Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Coatings v. Stein Steel & Supply Co.
Citations: 157 Ga. App. 260; 277 S.E.2d 272; 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1769Docket: 60722
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; January 29, 1981; Georgia; State Appellate Court
Porter Coatings, a division of Porter Paint Co., filed a lawsuit against Stein Steel Supply Co. and Insurance Company of North America (INA), claiming damages of $5,976.40. Stein Steel admitted to purchasing paint from Porter Coatings, which was used as a primer for structural steel in a construction project for Mohasco Corp. in Georgia. Porter Coatings filed a materialmen’s lien, which Stein Steel subsequently discharged by filing a bond with INA as surety. Stein Steel counterclaimed, and INA moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted this motion, leading to Porter Coatings' appeal. Key points addressed in the court's decision include: 1. **Use of Deposition**: Porter Coatings argued that the trial court improperly considered a deposition from Stein Steel's Vice President, Bert J. Stein, as it was not filed at the time the summary judgment motion was submitted. However, the court found that the deposition was on file by the time of the hearing and that a deposition need not be introduced in evidence to be considered for summary judgment. The court upheld the trial court's use of the deposition. 2. **Materialmen's Lien**: According to Georgia law, a lien is available only to those who supply materials directly to the property owner or a contractor. Since Porter Coatings supplied paint to Stein Steel, who was a supplier to Mohasco Corp., Porter Coatings did not have a valid lien. The court noted that there was no material issue of fact regarding this point. 3. **Waiver of Lien Rights**: Each purchase order from Stein Steel to Porter Coatings contained a waiver clause, stating that Porter Coatings would not assert any lien or claim related to the purchase order. The language in this waiver was deemed clear and unambiguous, reinforcing the conclusion that even if a lien had accrued, it was effectively waived. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed, with judges Deen and Sognier concurring.