Under California’s Prompt Payment Statute, a Direct Contractor May Not Withhold Retention From a Subcontractor Simply Because a Dispute Exists Between the Parties. To Allow Withholding, the Dispute Must Relate Directly to the Specific Retention Amount Due.

United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., 2018 Cal. Lexis 3510 (May 14, 2018)

This post was published in the August 16, 2018 issue of eNews published by National Association of Credit Management (NACM).

In 2010, Universal City (“Universal”) hired Coast Iron & Steel Co. (“Coast Iron”) to build a new ride at the Universal Studios Hollywood.  Coast Iron subcontracted the installation of the metalwork to United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. (“United Riggers”).  The initial subcontract between Coast Iron and United Riggers was for $722,742 but was increased by change orders to approximately $1.5 million.  United Riggers completed its work to Coast Iron’s satisfaction.  In August 2012, Universal made its final retention payment to Coast Iron.  However, Coast Iron refused to pay any retention to United Riggers due to disputes over change order requests from United Riggers to increase the subcontract price by approximately $350,000.  United Riggers then filed suit to collect these sums, including prompt payment penalties under California Civil Code Section 8814 for failure to timely pay retention.  Coast Iron ultimately paid all of the $149,602.52 in retention owed to United Riggers during the litigation.  After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Coast Iron.  The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling on the statutory claim for failure to make timely retention payments.  The California Supreme Court affirmed.

Under Section 8814, subdivision (a), if retention has been withheld throughout a project, a direct contractor must pay retention to its subcontractor within 10 days of receiving retention from the owner.  However, under subdivision (c), “[i]f a good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor, the direct contractor may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.”  The question before the California Supreme Court was whether this exception allows withholding retention when there is any dispute between the parties, or only when there is a dispute directly relevant to the specific retention payment that would otherwise be due.  The parties agreed that the adequacy of United Riggers’ performance of the work, for which the retention was owed, was not in question.  Instead, their dispute concerned whether United Riggers was owed monies over and above the subcontract price.

After considering the text, legislative history and purpose of Section 8814, the California Supreme Court concluded that the right to withhold retention from a subcontractor is limited to instances where there is a dispute over the specific payment in question.  The Court noted that this interpretation comports with the statute’s remedial purpose, which is “to ensure timely payment of undisputed amounts to contractors, without impairing the ability of payors to withhold amounts as security when the obligation to pay those specific monies is in doubt.”  The Court held that a direct contractor may not withhold a retention payment that is part of an undisputed amount, simply because a dispute has arisen over whether additional amounts over and above the retention might also be owed.  Allowing a direct contractor to withhold 150% of an undisputed amount would create a windfall – the direct contractor “would be able to secure for itself an interest-free loan of the additionally withheld amount … this is precisely the evil the Legislature sought to eliminate when it enacted [Section 8814].”

To view the full text of the court’s decision, courtesy of Lexis®, click here.

Luke Nicholas Eaton

This entry was posted in Prompt Payment Act and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.