Twenty Meyer, Unkovic & Scott Attorneys Named Best Lawyers

The 2014 edition marks the third decade of publishing the Best Lawyers list, making it the oldest peer-reviewed legal publication in the law field. Best Lawyers chooses attorneys based on in-depth evaluations submitted by colleagues. With more than 4.9 million votes submitted and verified by the Best Lawyers board of advisors this year, inclusion on the list shows that an attorney is highly admired for professional success by his or her peers.  

The 20 attorneys named as Best Lawyers are as follows:

• Joseph E. Bartoszewicz (Real Estate Law)
• Thomas A. Berret (Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants, Personal Injury Litigation - Plaintiffs)
• Robert E. Dauer, Jr. (Litigation – Bankruptcy)
• Patricia L. Dodge (Bet-the-Company Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants)
• Andrea Geraghty (Eminent Domain & Condemnation Law, Litigation – Real Estate, Real Estate Law)
• J. Robert Hanlon, Jr. (Real Estate Law)
• Ronald L. Hicks, Jr. (Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Bankruptcy, Litigation – Construction, Litigation – Real Estate)
• Richard G. Kotarba (Construction Law, Litigation – Construction, Litigation – Real Estate, Real Estate Law)
• James R. Mall (Commercial Law, Litigation - Construction)
• Robert Mauro (Real Estate Law)
• Kevin F. McKeegan (Land Use & Zoning Law, Litigation – Land Use & Zoning, Real Estate Law)
• Russell J. Ober, Jr. (Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Construction, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants)
• David G. Oberdick (Commercial Litigation, Copyright Law, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Patent Law, Trademark Law)
• Joel Pfeffer (Immigration Law)
• John W. Powell (Litigation & Controversy – Tax, Tax Law, Trusts and Estates)
• W. Grant Scott, II (Real Estate Law)
• Beth A. Slagle (Commercial Litigation, Insurance Law)
• Robert P. Struble (Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law, Trusts and Estates)
• Dennis Unkovic (International Trade & Finance Law)
• Joseph A. Vater, Jr. (Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law, Employment Law – Management, Litigation – ERISA, Litigation – Labor & Employment)

Altering The Scope?

Frank Kosir, Jr.
fk@muslaw.com

Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC v. City of Pittsburgh, 2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 127 (2013)

This matter addressed the issue of whether amendments to proposed legislation altered the scope and purpose of the legislation so as to require an additional public hearing to be advertised and held prior to a vote on the passage of the legislation.  In March of 2010, Council Bill No. 2010-0216 (“First Bill”) was introduced in the Pittsburgh City Council (“Council”), amending certain sections of the City of Pittsburgh Zoning Code (“Code”) to, inter alia, revise requirements relating to Electronic Message Signs, and delineating a set for standards for the abandonment of nonconforming advertising signs.  The First Bill was subsequently forwarded to the City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission (“Commission”), which held a public hearing and sent the First Bill back to Council with a series of proposed amendments.  In July of 2011, a bill incorporating these amendments, (Council Bill No. 2011-1916) (“Second Bill”), was introduced in Council, and a public hearing held.  However, the Second Bill was subsequently amended to, inter alia, eliminate electronic advertising signs in certain commercial zoning districts and reduce the permitted light levels for electronic signs.  The amended Second Bill was passed by Council on December 19, 2011, and subsequently signed into law by the Mayor.

Following the passage of the Second Bill, Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC (“Lamar”) filed an appeal in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas alleging that the enactment of the Second Bill violated both the Second Class City Code and the Pittsburgh Code.  Specifically, Lamar alleged that, since the form and language of the final version of the Second Bill were significantly revised from its original form, Council was required to submit the Second Bill to the Commission for review and for a public hearing.  The trial court, concluding that the final version of the Second Bill was substantially in the same form as the original version, dismissed Lamar’s appeal with prejudice.

On appeal, our Commonwealth Court affirmed.  In issuing its ruling the court noted that, while amendments to proposed legislation are permitted, such amendments cannot exceed the scope of the legislation, or alter its meaning or purpose.  Rather, if a fundamental change is made to the scope or meaning of proposed legislation, a second public hearing must be held and advertised, and the public be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation.  However, in this instance, the revisions to the Second Bill merely made certain provisions more stringent and did not change to over-all purpose of the Second Bill, which was to regulate and control electronic advertising signs.  Therefore, the revisions were not so substantial as to require re-advertisement or a second hearing, and the trial court properly dismissed Lamar’s appeal.    

