NAT. CONCRETE CUTTING v. NW GM CONTRACTORS

Decision Date30 July 2001
Docket NumberBond No. U2766995 and Bond No. U2800204,No. 46151-6-I.
CitationNAT. CONCRETE CUTTING v. NW GM CONTRACTORS, 27 P.3d 1239, 107 Wash. App. 657 (Wash. App. 2001)
CourtWashington Court of Appeals
PartiesNATIONAL CONCRETE CUTTING, INC., Respondent, v. NORTHWEST GM CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant; Lumpkin, Inc.; United Pacific Insurance Company of Pennsylvania , Appellants; Seattle School District No. 1; Star Insurance Company , Defendants.

Scott E. Feir, Seattle, George William Akers, Montgomery Purdue Blankinship & Austin, Seattle, for Appellants.

Evan Eugene Inslee, Dan Sheldon Lossing, Inslee Best Doezie & Ryder, Bellevue, for Respondent.

GROSSE, J.

For purposes of public or private materialmen's liens, materials are defined as those things supplied that either actually have been incorporated and become a part of a building, or have been delivered to the building site for incorporation into a building. Here, National Concrete Cutting, Inc. (National Concrete) provided specialized concrete cutting services akin to labor, not material. The decision of the trial court is affirmed.

FACTS

Lumpkin, Inc. (Lumpkin) was the general contractor for the Seattle School District's project for remodeling and rehabilitating a portion of Lincoln High School. Lumpkin contracted with Northwest GM Contractors, Inc. (Northwest GM) for the mechanical work on the project. In turn, Northwest GM hired National Concrete to provide concrete cutting, sawing, and coring. The essential nature of the agreement was for National Concrete to provide its services at an hourly rate. United Pacific Insurance Company of Pennsylvania (United Pacific), through Reliance, Inc., supplied Lumpkin with the performance and payment bond for the project.

Northwest GM failed to pay National Concrete all of the amount due for its work. Specifically, National Concrete did not get paid for the months of October through December of 1997. On February 20, 1998, National Concrete filed a notice of claim of lien against the project bond and retainage. On August 31, 1998, National Concrete filed an action to recover amounts owed to it on the project. National Concrete sought to recover from Northwest GM, Lumpkin, and United Pacific. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed.

In its motion for summary judgment, Lumpkin claimed National Concrete's charge should be broken down into its various components, such as equipment, materials, net profit, overhead, labor, and supplies. Lumpkin asserted that National Concrete should be considered a supplier of materials required to file a pre-claim notice under RCW 39.08.065. That provision states:

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, and no suit or action shall be maintained in any court against the contractor or his bond to recover for such material, supplies or provisions or any part thereof unless the provisions of this section have been complied with.

In its motion, National Concrete argued it was not required to file a pre-claim notice for materials because the claim was one for labor, not materials or supplies. National Concrete bills its work on an hourly basis for the time its employees spend at the job site. The hourly rate includes charges for the employee's time, overhead and profit, tools, and any incidental and consumable materials that are necessary for the employee to complete the work. National Concrete asserts that the only materials or equipment it supplied to the project were purely incidental to the on-site labor and work of its employees.

The trial court agreed and determined that National Concrete did not furnish materials or supplies and was not required to provide pre-claim notice under the contractor's bond statute. The court granted summary judgment to National Concrete. Lumpkin's motion for reconsideration was denied. Lumpkin appeals to this court.1

DISCUSSION

The usual standard of review for summary judgments applies.2 RCW 39.08.065 pertains to providers of materials, supplies, or provisions. The parties agree the statute does not apply to a subcontractor whose claim on public works projects consists merely of labor. But, Lumpkin claims implements were used in National Concrete's operation which should be considered supplies. Lumpkin contends the use of National Concrete's specialized equipment and cutting supplies was not labor, which Lumpkin defines using the definition contained in the mechanics' and materialmen's liens statute as an "exertion of the powers of body or mind performed at the site for compensation."3 We disagree. What National Concrete provided was in essence labor services, even as defined by Lumpkin.

Courts have repeatedly defined materials as including such articles which either actually have been incorporated into and become a part of the building or have been delivered on the site for incorporation into the finished structure.4 National Concrete did not supply materials to the project. The notice statute clearly relates only to those who supply or deliver materials, supplies, or provisions intended to be used on the job which enter into and form a part of the finished project. Any use of equipment or supplies by National Concrete was purely incidental to the labor of concrete drilling, sawing, and coring.

The purpose of the pre-claim notice statute is to protect the prime contractor so it will not pay twice for the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Scott's Excavating Vancouver, LLC v. Winlock Props., LLC
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • August 27, 2013
    ...as those who provide materials which will be incorporated into a building or finished structure. Nat'l Concrete Cutting, Inc. v. Nw. GM Contractors, 107 Wash.App. 657, 661, 27 P.3d 1239 (2001), review denied,145 Wash.2d 1027, 42 P.3d 974 (2002). Because G & O provided professional engineeri......
  • Campbell Crane & Rigging v. Dynamic
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • July 8, 2008
    ...provide pre-lien notice of performance in order to file a claim on the bond or retainage.2 See Nat'l Concrete Cutting, Inc. v. NW. GM Contractors, 107 Wash.App. 657, 661, 27 P.3d 1239 (2001) (citing Austin v. C.V. Wilder & Co., 65 Wash.2d 456, 458, 397 P.2d 1019 (1965)), review denied, 145 ......
  • Spahi v. Hughes-Northwest, Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • July 30, 2001
  • Better Financial Solutions, Inc. v. Transtech Electric, Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • July 29, 2002
    ...that which the Legislature has established. The cases on which BFS relies do not compel a different result. In National Concrete Cutting, Inc. v. Northwest GM Contractors,24 the issue presented was whether National Concrete was a supplier of materials to a public works project and therefore......
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Construction Law Deskbook (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Am Sur. Co., 41 Wn.2d 260, 248 P.2d 547 (1952): 17.8(1) TC-15 --> Nat'l Concrete Cutting, Inc. v. Nw. GM Contractors, 107 Wn.App. 757, 27 P.3d 1239, review denied, 145 Wn.2d 1027 (2001): 10.3(2)(b) Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Pierce County, 100 Wn.2d 109, 667 P.2d 1092 (1983): 7.3(4......
  • §10.3 Payment Statutes Applicable to Public Contracts
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Construction Law Deskbook (WSBA) Chapter 10
    • Invalid date
    ...to the site for incorporation into the finished structure. Nat'l Concrete Cutting, Inc. v. Nw. GM Contractors, 107 Wn.App. 757, 661, 27 P.3d 1239, review denied, 145 Wn.2d 1027 (2001) (concrete cutting services are labor, not material, and no preclaim notice is required; any use of equipmen......