Photo of Matthew Erlanger

Mathew L. Erlanger is an Associate at Cohen Seglias and a member of the Construction Group. He concentrates his practice in construction litigation and has experience assisting the Firm's construction industry clients with research and with the preparation of motions and briefs in various construction-related matters.

In Pennsylvania, it is well-established that a homeowner can assert claims for fraud and violation of Pennsylvania’s consumer protection statute – the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) – against a contractor based upon the contractor’s representations, even absent any contractual relationship between the homeowner and the contractor. Essentially, where a contractor makes a representation on which reliance is “specially foreseeable” and the homeowner relies upon the representation and sustains damages as a result, the homeowner may have a claim against the contractor. This scenario often comes into play where a homeowner asserts a claim against the builder where the homeowner is not the initial purchaser of the home, but rather a subsequent purchaser. 
Continue Reading

In the recent case of Township of Salem v. Miller Penn Development, LLC, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court invoked the often overlooked doctrine of nullum tempus occurrit regi. Read literally as “time does not run against the king,” as a general rule, nullum tempus allows the Pennsylvania state government or agencies to sue government contractors at any time, regardless of a statute of limitations defense. Nullum tempus also applies to claims brought by local governments, such as school districts, municipalities and counties, but only if the local government 1) brings its claims in its governmental capacity and 2) seeks to enforce an obligation imposed by law, as distinct from one arising out of a voluntary agreement.


Continue Reading

In April, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to review the case of Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc. v. Mercer County Improvement Authority.  The matter concerns a defect in a bid submitted under the New Jersey Public Contracts Law (“LPCL”).  This case proves, yet again, that it is critical to pay close attention

Pennsylvania’s Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (“HICPA”), which went into effect in 2009, generally requires that home improvement contracts be in writing and contain thirteen specific items (including the contractor’s home improvement contractor registration number, the date of the transaction and the name, address and telephone number of the contractor).  Absent inclusion of all items,

On April 29, 2014 an evenly divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital upheld a lower court ruling holding that communications between a party’s attorney and a party’s expert witness are exempt from disclosure during discovery.  This case was previously discussed in “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Evenly Divided on Discoverability of Attorney-Expert

On April 29, 2014, an evenly divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an order affirming the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital. The ruling means that communications between a party’s counsel and a party’s expert witness remain exempt from disclosure during discovery.

Locked Folder.jpg

Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital

In this case, arising