Significant Changes to Pennsylvania's CASPA Coming Soon
It's not often that construction contract statutes are changed in Pennsylvania, so it was notable when Gov. Tom Wolf on July 12 signed legislation to amend the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA).
August 01, 2018 at 02:16 PM
3 minute read
What's New?
- Waiving provisions: Unless specifically authorized by CASPA, parties to a contract or other agreement may not waive a provision of the act by contract or other agreement. This point was often debated and led to disputes, but the amendment makes it clear that the law is the law. It cannot be written around or out of contracts unless CASPA so authorizes. However, by definition, CASPA does not apply to improvements to residential projects that consist of six or fewer units that are under construction simultaneously or to contracts for the purchase of materials by a person performing work on his or her own property.
- Withholding payments: Owners must expressly provide backup for why they are withholding payments in the form of a written explanation of its “good faith reason” within 14 calendar days of receiving an invoice. Various contracts, depending on who drafted them, may include similar language already, but many parties do not necessarily pay much attention to it. Withheld payments are also not as simple as the act may portray them. An owner may not necessarily say, “I'm withholding payment because of X, Y and Z.” It's usually, “I'm only paying you this amount this month.” A written explanation of the reasons for withholding payment that previously may not have been part of the process will help to clear up these questions.
- Suspending work: Contractors and subcontractors can now suspend work if they have not received payment, though it will take more than a couple of months to do so. If no payment is made 30 calendar days after the due date – be it a deadline set by the contract or CASPA's statutory 20-day grace period – written notice can be sent to the owner or the owner's authorized agent. After another 30 days, if no payment has been made, the contractor can provide 10 calendar days' written notice of its intent to suspend work. Subcontractors can follow the same steps but will provide notice to contractors, not owners.
- Correcting errors: The provisions regarding payment when there is an error in an invoice have been clarified. If a party receives an incorrect or incomplete invoice, it has 10 working days to give written notice to the sender. Whether the invoice is corrected or not, the party who received it must pay the correct amount by the original due date.
- Regarding retainage: Payments subject to retainage, as always, must be paid within 30 days of final acceptance of work. But a contractor or subcontractor may now facilitate the release of retainage upon reaching a substantial completion of its own scope of work by posting a maintenance bond of 120 percent of the amount of retainage being held.
Moving Forward
Click here Joshua Lorenz is an attorney at Pittsburgh-based law firm Meyer, Unkovic & Scott. He focuses his practice on construction law and litigation. Joshua can be reached at [email protected]This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250