Source: https://pikegilliss.com/news-publications/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:14:04+00:00

Document:
David D. Gilliss, Patrick M. Pike, Eric G. Korphage, Joel P. Williams, and Patrick J. Madigan have been recognized as Maryland Super Lawyers in 2019. In addition, Alexander B. Kahn was named to the 2019 Maryland Rising Stars list for surety. While specifically recognized for their surety practice, the attorneys at Pike & Gilliss, LLC also provide legal services in the fields of construction law, commercial litigation, fidelity law, creditors’ rights, and insurance.
Additionally, David Gilliss was named one of the “Top 100 Lawyers” in the state by Maryland Super Lawyers Magazine for 2019.
Three lawyers from Pike & Gilliss, LLC have once again been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2019.
The 2019 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized Patrick M. Pike in the fields of Construction Law and Construction Litigation, David D. Gilliss in the fields of Construction Litigation and Municipal Litigation, and Eric G. Korphage in the field of Construction Law.
Pike & Gilliss, LLC is looking for an attorney join our construction and surety law team.
The ideal candidate will have judicial clerkship experience, as well as 2-5 years of litigation and/or construction law experience. Must be admitted in Maryland. Admission to practice in D.C. and/or Virginia is a plus. If you are interested, please e-mail your cover letter and resume to: legalcareer@pikegilliss.com.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirms judgment in favor of surety in a fraud action.
David D. Gilliss, Eric G. Korphage, and Alexander B. Kahn of Pike & Gilliss, LLC successfully represented a surety in an appeal before the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. Maryland’s intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the surety, which stemmed from a lawsuit by a New York investment company that alleged that the surety had aided and abetted the surety’s bond principal to commit an alleged fraud against the investment company. The appellate court rejected the investment company’s argument, and affirmed the trial court on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired, the tort of aiding and abetting is not an independent cause of action, a surety has no duty or obligation to disclose its bond principal’s financial status to a third party, and there was no evidence the surety participated in any fraud of the bond principal. The case is captioned, Prospect Capital Corporation v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, et al., No. 282 (July 5, 2018) and the decision can be viewed on the Firm’s website.
Federal Court in Maryland grants summary judgment in favor of a surety in an indemnity action.
David D. Gilliss and Alexander B. Kahn of Pike & Gilliss, LLC successfully represented a surety in an indemnity action in federal court in the U.S. District Court for Maryland. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the surety for the entirety of its damages, including attorney’s and consultant’s fees, which stemmed from the bond principal’s default on a federal project. The Court rejected the defendant indemnitors’ argument that the surety was not reasonable in discharging its duties under the bond. Old Republic Surety Company v. Consolidated Construction, et al., No. 8:16-cv-01104-TDC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15336 (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2018).
The 2018 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized Patrick M. Pike in the field of Construction Law, David D. Gilliss in the fields of Construction and Municipal Litigation, and Eric G. Korphage in the field of Construction Law.
Five Pike & Gilliss, LLC attorneys recognized in 2018 as Maryland Super Lawyers.
David D. Gilliss, Patrick M. Pike, Eric G. Korphage, Joel P. Williams, and Patrick J. Madigan have been recognized as Maryland Super Lawyers in 2018. While specifically recognized for their surety practice, the attorneys at Pike & Gilliss, LLC also provide legal services in the fields of construction law, commercial litigation, fidelity law, creditors’ rights, and insurance.
In October 2017, David D. Gilliss and Eric G. Korphage conducted a four-day trial in which their client, a receiver, asserted fraudulent conveyance claims against the recipients of funds that had been stolen from an attorney’s escrow accounts arising out of a Ponzi scheme. The Court rejected the Defendants’ contentions that they were not liable and concluded that the receiver could “claw-back” the stolen funds for the benefit of the victims of the fraudulent scheme. In December 2017, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County entered judgment in favor of Pike & Gilliss’ client, the receiver, and against the Defendants in the amount of $700,000. The case is Raymond J. Peroutka, Jr. v. Kevin Sniffen, et al., Case No.: 03-C-12012552, Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland.
