Supplier Lien Rights
| Suppliers to Suppliers have limited lien rights based on type of project, state statute and case law. | ||||
| State | Private | Public | ||
| Alabama | No rights | No rights unless considered subcontractor, materials are fabricated and large part of the main contract. See: Sparks Construction, Inc. v. Newman Brothers, Inc., 288 So. 2d 749. |
||
| Alaska | No rights | No rights | ||
| Arizona | No rights | No rights | ||
| Arkansas | No rights | No rights | ||
| California | Generally, no rights. See: John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Humboldt. Electric Light & Power Co., et al., 44 P.568. (1896). Unless person hired to perform/be in charge of specific portion of work. Must be considered a "subcontractor" under CA statute. |
Generally, no rights. See: John A. Roebling's Sons Co. v. Humboldt. Electric Light & Power Co., et al., 44 P.568. (1896). Unless person hired to perform/be in charge of specific portion of work. Must be considered a "subcontractor" under CA statute. |
||
| Colorado | No rights | No rights | ||
| Connecticut | No rights | No rights | ||
| Delaware | No rights | Only when provided in terms of bond. | ||
| DC | No rights | No rights | ||
| Florida | No rights | No rights | ||
| Georgia | No rights | Rights per case law: Barton Malow Co. v. Metro Mfg., 214 Ga. App. 56, 57, 446 S.E.2d 785 (1994). | ||
| Hawaii | MAY have rights | No rights | ||
| Idaho | No rights | May have rights when materials are a major part of the contract. See: LaGrand Steel v. ASC Constructors, Inc., 702 P.2d 855 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985). Possibly no rights on smaller portions supplied. |
||
| Illinois | Rights | Rights | ||
| Indiana | Rights per case law: Service Steel Warehouse Co., L.P. vs United States Steel Corp. | No rights | ||
| Iowa | MAY have rights | No rights | ||
| Kansas | No rights | No rights | ||
| Kentucky | No rights | No rights | ||
| Louisiana | No rights | No rights | ||
| Maine | No rights | No rights | ||
| Maryland | May have rights but must prove that materials were delivered to property or incorporated into building. | No rights | ||
| Michigan | No rights | No rights | ||
| Massachusetts | May have rights | No rights | ||
| Minnesota | May have rights when materials delivered to job. | Normally not covered unless supplier is by statute a subcontractor. Rulings have been in favor of large vendors. See: Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Twin City Millwork Co., 191 N.W.2d 401, 402 (Minn. 1971). 29 Id. at 403. |
||
| Mississippi | No rights | No rights | ||
| Missouri | Rights | No rights | ||
| Montana | Rights | Rights | ||
| Nebraska | Most likely no rights unless materials are a large part of the job, then might be considered a subcontractor. See: Blue Tee Corp. v. CDI Contractors, Inc., 247 Neb. 397, 529 N.W.2d 16 (1995). |
Most likely no rights unless materials are a large part of the job, then might be considered a subcontractor. See: McElhose v. Universal Sur. Co., 158 N.W.2d 228. |
||
| Nevada | May have rights | No rights | ||
| New Hampshire | No rights | No rights | ||
| New Jersey | Rights when within 3 tiers of owner | No rights | ||
| New Mexico | No rights | May have rights when within tiers listed in bond. See: Hasse Contracting Co. v. KBK Financial, Inc., 956 P.2d 816 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). |
||
| New York | No rights | No rights | ||
| North Carolina | Must know where product is being incorporated and material is being sold for use in that particular project. See: Queensboro Steel Corp. v. East Coast Machine & Iron Works, Inc., 82 N.C. App. 182, 346 S.E.2d 248. |
May have rights, statute is very broad. | ||
| North Dakota | May have rights, statute is broad. | No rights | ||
| Ohio | May have rights when customer direct to owner. | Rights when customer direct to General Contractor. | ||
| Oklahoma | No rights | Rights | ||
| Oregon | Rights when material is part of the improvement. | May have rights, statute is not clear. | ||
| Pennsylvania | No rights | No rights | ||
| Rhode Island | Rights when customer is direct to General Contractor or subcontractor. No rights when customer direct to property owner. | May have rights | ||
| South Carolina | No rights | May have rights when customer is direct to General Contractor. | ||
| South Dakota | No rights | No rights | ||
| Tennessee | Seems to allow rights except on 1-4 owner-occupied residential projects per statute update of 2007. | No rights | ||
| Texas | May have rights, statute is broad. There is no case law. | May have rights, statute is broad. There is no case law. | ||
| Utah | Rights materials must be incorporated into project. | Rights materials must be incorporated into project. | ||
| Vermont | May have rights | May have rights | ||
| Virginia | May have rights, statute is broad. | No rights | ||
| Washington | No rights | No rights | ||
| West Virginia | No rights | No rights | ||
| Wisconsin | No rights | No rights | ||
| Wyoming | No rights | Rights except on jobs with Department of Administration of Information. | ||