Fixture Question a Factual Issue

AVL Test Systems v. Hensel Phelps Construction
D086160 (Fourth Appellate District, April 28, 2026)

The dispute arose from a contract in which a company specializing in vehicle emissions testing equipment agreed to supply and install its products in a facility being constructed by a general contractor for a state agency. After receiving substantial payments, the equipment supplier sought additional compensation through arbitration. The general contractor defended by arguing that the supplier was not properly licensed as required by California’s Contractors State Licensing Law (CSLL), and thus could not recover payment. The supplier then initiated a lawsuit seeking a judicial declaration that it was exempt from the CSLL’s licensing requirements because its equipment did not become a “fixed part of the structure,” referencing an exemption in the law.
​
The superior court granted summary judgment for the general contractor, finding that the evidence showed the equipment became a fixed part of the structure and thus the supplier needed a contractor’s license. The Court of Appeal found the lower court erred in deciding as a matter of law that the exemption did not apply because whether the equipment became a fixed part of the structure was a factual question, not suitable for summary judgment where competing declarations had been filed as to the question.