Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Combined Funds, Inc. v. Scott's Development Co.
625 Pa. 26
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Dispute whether Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963 allows a union employee benefits trust fund to file a mechanics’ lien on behalf of union members who worked for a contractor.
- Trustees claimed union members furnished labor and that contributions for benefits were due under CBAs between Contractor and Unions; Contractor allegedly failed to pay these contributions.
- The Trustees filed mechanics’ lien claims against Developer; Developer demurred on standing, arguing workers were Contractor’s employees, not subcontractors, and thus not lienholders under the 1963 Act.
- Common pleas court sustained demurrers; Superior Court reversed, holding a liberal construction of the 1963 Act could treat unions as subcontractors or via implied contracts.
- Judge Olson and Judge Gantman dissented, arguing against implied contracts and a broader subcontractor scope that would treat contractor employees as lien-claimants.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the 1963 Act should be strictly or liberally construed and whether union employees could be subcontractors or have implied contracts with Contractor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Precedent construction of the 1963 Act | Trustees: liberal construction is proper under 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928. | Developer: statute should be strictly construed as a statute in derogation of common law. | Statute proper to liberally construe (majority view). |
| Whether union members are subcontractors under the 1963 Act | Trustees/Unions fall within subcontractor scope via CBAs and implied contracts. | Unions/employee workers are not subcontractors; CBAs are not contracts with a specific improvement. | Union workers are not subcontractors; Trustees cannot file liens. |
| Implied-in-fact contracts | Implied contracts could support subcontractor status based on CBAs. | No valid implied contract; consideration lacking and theory not pled. | No valid implied-in-fact contracts; dismissed lien theory premised on such contracts. |
| Trustees' standing to file liens representative of workers | Trustees stand in the shoes of union members to collect benefits via liens. | Liens must be in favor of contractors or subcontractors; Trustees lack standing. | Trustees lack standing; liens not authorized for union employees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bricklayers of W. Pa. Combined Funds, Inc. v. Scott’s Dev. Co., 41 A.3d 16 (Pa.Super.2012) (liberal construction of 1963 Act to recognize subcontractor status)
- McShea v. City of Phila., 606 Pa. 88 (Pa. 2010) (procedural pleading standards; fact-pleading theory)
- Sampson-Miller Associated Cos. v. Landmark Realty Co., 224 Pa.Super. 25 (Pa.Super.1973) (implied contract principles and liens context)
- American Seating Co. v. City of Phila., 434 Pa. 370 (Pa.1969) (strict vs liberal construction discussion in mechanics’ lien context)
- Murray v. Zemon, 402 Pa. 354 (Pa.1960) (strict construction backdrop for 1901 act predecessor)
- Harlan v. Rand, 27 Pa. (3 Casey) 511 (Pa.1856) (historical limits on liens extending to general laborers)
- Jobsen v. Boden, 8 Pa. (8 Barr.) 463 (Pa.1848) (early limits on lien rights for journeymen under mechanics’ lien statutes)