Construction Law Blog
Recent case-law, statutory developments, articles and news impacting
the construction industry from the law firm Babst Calland
ABOUT THIS BLOG
The Babst Calland Construction Law Blog contains articles published by the attorneys at Babst Calland to provide timely legal and business information on issues important to the construction industry.
- Once 30 calendar days have passed since the end of the billing period, the contractor/subcontractor must provide written notice to the owner/contractor, via e-mail or postal service, stating payment has not been made.
- When an additional 30 days have passed since that notice, the contractor/subcontractor must provide written notice, via certified mail, stating that the contractor/subcontractor intends to suspend work in 10 calendar days.
Tagged: CASPA, Construction Contracts, Contract Clauses, Industry news, Subcontractors
- A contractor or subcontractor may not contractually waive CASPA rights;
- Failure to provide written notice of a deficiency item results in a waiver of the right to withhold for the deficiency and requires payment of the invoice in full;
- If withholding for a deficiency item, payment for all non-deficient work must still be made;
- If a party receiving an invoice alleges the invoice contains an error, the party must pay the correct invoice amount on the date payment would otherwise be due;
- A party seeking release of retention may post a maintenance bond for 120% the amount retained to obtain release of retention;
- Withholding retention for longer than 30 days after “final acceptance of the work” will qualify as an improper withholding unless the appropriate notice requirements are followed;
- Withholding requirements also apply to subcontractors’ sub-subcontracts with lower-tier subcontractors; and
- Compliance with the notice requirements for withholding based upon deficiencies is necessary for the withholding to “not be deemed to have been wrongfully withheld.”
Tagged: CASPA, Contract Clauses, Industry news, Proposed Legislation, Subcontractors
Tagged: Mechanics' lien, Pipeline construction
In a case of first impression, in April 2016 the Northern District of Ohio held in Eberhard Architects, LLC v. Bogart Architecture, Inc., 314 F.R.D. 567 (N.D. Ohio 2016), that a contractor and its subcontractors may have committed copyright infringement by continuing work after the architect terminated the nonexclusive license to use the architect’s instruments of service (“IOS”).
Eberhard Architects, LLC (“Eberhard”) agreed to provide architectural services to Lifecare Hospice (“Lifecare”) in accordance with AIA B101-2007 (the “Agreement”). Based on the standard language of AIA B101-2007, Eberhard granted Lifecare a nonexclusive license to use the IOS created by Eberhard in connection with the construction of a 12-bed hospice inpatient facility:
Upon execution of this Agreement, the Architect grants to the Owner a nonexclusive license to use the Architect's Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for purposes of constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Project, provided that the Owner substantially performs its obligations, including prompt payment of all sums due, under this Agreement. The Architect shall obtain similar nonexclusive licenses from the Architect's consultants consistent with this Agreement. The license granted under this section permits the Owner to authorize the Contractor, Subcontractors, Sub-subcontractors, and material and equipment suppliers, as well as the Owner's consultants and separate contractors, to reproduce applicable portions of the Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for use in performing services or construction for the Project. If the Architect rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause as provided in Section 9.4, the license granted in this Section 7.3 shall terminate.
Eberhard obtained a copyright in connection with the IOS for the project. Lifecare later breached the Agreement by failing to make required payments and Eberhard terminated the Agreement. Eberhard brought suit against Lifecare for breach of contract, and also asserted claims for copyright infringement against Lifecare and the contractor and subcontractors (the “Contractor Defendants”) alleging that the Contractor Defendants continued to use Eberhard’s copyrighted IOS after Eberhard terminated the nonexclusive license.
Relying on the language of AIA B101-2007, the Court noted that the parties expressly agreed that Eberhard’s termination of the Agreement would also terminate the nonexclusive license. The Court therefore denied the Contractor Defendants’ motion to dismiss and allowed Eberhard to proceed with its copyright infringement claims against the Contractor Defendants.
The Eberhard decision demonstrates the full scope of the power an architect wields via its ability to grant and revoke a nonexclusive license. If the architect terminates its design agreement with the owner, it may be able to effectively halt work on the entire project until the dispute is resolved or the parties reach an agreement as to the continued use of the architect’s IOS. In light of this possibility, contractors desiring additional protection should consider including language in their contracts permitting them to suspend work (or even terminate the contract) if the architect terminates the design agreement and questions arise as to the validity of the license protecting the architect’s IOS.
Tagged: Breach of contract, Construction Contracts, Contract Clauses, Design-Build, Subcontractors
Tagged: Construction Contracts, Construction Economics, Design-Build, Subcontractors
Tagged: CASPA, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Subcontractors
Manner of service. Service of the notice of filing of claim shall be made by an adult in the same manner as a writ of summons in assumpsit, or if service cannot be so made then by posting upon a conspicuous part of the improvement.Interpreting this requirement, the court commented that the language of section 502(c) means service of notice of filing a claim must be made “in person by the sheriff to the extent practicable” and “[o]nce the claimant establishes that personal service has not been successful, the statute permits posting as an alternative method of service.” Notably, the project owner was Buffalo Wild Wings – an entity whose corporate headquarters are outside the Commonwealth. Thus, one might expect the claimant could have argued its service complied with Rules 403 and 404. However the opinion makes no mention of this argument and contains no discussion of the interplay, if any, between section 502(c) of the Lien Law and the service rules. Thus, one could read the Babich decision to implicitly prohibit service of a lien claim outside the Commonwealth via mail as contemplated by Rules 403 and 404, and instead, require service of a lien claim by sheriff, and if the sheriff is unable to effectuate service, then by posting. Also notable from the Babich decision, the Superior Court reaffirmed its position that statutory requirements dealing with notice and service (i.e. procedural requirements) are subject to strict interpretation while statutory requirements dealing with the form of notice or claim (i.e. the substantive information contained within a notice or claim) is subject to a more liberal substantial compliance standard. The attorneys' in Babst Calland's Construction Group are available to answer any questions you may have about Pennsylvania's Lien Law.
Tagged: Mechanics' lien, Subcontractors
Tagged: Commonwealth Procurement Code, Construction Contracts, Procurement Code, Public Construction Projects
Tagged: Mechanics' lien, Seminars
Tagged: Construction Contracts, Design-Build, Industry news