Two lawyers from Pike & Gilliss, LLC admitted to the Virginia State Bar.
Eric Korphage and Joel Williams were admitted to the Virginia State Bar on June 6, 2017. Mr. Korphage and Mr. Williams focus their practices on commercial litigation, construction, surety and fidelity law. Both look forward to representing their clients’ interests in the state and federal courts in the Commonwealth.
Federal Court in D.C. denies request for attorneys’ fees by payment bond claimant.
Patrick J. Madigan and Alexander B. Kahn of Pike & Gilliss, LLC successfully represented a surety in a week-long trial against a payment bond claimant in federal court in the District of Columbia. The case concerned a claim by a low-voltage electrical subcontractor seeking a multi-million dollar recovery for labor and materials allegedly provided in the construction of the Marriott Marquis Hotel in D.C. After the court awarded the claimant a fraction of its asserted damages, a claim for attorneys’ fees was submitted. The Court denied the request. The language of the payment bond could not, under D.C. contracts law, be read to authorize attorneys’ fees to a payment bond claimant. Paige Int’l, Inc. v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 267 F. Supp. 3d 205 (D. D.C. 2017).
Maryland State Bar Association publishes the second edition of the Maryland Construction Law Deskbook.
The Maryland State Bar Association has published the second edition of the Maryland Construction Law Deskbook. David D. Gilliss, Patrick M. Pike, Eric G. Korphage, and Patrick J. Madigan authored the chapter on surety bonds.
Five Pike & Gilliss, LLC attorneys recognized in 2017 as Maryland Super Lawyers.
David D. Gilliss, Patrick M. Pike, Eric G. Korphage, Joel P. Williams, and Patrick J. Madigan have been recognized as Maryland Super Lawyers in 2017. While specifically recognized for their surety practice, the attorneys at Pike & Gilliss, LLC also provide legal services in the fields of construction law, commercial litigation, fidelity law, creditors’ rights, and insurance.
Maryland Court of Appeals affirms holding that a surety cannot be forced to arbitrate a performance bond claim.
On June 2, 2017, Patrick J. Madigan of Pike & Gilliss, LLC appeared before Maryland’s highest court to argue that a surety should not be compelled to arbitrate against a performance bond obligee. The Maryland Court of Appeals published a decision in favor of the surety on July 28, 2017. Schneider Elec. Bldgs. Critical Sys. v. Western Surety Co., 165 A.3d 485, 454 Md. 698 (2017). The appellate court held that “[t]he trial court properly granted partial summary judgment as to this issue” and affirmed the prior decision by the Court of Special Appeals. Additional information about the case can be found below.
Pike & Gilliss, LLC relocates to Towson, Maryland.
Pike & Gilliss, LLC has moved from its original location in Timonium, Maryland to 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 303, Towson, Maryland 21204, effective December 1, 2016.
Five Pike & Gilliss, LLC attorneys recognized in 2016 as Maryland Super Lawyers.
David D. Gilliss, Patrick M. Pike, Eric G. Korphage, Joel P. Williams, and Patrick J. Madigan have been recognized as Maryland Super Lawyers in 2016. While specifically recognized for their surety practice, the attorneys at Pike & Gilliss, LLC also provide legal services in the fields of construction law, commercial litigation, fidelity law, creditors’ rights, and insurance.
Maryland intermediate appellate court holds that a surety cannot be forced to arbitrate a performance bond claim.
On April 1, 2016, Patrick J. Madigan of Pike & Gilliss, LLC appeared before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals to argue that a surety should not be compelled to arbitrate against a performance bond obligee. The court published a decision in favor of the surety on November 30, 2016. Schneider Elec. Bldgs. Critical Sys. v. Western Surety Co., 149 A.3d 778, 231 Md. App. 27 (2016).
