Case Name: BRICKLAYERS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA COMBINED FUNDS, INC., Respondent v. SCOTT'S DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Petitioner; Laborers' Combined Funds of Western Pennsylvania, as Agent for Phillip Ameris and Albert W. Betler, Trustees Ad Litem, Laborers' District Council of Western Pennsylvania Welfare and Pension Funds, The Construction Industry Advancement Program of Western PA Fund, and The Laborers' District Council of Pennsylvania and its Affiliated Local Unions, Respondents v. Scott's Development Company, Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2012-11-28
Citations: 619 Pa. 166
Docket Number: Nos. 59 WAL 2012 and 60 WAL 2012
Parties: BRICKLAYERS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA COMBINED FUNDS, INC., Respondent v. SCOTT’S DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Petitioner. Laborers’ Combined Funds of Western Pennsylvania, as Agent for Phillip Ameris and Albert W. Betler, Trustees Ad Litem, Laborers’ District Council of Western Pennsylvania Welfare and Pension Funds, The Construction Industry Advancement Program of Western PA Fund, and The Laborers’ District Council of Pennsylvania and its Affiliated Local Unions, Respondents v. Scott’s Development Company, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 619
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
58 A.3d 748
BRICKLAYERS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA COMBINED FUNDS, INC., Respondent v. SCOTT’S DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Petitioner. Laborers’ Combined Funds of Western Pennsylvania, as Agent for Phillip Ameris and Albert W. Betler, Trustees Ad Litem, Laborers’ District Council of Western Pennsylvania Welfare and Pension Funds, The Construction Industry Advancement Program of Western PA Fund, and The Laborers’ District Council of Pennsylvania and its Affiliated Local Unions, Respondents v. Scott’s Development Company, Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov. 28, 2012.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 28th day of November 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. The issues, as stated by petitioner are:
(1) Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding the Mechanics' Lien Law should be liberally construed?
(2) Whether the Superior Court erred in sua sponte finding that purported contracts implied in fact control the parties' rights under the Mechanics' Lien Law, not the express contract which fails 49 P.S. [§ ] 1201(5)?
(3) Whether even liberal construction of the Mechanics' Lien Law would permit an employee of a contractor to assert a claim as a "subcontractor"?