Employment Law Seminar - Tuesday, October 29th

  

Hosted by:  Elaina Smiley, Beth Slagle and Brian Sommer

The Rivers Club ~ Tuesday, October 29th ~ 8:30 - 10:30 am

As an employer, do you allow employees to work from home?  If so, you need to consider a number of issues before making this a reality:

• How do you protect your company's confidential information and intellectual property when employees have access to your computer systems and records from home?
• What OSHA regulations apply to the telecommuting employee?
• How do you handle wage and hour issues for employees working from home?
• What policies should you implement for work-at-home employees?
• What do you need to know about insurance and liability issues before permitting an employee to work from home?

Please join us to learn how to protect yourself and your company from the various issues associated with work-at-home employees.

RSVP by October 23rd

To register, email us at: rsvp@muslaw.com

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott's Real Estate & Lending Group Recognized By The Legal Intelligencer: Best Law Firm Corporate Practices - Real Estate

A Message From Our Real Estate & Lending Group Chair

W. Grant Scott
wgs@muslaw.com

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott's Real Estate & Lending Group was recognized by The Legal Intelligencer at its 2013 Pennsylvania Best Law Firm Corporate Practices Awards Dinner in Philadelphia on Thursday, October 3, 2013.  I was honored to accept this award on behalf of the firm. Award recipients were chosen based on transactions finalized between 2011 and 2012. During that time, the Real Estate & Lending Group collaborated with clients to successfully complete many of the largest real estate transactions in Pennsylvania. As the only Pittsburgh real estate practice to achieve such recognition, we believe this award demonstrates the high level of expertise of our lawyers at Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, as well as the depth and breadth of our firm's capabilities.

We thank our clients for putting their trust and confidence in our firm to represent them in all their critical legal matters. As our Real Estate & Lending Group is recognized for its achievements, we hope our clients share our pride in the work we have accomplished together.

Employment Law Seminar - Tuesday, October 29th

 Hosted by:  Elaina Smiley, Beth Slagle and Brian Sommer

The Rivers Club ~ Tuesday, October 29th ~ 8:30 - 10:30 am

As an employer, do you allow employees to work from home?  If so, you need to consider a number of issues before making this a reality:

• How do you protect your company's confidential information and intellectual property when employees have access to your computer systems and records from home?
• What OSHA regulations apply to the telecommuting employee?
• How do you handle wage and hour issues for employees working from home?
• What policies should you implement for work-at-home employees?
• What do you need to know about insurance and liability issues before permitting an employee to work from home?

Please join us to learn how to protect yourself and your company from the various issues associated with work-at-home employees.

RSVP by October 23rd

To register, email us at: rsvp@muslaw.com

Surety of Payment Bond

Frank Kosir, Jr.
fk@muslaw.com

Berks Products Corporation v. Arch Insurance Company, 2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 254 (2013)

This matter addressed the issue of whether the surety of a payment bond issued for a construction project was liable for amounts owed to a supplier of materials provided to a subcontractor.  Skepton Construction, Inc. (“Skepton”) entered into a contract with the Wilson Area School District whereby it agreed to serve as general contractor for the construction of a new intermediate school building.  Pursuant to the contract, Skepton secured a payment bond from Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”), and executed a subcontract with R.A. Tauber, Inc. (“Tauber”) for the completion of concrete work on the project.   Thereafter, Tauber entered into a contract with Berks Products Corporation (“Berks”) for the provision of the concrete materials needed to complete the subcontracted concrete work.  Although Berks provided the contracted for materials, Tauber failed to remit $52,679.26 of the amounts invoiced, and subsequently filed for bankruptcy.  Thereafter, Berks commenced a civil action against Arch seeking to recover the amounts owed under the surety bond.  In response, Arch asserted that Skepton had made full payment to Tauber for all amounts owed for the materials provided by Berks and that Berk’s claims were barred by Section 3939(b) of the Commonwealth Procurement Code (“Code”) (62 P.S. §3939 (b)) (the “safe harbor” provision), which provides that, once a contractor has made full payment to a subcontractor, any subsequent claims against that contractor or its surety by a party to whom that subcontractor owes payment shall be barred.  The trial court entered summary judgment for Berks, and Arch appealed.

On appeal, our Commonwealth Court affirmed.  In issuing its ruling the court noted that, while the “safe harbor” provision would typically protect a surety against such claims, the specific language of Arch’s bond (which required Skepton to assure that all material men and suppliers were paid) served as a waiver of the “safe harbor” provision, thereby exposing Arch to liability under the surety bond for any such unpaid amounts.  Furthermore, a review of the record found that a factual dispute existed as to whether Skepton had in fact paid Tauber all of the amounts owed for the materials in question.  For these reasons, Arch was unable to rely upon the protections of the “safe harbor” provision, and was properly held liable under the surety bond.