Danny P. Cerrone, Jr.Danny Cerrone, Jr. Clark Hill
Danny P. Cerrone, Jr.
Danny P. Cerrone, Jr. is a civil trial lawyer with a concentration in construction and commercial matters. In the construction arena, Danny represents owners, developers, design professionals, general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and sureties across a range of disputes involving public and private construction projects. Danny works closely with clients throughout every phase of the construction process, from negotiating contracts and defining the scope of work to obtaining final completion. Danny routinely assists clients with payment disputes, payment and performance bond claims, mechanics' lien claims, delay, acceleration and inefficiency claims, change order disputes, claims for differing site conditions, Pennsylvania’s One Call Act claims, and state prompt payment statutes.
Danny also represents individuals and companies in a wide variety construction and commercial matters – both in and out of the courtroom. To prevent or avoid costly legal disputes, Danny helps clients by drafting and negotiating contracts and other agreements. When disagreements necessitate formal legal action, however, Danny has assisted clients in state and federal courts, in arbitration hearings, and before administrative tribunals and regulatory agencies.
The types of matters Danny frequently handles for both plaintiffs and defendants include claims arising in:
- Breach of fiduciary duty;
- Tortious interference with contractual relations;
- Breach of contract;
- Professional and general negligence;
- Environmental claims;
- Unfair trade practice;
- Consumer protection; and
- A wide variety of actions involving laws such as the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, the Clean Streams Act, and the Pennsylvania Storage Tank Act.
Danny has been selected for inclusion in Pennsylvania Super Lawyers - Rising Stars Edition, 2010 through 2017.
- “Cause of Action in a Public Construction Project,” The Legal Intelligencer, August 2015.
- "Pennsylvania Enacts Amendments That Significantly Alter The Mechanics’ Lien Law," Developing Pittsburgh, March 2015.
- Presenter, "Claims: Preservation and Mitigation," University of Pittsburgh, Katz School of Business, July 2008.
- "Subcontractor’s Bids Do Not Create Binding Contracts, But May Not Be Revoked Until General Contractor Has Opportunity to Accept or Reject,” Construction Law News, March 2008.
- “What’s New in Ohio: Owner Entitled to Contractual Indemnification for Attorney’s Fees and Costs,” Construction Law News, December 2007.
- “General Contractors: How Specific are Your Project Specifications?,” Construction Law News, August 2007.
- Co-author, “FLSA Overtime Exemptions: Applicable to Interstate and Intrastate Motor Carriers,” The Transportation Lawyer, February 2007.
- Co-Presenter, "Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas: New Pennsylvania Court Case on Utilities Paying Contractors for Delays and Other Damages When They Mismark or Fail to Mark Their Underground Lines," National Utility Contractors Association Annual Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, February 2007.
- Presenter, "Getting Paid Under the Commonwealth Procurement Code - Knowing Your Rights and Update on Recent Pennsylvania Caselaw Awarding Attorney’s Fees and Penalty Interest," Pennsylvania Utility Contractors Association, January 2007.
- Presenter, “Rebuilding a Vibrant Gulf Coast: What You Need to Know About Construction Law in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana,” Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP, 2005-2006.
- Author, “Rebuilding a Vibrant Gulf Coast: What You Need to Know About Construction Law in Mississippi,” Thorp Reed & Armstrong, LLP seminar and publication, 2005-2006.
- "What’s New in Mississippi: Mississippi Supreme Court Allows for Waiver of Bid Defect," Construction Law News, January 2006.
Danny Cerrone recently obtained a non-jury verdict in favor of the firm’s client, Morgan Franklin & Co., in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Morgan Franklin held a 5% ownership interest in a limited partnership. In 2002, the general partner informed Morgan Franklin that the limited partnership was going to dissolve, and that Morgan Franklin would receive the pro rata book value of the company. Morgan Franklin received payment of around $200,000, based upon the purported book value. After receiving the payment, Morgan Franklin learned that the general partner sold the limited partnership for $34 million. Allen Lopus and Robert Ridge sued the general partner on behalf of Morgan Franklin and, in 2006, received an arbitration award of approximately $2 million on behalf of Morgan Franklin. In 2010, the general partner filed suit against Morgan Franklin for claims of breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit based upon an alleged indemnification obligation arising out of the sale of the limited partnership and the arbitration award. Essentially, the general partner argued that the limited partnership sellers were required to defend and indemnify the purchaser and that, because of the arbitration award, Morgan Franklin was a de facto seller, and thus obligated to indemnify under the sales agreement. The non-jury trial resulted in a defense verdict in favor of Morgan Franklin, with a strong opinion from the Judge in our favor.