LRS Elec. Controls, Inc. v. HAMRE CONST., INC.

82 P.3d 248
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedJanuary 6, 2004
Docket21718-3-III
StatusPublished

This text of 82 P.3d 248 (LRS Elec. Controls, Inc. v. HAMRE CONST., INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
LRS Elec. Controls, Inc. v. HAMRE CONST., INC., 82 P.3d 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

82 P.3d 248 (2004)
119 Wash.App. 606

LRS ELECTRIC CONTROLS, INC., a Washington corporation, Plaintiff,
Tyko Mechanical, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company, Appellant,
v.
HAMRE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Washington corporation, Public Hospital District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, and First National Insurance Company of America, Respondents.

No. 21718-3-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, Panel One.

January 6, 2004.

*249 Teresa Ann Sherman, Paukert & Sherman, Spokane, WA, for Appellant.

Dianne K. Rudman, Brown & Rudmann, John C. Black, Dunn & Black, Scott R. Smith, Spokane, WA, for Respondents.

SWEENEY, J.

This is a lien claim for materials supplied by a subcontractor on a public works project. The subcontractor, Tyko Mechanical, wants to recover against both the general contractor's bond (chapter 39.08 RCW) and the owner's retainage (chapter 60.28 RCW). The trial court denied claims on either because Tyco failed to give a preclaim notice of its intention to supply materials. We do not read either the retainage claim statute or the bond claim statute as requiring such a notice from this subcontractor supplying both labor and materials on site as part of its subcontract. We therefore reverse the trial court's holding to the contrary.

FACTS

Hamre Construction, Inc. remodeled Newport Community Hospital, a public hospital district. Hamre subcontracted some work to C & R Plumbing & Heating, Inc. C & R in turn contracted with Tyko Mechanical for a lump sum of $16,500 to provide "all supervision, materials, labor, supplies and equipment" for the heating, ventilating and air conditioning work, including duct installation. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 25. Tyco invoiced C & R for both material and labor on August 7, 2001 and again on September 10, 2001.

Hamre paid $7,000 jointly to C & R and Tyko. Tyko received the full $7,000. Tyko then claimed against both the payment bond and the county's retainage for the balance due, $9,500, and ultimately sued on the claim. Hamre sent Tyko $2,628.22 and a partial lien release.

Hamre moved to dismiss Tyko's claims. It argued that RCW 39.08.065[1] and RCW 60.28.015[2] required Tyko to give notice of its intent to claim a material lien. The trial judge agreed and dismissed Tyko's claim for "all material supplied." CP at 193-94.

Tyko moved for summary judgment for the labor portion of its claim. The court concluded that Hamre's payments to Tyko satisfied the labor portion of its claim.

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The facts material to the resolution of this case are not disputed. The question before us is then one of law. And so our review is de novo. Mains Farm Homeowners Ass'n v. Worthington, 121 Wash.2d 810, 813, 854 P.2d 1072 (1993).

*250 CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION

Our purpose here is to identify and then give effect to the legislative intent. We, of course, start with the words in the statute. Enterprise Leasing, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 139 Wash.2d 546, 552, 988 P.2d 961 (1999) (quoting State v. Sweet, 138 Wash.2d 466, 477-78, 980 P.2d 1223 (1999)). In doing so we try to understand and give effect to all of the language in the statute. Davis v. Dep't of Licensing, 137 Wash.2d 957, 963, 977 P.2d 554 (1999). We then apply the statute as written; that is unless there is a clear contrary purpose. Enterprise Leasing, 139 Wash.2d at 552, 988 P.2d 961 (citing Sweet, 138 Wash.2d at 478, 980 P.2d 1223; State v. Wilson, 125 Wash.2d 212, 217, 883 P.2d 320 (1994)). We harmonize related statutory provisions to again try to find a consistent statutory scheme. State v. Chapman, 140 Wash.2d 436, 448, 998 P.2d 282 (2000).

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CLAIM MATERIAL LIEN

The question here is whether RCW 39.08.065 obligates a subcontractor to file a preclaim notice to perfect a claim against the contractor's payment bond for material supplied by that subcontractor — not a third party materialman.

Public Works Bond. A general contractor on a public works project must execute and deliver a bond to the public agency for the protection of all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors, and materialmen performing the contract work. RCW 39.08.010. Those protected by the bond have a right of action against the bond. But a claim must be filed within 30 days from completion of the contract and acceptance of the public body. Tyko is a protected party under the statute and filed a claim on time. The dispute is over whether it must file a notice of intention to file a material lien, where no materials were furnished by a third party.

Preclaim Notice — RCW 39.08.065. Tyko argues that RCW 39.08.065 only applies to those persons who deliver construction materials to another that has a subcontract to do work. Hamre responds that the statute applies to everyone who supplies materials and does not contract directly with the prime contractor. RCW 39.08.065 provides:

Notice to contractor condition to suit on bond when supplies are furnished to subcontractor. Every person, firm or corporation furnishing materials, supplies or provisions to be used in the construction, performance, carrying on, prosecution or doing of any work for the state, or any county, city, town, district, municipality or other public body, shall, not later than ten days after the date of the first delivery of such materials, supplies or provisions to any subcontractor or agent of any person, firm or corporation having a subcontract for the construction, performance, carrying on, prosecution or doing of such work, deliver or mail to the contractor a notice in writing stating in substance and effect that such person, firm or corporation has commenced to deliver materials, supplies or provisions for use thereon, with the name of the subcontractor or agent ordering or to whom the same is furnished and that such contractor and his bond will be held for the payment of the same,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Chapman
998 P.2d 282 (Washington Supreme Court, 2000)
Austin v. C. v. Wilder & Co.
397 P.2d 1019 (Washington Supreme Court, 1965)
State v. Wilson
883 P.2d 320 (Washington Supreme Court, 1994)
State v. Sweet
980 P.2d 1223 (Washington Supreme Court, 1999)
Mains Farm Homeowners Ass'n v. Worthington
854 P.2d 1072 (Washington Supreme Court, 1993)
Oregon Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barton
36 P.3d 1065 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2001)
Davis v. Department of Licensing
977 P.2d 554 (Washington Supreme Court, 1999)
Enterprise Leasing, Inc. v. City of Tacoma
988 P.2d 961 (Washington Supreme Court, 1999)
State v. Chapman
140 Wash. 2d 436 (Washington Supreme Court, 2000)
Heim v. Elliott
119 P. 826 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
Cascade Lumber & Shingle Co. v. Wright
169 P. 833 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Oregon Mutual Insurance v. Barton
109 Wash. App. 405 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2001)
LRS Electric Controls, Inc. v. Hamre Construction, Inc.
82 P.3d 248 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 P.3d 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lrs-elec-controls-inc-v-hamre-const-inc-washctapp-2004.