Pair of Cases Concerning Pay-if-Paid Provisions

Within the last month, two decisions with two outcomes were issued concerning "pay-if-paid" provisions. Observe that a "pay-if-paid" provision is a true condition precedent in that a general contractor is not required to pay its subcontractor unless and until it receives payment from the owner.  A different result flows from a "pay-when-paid" provision which only allows the general contractor a reasonable time to pay the subcontractor after receiving payment from the owner, but the risk of non-payment from the owner is not shifted to the subcontractor.

In Midlantic Fire, LLC v. Ernest Bock & Sons, Inc., No. DC–8529–14, 2016 WL 3093075, at *1 (N.J.Super. Ct. June 3, 2016), the pay-if-paid clause stated:

Payment by Owner to the General Contractor for the work/materials invoiced by the Subcontractor/Supplier shall be a condition precedent to General Contractor's obligation to pay Subcontractor/Supplier. Accordingly Subcontractor/Supplier agrees and understands that it shall bear the risk of non-payment by the Owner and shall be entitled to no compensation from the General Contractor in the event of non-payment by the Owner for its work/materials.

The plaintiff subcontractor installed a fire protection system in accordance with drawings and plans supplied by the defendant general contractor.  Subsequent to installation, the general contractor learned that the sprinklers interfered with structural supports that needed to be installed.  The subcontractor issued a change order, which was approved by the general contractor.  The subcontractor performed the changed work.  When the general contractor submitted the invoice for payment, the owner declined to pay because there was a "lack of communication [and] coordination" between the general contractor and subcontractor. The general contractor, citing the pay-if-paid provision, then refused to pay the subcontractor.   The plaintiff subcontractor prevailed at trial, and the defendant general contractor appealed the application of the pay-if-pay by law.

Applying Pennsylvania law, per the contract, the court affirmed in favor of the subcontractor because "courts are reluctant to enforce a conditional payment provision against an unpaid subcontractor that is not responsible for the condition giving rise to the payment defense" and because "parties to a contract have an implied duty not to frustrate conditions precedent to their performance" (citing Quinn Constr., Inc. v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., 730 F.Supp.2d 401, 420 (E.D.Pa.2010)).  Because the subcontractor had relied on the plans and drawings submitted by the general contractor and therefore because all coordination among subcontractors was the general contractor's responsibility, the subcontractor was not responsible for the non-payment. Rather the defendant general contractor's own error spurred the need for the change order and the owners refusal to pay the change order. As such, the pay-if-paid provision was inapplicable and the general was required to pay the subcontractor.

In A. Zahner Company v. McGowan Builders, Inc., No. WD 78063, 2016 WL 2994022, (Mo.App. Ct May 24, 2016), the pay-if-paid stated:

[Subcontractor] agrees that [the general contractor] will not be responsible to make any payment, progress or final, to [subcontractor] for any and all of the goods identified in this Purchase Order unless and until [general contractor] receives payment for such goods from the Owner of the project . . . . If Subcontractor is not paid within 45 days of when a pay application is submitted, Subcontractor may stop the Work of this Subcontract until payment is received . . . .

The trial court had concluded that the above provision was ambiguous because the "unless and until" language was a condition precedent to payment shifting the risk of non-payment to the subcontractor whereas the "stop the Work" sentences "eased the burden" of risk to the subcontractor.  The appellate court disagreed and instead held that the entire provision could be read harmoniously. That court held that altogether the provision simply "distributes financial risk between the parties and provides both [with] a measure of financial protection."  In sum, the general contractor did not need to pay if owner did not pay.  As its recourse, the subcontractor did not need to continue work if it was not paid.  As such, the appellate court concluded that the pay-if-paid provision was applicable and remanded the case for fact-finding -- whether the owner indeed did not pay the general contractor.

 ---------------------------------------

The author, Katharine Kohm, is a committee member for The Dispute Resolver. Katharine practices construction law and commercial litigation in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.  She is an associate at Pierce Atwood, LLP in Providence, Rhode Island.  She may be contacted at 401-490-3407 or kkohm@PierceAtwood.com.

Texas Court Rejects General Contractor's Fraud Claims Against Owner's Lender

A Texas court of appeals recently rejected a general contractor's claims for fraud against the project owner's lender.

In that case, the general contractor did not receive several progress payments for its work on the project, and was not paid its retainage by the owner. The owner defaulted on its construction loan, which led to the lender foreclosing on its lien on the property.

The general contractor filed suit against the lender, claiming (among other things) that lender fraudulently misrepresented that it was withholding retainage from the loan amounts disbursed to the owner for the general contractor's periodic pay applications. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the lender on the fraud and constructive-trust claims.

The court of appeals affirmed. It pointed out that the general contractor had failed to present evidence showing the lender had made any "misrepresentations" concerning retainage. The lender's witness stated that the lender did not actually withhold any retainage, but instead forwarded the full amounts to the owner. The general contractor, in turn, did not present any evidence that its requests for payment were presented directly to the lender, or that the lender withheld any of the retained funds for the owner. Absent such evidence, the court held that the general contractor failed to raise an issue of material fact on whether the lender made any misrepresentations.

The opinion is David Wight Constr. Co., Ltd. v. FDIC, No. 14-12-01003-CV (Tex. App--Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 25, 2014, no pet. h.).

Though the court did not discuss the issue, by analogy, some statutes in Texas expressly exempt lenders from certain obligations concerning construction loans. For example, the Texas Trust Fund Act expressly exempts lenders from any obligations to hold construction payments in trust for the contractors who work on projects. Tex. Prop. Code Sec. 162.004(a). However, this exemption would not excuse the lender from liability for any fraudulent misrepresentations to the general contractor.

Has anyone seen a successful claim for fraud or negligent misrepresentation by a contractor against a lender? Would allowing such claims expand the lenders' liability in a manner that would interfere with the normal administration of pay applications in commercial construction projects?