Massa, J.
A supplier sold steel for a project to a fabricator who did not perform any work on the project site. The supplier later sued to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien against the site. The trial court granted summary judgment for the site’s owner because the fabricator’s lack of on-site work meant it was also a supplier, and case law barred supplier-to-supplier-based liens. An appellate panel reversed, because it found the fabricator was a subcontractor, even if it did not perform on-site work, so the supplier could have a lien.
We now conclude the supplier can have a lien, because it furnished materials for the project, which is all the mechanic’s lien statute required. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
….
Indiana’s broad mechanic’s lien statute has long been interpreted to only confer lien rights on suppliers who furnished materials to a recipient who performed on-site work, which meant a contractor or subcontractor. The status of the recipient—here, Troll Supply—determined a supplier’s ability to acquire a lien. That interpretation, however, is incorrect.
Because a mechanic’s lien is purely a creation of statute, the General Assembly determines who can have one. And it has broadly conferred lien rights on suppliers, regardless of whether they furnish materials to a contractor, subcontractor, or another supplier. If a supplier, like Service Steel, furnishes materials for the erection of a building, it can have a lien.
I. Under the mechanic’s lien statute, a supplier can have a lien by furnishing materials, regardless of the recipient, for the erection of a building.
….
That prohibition conflicts with the statute’s plain language, which unambiguously allows any person who furnishes materials for the erection of a building to have a lien “without any limitation in respect to the person to whom the materials are furnished.” Colter v. Frese, 45 Ind. 96, 100 (1873); I.C. § 32-28-3-1(a)(1)(A). And when “a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, no room exists for judicial construction.” Siwinski v. Town of Ogden Dunes, 949 N.E.2d 825, 828 (Ind. 2011).
…..
Under Indiana’s mechanic’s lien statute, a supplier that furnished materials for the erection of a building, regardless of the recipient, can have a lien on that building and the accompanying land. Of course, the supplier must have furnished the materials “for the particular building upon which” it bases its lien. Talbott v. Goddard, 55 Ind. 496, 502 (1876); I.C. § 32-28-3-1(b). Here, the evidence—including Service Steel’s invoices— establishes that Service Steel furnished steel for the erection of U.S. Steel’s facilities. Accordingly, it can have a lien on the project site.
Conclusion
We reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for U.S. Steel and remand for reconsideration of Service Steel’s summary judgment motion in light of this opinion.
Rush, C.J., and David, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.