Ivy Trucking, Inc. v. Creston Brandon Corp.

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 582·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 787·2000 Daily Journal DAR 11105·84 Cal. App. 4th 85·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8370
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 11, 2000E023829California1,376 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gaut, J.

Plaintiff Ivy Trucking, Inc. (Ivy), appeals from a judgment rendered in favor of defendants Heritage Engineering Construction, Inc. (Heritage), Vigilant Insurance Company (Vigilant), and Ulico Casualty Company (Ulico).

Ivy was hired by a subcontractor, Creston Brandon Corporation (Creston Brandon), to haul fill dirt to a Caltrans (Department of Transportation) freeway project under construction by Heritage, the general contractor. The trial court denied Ivy recovery based on the general rule of long standing that one who transports construction materials to a building site cannot assert a mechanic’s lien because the transportation services are not labor or materials. (Wilson v. Nugent (1899) 125 Cal. 280, 284 [ 57 P. 1008 ], citing Adams v. Burbank (1894) 103 Cal. 646, 651 [ 37 P. 640 ].)

We reverse the judgment, relying on an equally venerable exception to the general rule, an exception that applies when the transportation services are rendered under contract with a statutory agent of the owner. (Civ. Code, § 3110 ; McClain v. Hutton (1900) 131 Cal. 132, 142-143 [ 63 P. 182 ].)

1. Factual and Procedural Background

Heritage was an engineering company hired by Caltrans…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.