Western Surety Company (“Western Surety”) issued an American Institute of Architects A312 performance bond on behalf of National Control Systems (“NCS”) in connection with a construction project at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Schneider Electric Buildings Critical Systems, Inc. (“Schneider Electric”) was identified as the bond obligee. Schneider’s subcontract with NCS included an arbitration provision, and that subcontract was incorporated by reference into the performance bond issued by Western Surety. A dispute arose between Schneider Electric and NCS and Schneider Electric ultimately engaged other subcontractors to complete NCS’ work on the project.
Schneider subsequently demanded arbitration against NCS and Western Surety. Western Surety filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to stay arbitration against it and require that litigation of available “suretyship defenses” occur in court. (Schneider attempted to have a federal court decide the issue, but its subsequently-filed action was dismissed based on the doctrine of abstention expressed by the Supreme Court in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). No. JKB-14-1890, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49320 (D. Md. Apr. 14, 2015)). The Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland granted partial summary judgment in favor of Western Surety, wherein the trial court concluded that because there was no agreement to arbitrate between Western Surety and Schneider, the arbitration could not proceed against the surety. Schneider Electric pursued an interlocutory appeal of the issue in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.
In its decision, the Maryland appellate court was careful to correct the oft-cited “misinterpretation” by courts that enforceability of arbitration provisions by or against non-signatories to alleged arbitration agreements is an issue for resolution in accordance with federal common law. The Court of Special Appeals explained that this construction of the Federal Arbitration Act was “laid to rest” by the Supreme Court in Arthur Anderson LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S.624 (2009), which several federal appellate courts have also recently acknowledged. The crux of the issue is whether, under state contract law, an agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties. The court reviewed the A312 performance bond and the Schneider/NCS subcontract, applied the “objective theory of contract interpretation” required by Maryland law, and concluded that an agreement to arbitrate did not exist between Schneider Electric and Western Surety.
Two lawyers from Pike & Gilliss, LLC have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2016.
Patrick M. Pike was selected as The Best Lawyers’ 2016, Baltimore Litigation-Construction “Lawyer of the Year,” as well as a Best Lawyer in the field of Construction Law. Only a single lawyer in each practice area in each community is being honored as a “Lawyer of the Year.” In 2013, Mr. Pike was awarded Baltimore “Lawyer of the Year” for Construction Law.
David D. Gilliss was selected for the 4th consecutive year for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® in the fields of Litigation – Construction and Litigation – Municipal.
Pike & Gilliss, LLC is pleased to announce that Alexander B. Kahn has joined the firm as an Associate.
Mr. Kahn, is a graduate of Hobart College (2009) and of Pennsylvania State University – The Dickinson School of Law (2013). Prior to joining the firm, he held the position of Senior Law Clerk for the Honorable Thomas C. Groton, III and the Honorable Richard R. Bloxom in Worcester County Circuit Court.
Five Pike & Gilliss, LLC attorneys recognized in 2015 as Maryland Super Lawyers.
David D. Gilliss, of Pike & Gilliss, LLC located in Timonium, Maryland has been named one of the “Top 100 Lawyers” by Maryland Super Lawyers Magazine for 2015.
All five attorneys in the firm were recognized by the publication.
In addition to Mr. Gilliss, Patrick M. Pike and Joel P. Williams were named “Super Lawyers in the field of Surety Law.” Eric G. Korphage was named a “Rising Star” in the same practice area. Finally, Patrick J. Madigan was named a “Super Lawyer” in the field of Business Litigation for 2015.
Super Lawyers Magazine is published by Thomson Reuters Service in conjunction with Baltimore Magazine. Initially, lawyers from across the state of Maryland are asked to name the top attorneys they’ve personally observed in their respective field. After credentials, background and experience are reviewed, a blue ribbon panel of peers within their primary area of practice evaluates the pool. For a more detailed description of the selection process visit superlawyers.com.
Two lawyers from Pike & Gilliss, LLC have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2015.
Patrick M. Pike was selected a Best Lawyer, for the 8th consecutive year, in the area of Construction Law and the 5th time for Construction Litigation.
