In Bricklayers of Western Pa. Comb. Funds, Inc. v. Scott’s Development Co., 41 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012), the Superior Court held that (1) the substantive provisions of the Lien Law (as opposed to its procedural provisions) must be liberally construed to effect the Lien Law’s remedial purpose and (2) labor unions fell within the definition of “subcontractor” under the Lien Law, and therefore had the right to file a mechanics’ lien claim. On November 28, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted Scott’s Development Company’s petition for allowance of appeal. Therefore, in 2013 the Supreme Court will address whether the Superior Court interpreted the Lien Law too liberally and whether a labor union has the right to file a mechanic’s lien claim under the Lien Law.
In Ribarchak v. Monongahela, 44 A.3d 706 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012), the Commonwealth Court held that a subcontractor (Ribarchak) could not assert a breach of contract claim against a general contractor (or the owner) based on the fact that the general contractor used the subcontractor’s quote (and identified the subcontractor) in its bid to the owner. Furthermore, even though the contract between the owner and the general contractor required that the general contractor substitute any subcontractors within thirty days after contract award date, the owner decided to permit the general contractor to make a substitution five months after the award, and the Court held that Ribarchak was not a third-party beneficiary of the 30-day substitution provision and therefore could not pursue a claim against the general contractor and/or the owner. This case means that absent a general contractor’s express acceptance of a subcontractor’s bid, there is no contract between the subcontractor and the general contractor.