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
© 2024 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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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