David D. Gilliss was selected for a 3rd time as a Best Lawyer in two fields: Construction and Municipal Litigation.
Pike & Gilliss, LLC Makes US News & World Report’s “Best Law Firms” List.
US News & World Report and Best Lawyers have released its 2014-15 “Best Law Firms” list, and Pike & Gilliss, LLC earned First-Tier rankings in the area of Construction Law in the Baltimore Metropolitan area, and Tier 3 recognition at the National level.
According to the publication, US News & World Report annually compiles survey results from more than 40,000 legal professionals, and 50,000 businesses including all Fortune 100 companies, to identify the best law firms in more than 171 metropolitan markets. US News & World Report is internationally recognized for its ranking services.
Pike & Gilliss partner Joel Williams co-authored a chapter on Loss and Valuation in the American Bar Association’s 2014 publication Commercial Crime Insurance Coverage.
In connection with publication of the book, Joel also participated in an expert panel presentation at the ABA’s Fidelity and Surety Law Committee program – Commercial Crime Insurance, Answers to the Questions.
Patrick M. Pike was selected The Best Lawyers’ 2013, Baltimore Construction Law “Lawyer of the Year,” as well as a Best Lawyer in the field of Construction Litigation. David D. Gilliss was selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® in the fields of Construction and Municipal Litigation.
US News & World Report and Best Lawyers have released its 2011-2012 “Best Law Firms” list, and Pike & Gilliss, LLC earned First-Tier rankings in the area of Construction Law in Maryland.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Issues Opinion Affirming Appropriately Narrow Interpretation of Supersedeas Bond.
On September 29, 2011, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a published opinion in a supersedeas bond case argued by Joel P. Williams of Pike & Gilliss, LLC on behalf of the surety. The $300,000 supersedeas bond was issued by the surety as security for a stay of execution of a $165,000 judgment pending appeal. After affirming the judgment, the trial court also awarded the plaintiff $590,807 in attorney’s fees. The plaintiff demanded that the surety not only cover the $165,000 judgment, but also the $590,807 attorney fee award as well. The surety denied the claim for coverage of the attorney fee award, and ultimately filed a motion in the trial court to determine the proper extent of the surety’s obligation. Following extended arguments, the trial court agreed that the bond did not provide coverage for the subsequent fee award, and the claimant appealed. In a consolidated appeal, the appellate Court affirmed the attorney’s fee award in favor of the plaintiff, but rejected the argument that the fee award should be covered under the supersedeas bond. The case provides an excellent analysis of the issue, addressing the purpose of a supersedeas bond, its proper interpretation as a contract, and case law addressing the context in which such bonds are issued. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the bond’s references to “attorney’s fees” and “damages for delay” indicated an intention to cover a fee award that was not part of the original judgment on appeal. Purcell v. Thomas, ___ A.2d ____, 2011 WL 4481606 (D.C. September 29, 2011).
Patrick M. Pike, of Pike & Gilliss, LLC located in Timonium, Maryland has again been named one of the “Top 50 Lawyers” by Maryland Super Lawyers Magazine; this time for 2011.
In addition to Mr. Pike, David D. Gilliss, the other founding partner, was also named a “Super Lawyer in the field of Construction/Surety Law”. Sean P. Foley and Eric G. Korphage of the firm were named “Rising Stars” in the same practice area.
Pike & Gilliss, LLC is a Baltimore based law firm with a national practice, representing sureties, general contractors and subcontractors, as well as owners and individuals, with a focus in the areas of surety, construction, insurance, and commercial litigation.
David Gilliss will argue a construction case with important and far-reaching implications for public works’ contractors before the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland’s highest court, on December 7th of this year. David successfully tried the case in Worcester County against the Worcester County School Board two years ago.
