"Pay-When-Paid" Provision Enforced
(February 2010) By Lydia S. Hu, Associate
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Universal Concrete Products v. Turner Construction Company,
No. 09-1569 (4th Cir. January 26, 2010), available at
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/091569.P.pdf
The Honorable Judge Roger L. Gregory authored the opinion on
behalf of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that a "pay-when-paid"
provision in a subcontract was not rendered ambiguous when read as a whole, and
in conjunction with the primary contract between the general contractor and real
property owner.
Universal Concrete Products Corporation ("Universal"), a
subcontractor, entered into a written agreement with Turner Construction Company
("Turner") to install pre-cast concrete on the Granby Tower construction project
in Norfolk, Virginia. In the wake of the real estate market collapse, the
project folded when the Owner could not finance it. By that time, however,
Universal had substantially completed all of its work on the project and sought
payment. Turner refused to pay, because it had not been paid by the owner and
pointed to the "pay-when-paid" provision.
The court applied Virginia law to the matter, based on
diversity jurisdiction. In Virginia, a contractor and sub-contractor are free to
create pay-when-paid provisions, but these will only be enforced in the absence
of ambiguity. Universal claims that the pay-when-paid provision contained in the
subcontract at issue here is ambiguous when considered in light of the contract
between Turner and the Owner.
The subcontract’s pay-when-paid provision provided that:
the obligation of Turner to make a payment under this
Agreement, whether a progress or final payment, or for extras or change orders
or delays to the Work, is subject to the express condition precedent of payment
therefore by the Owner.
Universal points to the provision in Turner’s contract with
the Owner, which provided that the Owner will reimburse Turner for "payments
made by the Construction Manager to Subcontractors in accordance with the
requirements of subcontractors" and argues that when both contracts are read
together, the pay-when-paid provisions became ambiguous.
The Fourth Circuit held, however, that the provision in the
Turner-Owner contract did not specify the timing at which payment must be made;
rather, it clarifies the amount. Accordingly, the contracts can be read together
without creating ambiguity regarding the pay-when-paid provisions. The provision
was enforceable.