Opinion
No. ED90087
July 8, 2008
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, No. 05CC-002740, Honorable Robert S. Cohen.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY d/b/a AMERENUE, James R. Keller, James D. Maschhoff; HERZOG CREBS LLP, St. Louis, MO AMICUS CURIAE; LAFARBE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Richard A. Stockenberg; Michael J. Zpevak, Robert B. Preston; attys for Amicus Curiae, GALLOP, JOHNSON NEUMAN, LC, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
COLLINS HERMANN, INC., Neil J. Maune; atty for resp/cross-app, One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2940, 211 N. Broadway, St. Louis, MO, BUSY BEE PAVING, INC., atty for resp/cross-app, SANDBERG, PHOENIX VON GONTARD, P.C., Martin L. Daesch; Katherine Michelle Massa, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
Before Mary K. Hoff, P.J., and Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and George W. Draper III, J.
ORDER
Union Electric Company d/b/a AmerenUE ("AmerenUE") appeals from the judgment in favor of Collins Hermann, Inc., Lawrence Excavating, Inc., Busy Bee Paving, Inc., and Construction Logistics Equipment Company (collectively "Subcontractors"). Subcontractors originally brought mechanic's liens against AmerenUE when the general contractor, TM2 Construction Company, Inc. ("TM2"), did not fully pay them for work they performed on several AmerenUE substations. The mechanic's liens were dismissed on the basis that AmerenUE is a quasi-public corporation and its substations are immune from mechanic's liens. Subcontractors obtained leave to file amended petitions alleging AmerenUE is liable under the Public Works Bond Statute (Section 107.170, RSMo 2000). The trial court entered its judgment in favor of Subcontractors on the bond statute claims. On appeal, AmerenUE argues the trial court erred in finding it was liable under Section 107.170, RSMo 2000, for not requiring TM2 to post a bond for Subcontractors' work because AmerenUE is not a "public entity" and its substations are not "public works" within the meaning of Section 107.170, RSMo 2000. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).