Supplemental Conditions

Success Stories

  • Mechanics Lien Litigation.  The client was a large condominium developer.  A subcontractor who walked off the project and did not complete his work filed a mechanics lien threatening continued construction financing and unit sales.  I persuaded the trial court to dismiss the lien because the subcontractor had not complied with the Pennsylvania Mechanics.  When the subcontractor appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court, we successfully argued that the trial court’s decision was correct.  The Superior Court’s decision in my client’s favor resulted in a change to the Pennsylvania Mechanics Lien Law and received national attention in the industry.
  • Construction Litigation.  The client was a large concrete subcontractor on a institutional building working for a  public traded international construction company.  Because of incomplete drawings, the client incurred millions of dollars in delay damages.  Suit was initiated in federal court against the design professional under the theory of negligent misrepresentation because of the incomplete drawings.  The architect moved to dismiss the claim because of the lack of a certificate of merit.  The court ruled a certificate of merit was not required for the claim of negligent misrepresentation setting a legal precedent in the construction industry for similar cases going forward.
  • Prompt Payment Act Litigation.  The client was a large general contractor.  A terminated subcontractor filed an arbitration with the American Arbitration Association claim against my client seeking damages under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act.  We argued that the termination was justified and that the subcontractors claim should be denied.  We also argued that we were entitled to attorneys fees under the Payment Act if we were the prevailing party in the arbitration.  The Arbitrator denied the subcontractors claims and awarded my client the attorneys fees and costs incurred in the defending the action.
  • Prompt Payment Act Litigation.  The client was a sheet metal subcontractor on a university dormitory project.  The general contractor refused to make final payment to my client.  We filed suit seeking the final payment due plus  interest, penalty, and attorneys fees pursuant to the Pennsylvania Public Prompt Pay Act.  The case proceeded through litigation for nearly two years.  By the time of trial the interest and penalty exceeded the base amount due.  Arbitration panel awarded my client the full damages requested, including attorneys fees, interest, and penalty which exceed the original amount of the claim.
  • Employment Litigation.  The client was a mechanical contractor who noticed that its estimators were having issues logging into their computer terminals.  We hired a computer forensic specialist who discovered that the terminals were being remotely accessed by a former employee who had set up a competing construction firm.  We obtained ex-parte (without notice) emergency injunctive relief in Federal Court pursuant to the Computer Fraud Act on behalf of employer against former employee.  The Court ordered that the former employee bring his laptop computer to the federal court house so that the hard drive could be copied by my client’s expert.  The matter was successfully settled with a large monetary payment to client.
  • Civil Rights.  The client was a student housing developer who was constructing a four story project in Philadelphia.  The developer was notified by the City’s Department of License and Inspection that a crack in the facade of the building needed to be repaired.  The client met with the City and gave officials a plan to repair the crack, which the City accepted.  The client proceeded with the repairs.  Then, late one night, the client received a phone call from a City official stating that the property would be demolished the next morning.  The client arrived at the site in the morning to see City officials demolishing the property.  We brought suit against the City of Philadelphia for violating our client’s 14th Amendment Due Process Rights.  The Court awarded summary judgment in our client’s favor and the case was then settled with a large payment being made to the client.

Reported Decisions

Bullard v. City of Philadelphia, 2012 WL 460306 (E.D.Pa. 2012)

V.A.L. Floors v. 1419 Tower, L.P., 2008 WL 1977840 (E.D.Pa., 2009)

Quinn Construction v. Skanska USA Building, Inc., 2008 WL 2389499 (E.D.Pa.2008)

Quinn Construction v. Skanska USA Buildings, Inc., 2008 WL 5187391 (E.D.Pa.2008)

Philadelphia Construction Services v. Allan Domb, 903 A.2d 1262 (Pa.Super.2006)