subcontractors – Duane Morris Construction Law

By Michael L. Chartan, partner in the Construction Group in Duane Morris’ New York office

Construction contracts in New York and in other states frequently include provisions that bar recovery of damages for delay and require extra work to be authorized in writing. These types of provisions are enforceable. Exceptions exist that will permit recovery of delay damages and for extra work in the face of these exculpatory provisions. In Bricklayers Ins. & Welfare Fund v. Minhas Gen. Contrs. Co., LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151965, Judge Frederic Block sitting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, denied summary judgment finding triable issues of material fact. Subcontractors and general contractors have limited leverage to remove these types of provisions from the contract. Nonetheless, review of project records by a knowledgeable attorney may well reveal facts to overcome these provisions.

On April 17, 2014, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision in Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Combined Funds, Inc. v. Scott’s Development Company, et al., that held that union workers (employees of the primary contractor) were not “subcontractors” as that term is defined in the Pennsylvania’s Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963, and that trustees of the union’s employee benefits trust funds were not entitled to file mechanic’s lien claims on the employees’ behalf for unpaid contributions to the trust funds.

Following this ruling, Rep. William Keller, D-Philadelphia, introduced HB 2319 to the General Assembly which would amend the Mechanic’s Lien Law to classify union benefit fund trustees as subcontractors allowed to pursue claims for non-payment against employers and property owners under the Mechanic’s Lien Law.

Duane Morris will continue to monitor the progress of this legislation.