Litigation: Latest Legal Blogs and News

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in R.A. Greig Equipment Co. v. Mark Erie Hospitality, LLC, 305 A.3d 56 serves as an important reminder to contractors and equipment suppliers about the limits of mechanics’ lien rights under Pennsylvania law.

R.A. Greig Equipment Company (“R.A. Greig”) leased a telehandler—a telescopic forklift commonly used on construction sites—to a contractor working on a hotel project in Erie, Pennsylvania. During the course of the project, the equipment was allegedly damaged, and the contractor failed to pay both repair costs and ongoing rental charges. The total amount claimed exceeded $190,000, including more than $56,000 in unpaid rent and over $135,000 in replacement costs.

To try to recover these losses, R.A. Greig filed a mechanics’ lien against the project property. For many contractors and suppliers, a lien is one of the most powerful tools available—it allows a party to place a legal claim against the improved property itself, often compelling payment. However, the property owner, Mark Erie Hospitality, challenged the lien, arguing that the claim did not meet the requirements of Pennsylvania’s Mechanics’ Lien Law.

The trial court agreed and struck the lien, concluding that the telehandler and the associated rental charges did not qualify as “materials” under the statute. R.A. Greig appealed, asking the Superior Court to reverse that decision. The appellate court, however, affirmed the trial court’s ruling, reinforcing a strict interpretation of what qualifies for lien protection in Pennsylvania.

At the center of the decision is the definition of “materials” under the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law. The statute allows liens for labor or materials furnished for the erection or construction of an improvement. It further defines materials to include items such as building supplies, fixtures, machinery, and equipment—but only if those items are “incorporated into the improvement.”

Drawing on longstanding precedent, the Superior Court emphasized that materials must become a part of the finished structure to qualify. In other words, it is not enough that an item is necessary to complete the work or used extensively during construction. Instead, it must be physically incorporated into the building itself.

Applying that standard, the court concluded that the telehandler was clearly not lienable. It was a piece of temporary construction equipment used to facilitate the work, not something that became part of the hotel once construction was complete. The same logic applied to the rental charges and the damage claim—neither represented materials incorporated into the project. As a result, the lien could not stand.

For contractors and suppliers, this decision highlights an important—and sometimes misunderstood—distinction. There is a natural assumption in the industry that if something is essential to building a project, it should be covered by lien rights. This case makes clear that Pennsylvania law does not take that approach. The key question is not whether the item was necessary or valuable, but whether it became a permanent part of the improvement.  

The practical implications are significant, especially for companies that provide rental equipment. Telehandlers, excavators, lifts, and similar machinery are critical to modern construction projects, but under this ruling, suppliers of that equipment generally cannot rely on mechanics’ liens as a form of payment security. Even when unpaid balances are substantial, as they were here, the lien remedy will likely be unavailable if the equipment is not incorporated into the structure.

This shifts more risk onto equipment providers and, to some extent, contractors who rely on leased machinery. Without lien protection, recovery options are more limited and often depend on the strength of the underlying contract and the creditworthiness of the customer.

R.A. Greig Equipment Co. v. Mark Erie Hospitality reinforces a straightforward but critical rule: in Pennsylvania, mechanics’ lien rights are tied to what goes into the building, not what helps build it. For contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers, keeping that distinction in mind is essential to managing risk and ensuring that payment protections are in place before work begins.

This blog was written and edited by Pittsburgh, Attorney Matthew J Lautman, and authored with research and organizational assistance by Microsoft Copilot.