowledge the delays it caused, it also required the general contractor to meet the original completion date or be at risk of having its contract terminated.
The contractor met the original schedule but necessarily had to accelerate its work and as a result, it incurred significant losses in the form of labor inefficiencies. The contractor filed suit under the Pennsylvania Procurement Code to recover the acceleration damages. In addition to the acceleration claim the School District refused to pay several undisputed contract invoices and arbitrarily withheld $13,000 from another invoice.
After a three week trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the contractor. The trial court accepted the contractor’s use of the Measured Mile method of calculating loss of productivity damages and awarded $215,000 for the acceleration claim. Additionally, because the trial court agreed that the School District acted in bad faith by wrongfully refusing to pay undisputed invoices, the verdict included the invoice amounts, plus penalty and interest under the Procurement Code, plus attorney fees in the amount of $110,000.
The Measured Mile analysis involves examination of two snapshots of the project. Expert testimony is utilized to compare the contractor’s cost of completing work during times where there is no delay or acceleration (unimpacted period) with the costs of completing work in times of delay or acceleration period (impacted delay). While the Pennsylvania Board of Claims has considered the method in prior disputes, no appellate court has addressed the issue before the James decision. The method has now been ratified as reasonable and appropriate to quantify acceleration claims.
Aside from the Measured Mile being accepted, the James decision is significant because it gives several examples of disputes which can arise on construction projects, especially those which are governed by Pennsylvania’s Separations Act. Commonly, contracts contain no-damages-for-delay provisions. While these are generally enforceable in Pennsylvania, the James decision confirmed once again that an owner cannot use such provisions as a shield when it causes the delay. Additionally, contracts contain provisions regarding notice of claims. These can be perilous to a contractor which seeks additional compensation but a court may find notice provisions are satisfied if the owner has knowledge of the delays and/or acceleration even though formal notice is not given by the contractor.
For further information on this case and the multiple issues presented, call David E. Sweitzer at 412-456-2843.
For the first time, a Pennsylvania appellate court has affirmed the use of the Measured Mile method to calculate a contractor’s loss of labor productivity as the result of a public owner’s ordered acceleration of work. In James Corporation v. North Allegheny School District, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s verdict in favor of the general contractor which included $215,000 for acceleration costs.
In accordance with Pennsylvania’s Separations Act, separate prime contracts were entered into for asbestos abatement, site preparation, general construction, HVAC, electrical, roofing and plumbing for the renovation and construction of an elementary school. The School District assumed responsibility for construction management, and specifically, maintenance and supervision of the project schedule. In order to comply with its contractual obligations, the School District contracted with a separate construction manager.
There were multiple owner-caused delays before the general contractor could commence its work. There was a two-week delay associated with the issuance of the notice to proceed. There was a six-week delay because of the owner’s failure to obtain the necessary erosion and sedimentation control plan, and the general contractor was delayed for several weeks because of the plumbing prime contractor’s delays.
The District’s construction manger acknowledged these delays and prepared an updated schedule to account for them. The School District disagreed with this acknowledgement and terminated the construction manager’s contract, opting to hire a new construction manager which then took a very aggressive approach with respect to the schedule going forward. The trial court found that the School District acted in such a manner because of its stated belief that accepting the delays would subject it to a claim by the contractor. Not only did the District refuse to acknowledge the delays it caused, it also required the general contractor to meet the original completion date or be at risk of having its contract terminated.
The contractor met the original schedule but necessarily had to accelerate its work and as a result, it incurred significant losses in the form of labor inefficiencies. The contractor filed suit under the Pennsylvania Procurement Code to recover the acceleration damages. In addition to the acceleration claim the School District refused to pay several undisputed contract invoices and arbitrarily withheld $13,000 from another invoice.
After a three week trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the contractor. The trial court accepted the contractor’s use of the Measured Mile method of calculating loss of productivity damages and awarded $215,000 for the acceleration claim. Additionally, because the trial court agreed that the School District acted in bad faith by wrongfully refusing to pay undisputed invoices, the verdict included the invoice amounts, plus penalty and interest under the Procurement Code, plus attorney fees in the amount of $110,000.
The Measured Mile analysis involves examination of two snapshots of the project. Expert testimony is utilized to compare the contractor’s cost of completing work during times where there is no delay or acceleration (unimpacted period) with the costs of completing work in times of delay or acceleration period (impacted delay). While the Pennsylvania Board of Claims has considered the method in prior disputes, no appellate court has addressed the issue before the James decision. The method has now been ratified as reasonable and appropriate to quantify acceleration claims.
Aside from the Measured Mile being accepted, the James decision is significant because it gives several examples of disputes which can arise on construction projects, especially those which are governed by Pennsylvania’s Separations Act. Commonly, contracts contain no-damages-for-delay provisions. While these are generally enforceable in Pennsylvania, the James decision confirmed once again that an owner cannot use such provisions as a shield when it causes the delay. Additionally, contracts contain provisions regarding notice of claims. These can be perilous to a contractor which seeks additional compensation but a court may find notice provisions are satisfied if the owner has knowledge of the delays and/or acceleration even though formal notice is not given by the contractor.
For further information on this case and the multiple issues presented, call David E. Sweitzer at 412-456-2843.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Congratulations!
We are proud to announce that Richard G. Kotarba and James R. Mall have been included in the 2008 edition of "Best Lawyers in America," published by Woodward and White, for their practice of Construction Law. Dick Kotarba has been included in the past 10 editions of the book. Inclusion in "Best Lawyers in America" is widely considered an honor, as attorneys are nominated and evaluated by their peers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
