On October 19, 2023, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that construction equipment and unpaid rental fees are not “materials” within the definition of the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law. In R.A. Greig Equipment Company v. Mark Erie Hospitality, LLC, --- A.3d ----, 2023 WL 6885339 (Pa. Super. 2023), a unanimous, precedential opinion, the Superior Court observed that the Mechanics’ Lien Law, 49 P.S. § 1301(a), allows liens “for labor or materials furnished in the erection or construction,” and that 49 P.S. § 1201(7) defines “materials” as “building materials and supplies of all kinds, and also includes fixtures, machinery and equipment reasonably necessary to and incorporated into the improvement.” The Superior Court interpreted “incorporated into the improvement” to mean materials which are “actually used in the building structure.”

This case arose from Mark Erie Hospitality, LLC’s (“Mark Erie”) lease of construction equipment, a Telehandler-2019 Haulotte LT 9055 SN#2065360 (“Telehandler”), from R.A. Greig Equipment Company (“R.A. Greig”). During the lease, Mark Erie allegedly damaged the Telehandler and then failed to pay rental fees for the next 19 months. R.A. Greig filed a mechanics’ lien against two of Mark Erie’s properties for $191,703.00, representing the replacement of the Telehandler and the unpaid rental fees. The trial court sustained Mark Erie’s preliminary objections to the mechanics’ lien, concluding that “the Telehandler and rental payments were not ‘materials’ within the definition of the Mechanics’ Lien Law.”

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Superior Court was persuaded by Hoffman Lumber Co. v. Gibson, 119 A. 741 (Pa. 1923)—which held that material must “actually become[ ] a part of the permanent structure”—as well as state court decisions from five other jurisdictions. Notably, R.A. Greig’s appellate brief argued that the Telehandler “certainly fits within the ‘supplies of all kinds’ category of ‘materials’ that is not hamstrung by the ‘incorporated in the improvement’ language of the definition.” The Superior Court disagreed and considered this argument to be an admission that the Telehandler and rental payments were not “incorporated into the improvement.”