Introduction

On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1]

Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more.  Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”[2]  In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.[3] 

What many still struggle with, however, is what happens when an owner or contractor fails to strictly comply with these requirements.  If an invoice becomes deemed approved, does the money irrevocably belong to the payee, or can the payor claw the money back at a later time?  What must the payor do to reserve its rights to the money?  And what power does an arbitrator have to resolve these issues?  Cannistraro elucidates these questions, especially when read together with the decisions in Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC (“Tocci”)[4] and Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co. (“Graycor”).[5]