Illinois Appellate Court Ruling Provides (Another) Reason to Double-Check Your Payment Clauses

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Faegre Baker Daniels

A recent ruling out of the First District Illinois Appellate Court makes one thing clear: contractors and subcontractors should pay close attention to payment clauses on all contract forms. In Beal Bank Nevada v. Northshore Center THC, LLC, et al., the Appellate Court interpreted a payment provision in a subcontract as “pay-when-paid” instead of “pay-if-paid,” making the contractor liable for failing to pay a subcontractor—even though the contractor did not receive payment from the owner. The decision shows that it’s in all parties’ best interests to ensure they fully understand the risks they face in the event of an owner’s payment default.

In Beal Bank Nevada, after paying the subcontractor’s initial invoice, the contractor refused to make payment on additional invoices due to the owner’s failure to pay. The subcontract required payment to the subcontractor “within five (5) days of receipt thereof from the Owner” and final payment “within thirty (30) days” of the owner’s payment. The circuit court interpreted the subcontract’s provision as “pay-if-paid”—in other words, the contractor’s obligation to pay the subcontractor was contingent on the owner’s payment to the contractor.

On appeal, the Appellate Court was tasked with deciding whether payment to the subcontractor was truly conditioned upon the contractor’s receipt of payment from the owner, or whether the provision merely addressed the amount and timing of payment due to the subcontractor. The Appellate Court reversed, finding no evidence of any “plain and unambiguous” language to support the notion that the subcontractor had accepted the risk of nonpayment by the owner. The Court ruled that conditions precedent—making subcontractor payment contingent on the contractor’s receipt of payment from the owner—are not generally favored, and that, in this case, the contract language did not amount to a “pay-if-paid” situation. “Without clear language indicating the parties' intent that the Subcontractor would assume the risk of non-payment by the Owner, we will not construe the challenged language in the subcontract as a condition precedent,” the Court said.

The opinion serves as an example to construction industry participants of the importance of considering the true impact of their payment provisions. Illinois courts will not consider payment to a subcontractor to be conditioned upon payment by the owner unless the parties’ agreement clearly and unambiguously demonstrates such an intent by the parties. 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.