On February 26, 2010, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals (CSA), Maryland’s intermediate appellate court, issued a decision in which it held that a school board is immune from suit and therefore has no obligation to pay a contractor for agreed extra work, additional services, delay damages, and even a remaining contract balance on a written contract, if there is no appropriation remaining to cover the contractor’s claim. The case is reported as Board of Education of Worcester County v. BEKA Industries, Inc., 190 Md.App. 668, 989 A.2d 1181 (2010).
According to the CSA, there is no guarantee of payment of a claim against a school board – even one arising from a written contract – unless funds have been appropriated for the payment of such damages and those funds remain available. The CSA left unclear whether “available funds” means any funds in a school board’s coffers, any funds left in the construction account, contingency funds, or something else. In the BEKA case, the school board has taken the position that once the construction funds are depleted, the contractor is out of luck; regardless of how those funds have been spent and to whom those funds have been paid. Payment is, essentially, on a “first come, first served” basis, and the school board has taken the position that it has no obligation to expend contingency funds or to transfer funding from other sources to cover a judgment in favor of a contractor.
Unfortunately, the Court of Special Appeals made certain assumptions that led them to the wrong conclusions. Simply stated, the Court of Special Appeals’ analysis and application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity commenced in the wrong place. The Court of Special Appeals commenced its analysis of the sovereign immunity issue assuming that the Board possessed sovereign immunity from suit in contract. Had the Court examined the history of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Maryland as applied to local boards of education, it would not have made this critical misassumption. In Bolick v. Bd. of Educ. of Charles County, 256 Md. 180, 183, 260 A.2d 31 (1969) and Bd. of Educ. of Charles County v. Alcrymat Corp. of Am., 258 Md. 508, 512, 266 A.2d 349 (1970), Maryland’s highest appellate court clearly stated that local boards of education do not enjoy the defense of sovereign immunity in actions brought against them based upon written contracts. Therefore, the Court of Special Appeals should have commenced its analysis of the sovereign immunity issue with the understanding that the Board did not possess sovereign immunity in actions based upon a written contract. The Court of Special Appeals erroneous assumption that the Board possessed the right to assert the defense of sovereign immunity in contract actions derailed its entire opinion and rendered it in error.
What the CSA’s decision means to all contractors doing business with school boards is that there is no guarantee of payment for either the original contract sum or for change orders or delay damages. There is no guarantee of payment to subcontractors if a valid “pay if paid” or “pay when paid” clause exists in the subcontract, or if the subcontractor has agreed to pass all claims through to the government owner. Further, there is no guarantee that sureties can recover funds from school boards if they step into the shoes of the contractor.
Contractors in the region have already said that the CSA’s decision will have a significant chilling effect on the business of school construction in Maryland – and undoubtedly elsewhere. The scope of the CSA decision is so broad as to include not only change order work and contractor claims, but also contract work as well. Under the CSA’s decision, a county school board could either negligently or intentionally re-allocate funding away from a school construction project to some other project or purpose. More troubling, even if a contractor were to properly and timely complete a school construction project, and comply with all contract terms and specifications, a school board under this decision could simply move money to a different account and then, pointing to this case, assert that the contractor has the burden of proving that the school board has money. This is not what the legislature has said, and this case should not stand.
Following the BEKA decision, the affected contractor petitioned Maryland’s highest court for certiorari. The petition for certiorari was granted, briefs have been filed, and the case will be heard in the high court on December 7, 2010.
DRI member David D. Gilliss of Pike & Gilliss, LLC in Timonium, Maryland, successfully represented a general contractor who was issued a citation by the Maryland Occupational Safety & Health agency (MOSH), asserting a “Serious” violation and charging the contractor with a violation of the General Duty clause of the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health Law of Maryland.
The case involved a serious employee injury that happened during the dismantling of a crane. Following a two-day trial, the defendant general contractor obtained a decision from the administrative law judge that vacated the Commissioner’s citation and eliminated, in full, the monetary penalty that had been assessed against the contractor. Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (MOSH) v. Wickersham Construction & Engineering, Inc., OAH No.: DLR-MOSH-41-09-34224.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.