W.G. Clark Construction Co. v. Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters
322 P.3d 1207
Wash.2014Background
- University of Washington awarded a construction contract to W.G. Clark; Paramount Scaffold performed subcontracted scaffolding work under a union collective bargaining agreement that required wage payments and contributions to multiemployer benefit trusts (the Trusts).
- The Trusts reported Paramount failed to make required contributions of about $64,905.48; Paramount later appeared insolvent.
- The Trusts and the Union filed a notice of claim/lien under Washington public-works statutes (chapters 39.08 and 60.28 RCW) against the project, the general contractor, and the bond.
- W.G. Clark sued in state superior court for declaratory relief seeking release of the lien, arguing ERISA preempted the Trusts’ state-law claims; the superior court granted summary judgment for W.G. Clark based on Washington precedent.
- The Trusts filed a parallel federal action to foreclose the lien; the federal court dismissed after the state ruling but criticized the inconsistent split and forum shopping.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted direct review and reversed, holding that under current U.S. Supreme Court ERISA preemption doctrine chapters 39.08 and 60.28 RCW are not preempted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERISA preempts Trusts’ lien and bond claims under chapters 39.08 and 60.28 RCW | Trusts: statutes are general payment-protection laws with only a tenuous connection to ERISA and thus are not preempted under current Supreme Court precedent | W.G. Clark: state statutes provide an alternative enforcement mechanism affecting ERISA plans and thus are preempted by ERISA | Held: Not preempted — statutes are general, do not regulate plan administration, and have only a tenuous connection to ERISA |
| Whether the statutes function as alternative remedies that intrude on ERISA’s exclusive remedial scheme | Trusts: statutes are third-party payment/lien remedies outside ERISA’s remedial scope | W.G. Clark: statutes create alternative enforcement of ERISA obligations, so Congress intended ERISA §502(a) to be exclusive | Held: Statutes are run-of-the-mill state-law payment remedies applicable to third parties and therefore outside ERISA’s exclusive remedial scope |
| Whether prior state precedent (Merit/Trig Electric) remains controlling given intervening federal decisions | Trusts: intervening U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit decisions altered ERISA preemption analysis, warranting overruling of state precedent | W.G. Clark: stare decisis should preserve prior state rulings that held these claims preempted | Held: Court revises its precedent — stare decisis yields when Supreme Court jurisprudence has eroded the underpinnings of earlier decisions |
| Whether resolution should consider forum-shopping and uniformity concerns | Trusts: adopting national consensus promotes uniformity and prevents forum shopping | W.G. Clark: (implicit) state precedent controlling supports state-court result | Held: National shift and conflicting outcomes created forum shopping; court adopts federal-court reasoning to restore uniformity |
Key Cases Cited
- Puget Sound Elec. Workers Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Merit Co., 123 Wn.2d 565 (1994) (Washington precedent holding ERISA preempted similar state claims at the time)
- Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 46 v. Trig Elec. Constr. Co., 142 Wn.2d 431 (2000) (Washington reaffirmation of ERISA preemption for lien-type claims)
- S. Cal. IBEW-NECA Tr. Funds v. Standard Indus. Elec. Co., 247 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2001) (held public-works payment-bond/lien statutes do not ‘relate to’ ERISA; adopted presumption against preemption)
- New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995) (clarified ERISA preemption inquiry: state law ‘relates to’ ERISA if it has a connection with or reference to ERISA plans)
- Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825 (1988) (ERISA does not preempt ordinary state-law remedies such as garnishment of plan benefits in some contexts)
- Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) (explained tests for ‘reference to’ and ‘connection with’ ERISA plans)
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) (ERISA §502(a) is the exclusive remedy for rights guaranteed under ERISA; used to evaluate when state remedies intrude on ERISA)