We are proposing a change to the Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963 based on a decision in a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court case. In R.A. Greig Equipment Company v. Mark Erie Hospitality, LLC, the Superior Court considered the question of whether a heavy equipment rental company was entitled to a mechanics’ lien against the defendant’s real property after the defendant was alleged to have damaged the equipment it had rented and failed to pay rental fees for the next 19 months. In its decision, the court ruled against the rental company, finding that construction equipment and unpaid rental fees did not qualify as “materials” under the statute because the equipment and the missed rental payments were not literally built into the completed structure, even though the definition of “materials” includes equipment. 
 
The purpose of our legislation is to clarify that the subject of a lien does not need to be physically built into the final structure to qualify.  Under Section 201 of the Mechanics Lien Law, the term “materials” is defined as follows: “Materials” means building materials and supplies of all kinds, and also includes fixtures, machinery and equipment reasonably necessary to and incorporated into the improvement. Our amendment would simply clarify that
rented equipment, reasonably necessary for the construction of or incorporated into the improvement would be considered “materials.”  
  
Please join us in cosponsoring this legislation which we believe addresses an inequitable situation and aims to support all small construction equipment rental companies across Pennsylvania.