Sauer Inc. v. Honeywell Building Solutions SES Corp.
742 F. Supp. 2d 709 | District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania | 2010
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Sauer, a mechanical and plumbing subcontractor, signed lien waivers as required by the general contractor Honeywell to receive progress payments on a hospital project. When disputes arose, Sauer argued it didn't actually intend to waive its lien rights despite signing the waivers. The court ruled against Sauer, holding that clear lien waiver language is binding regardless of what the subcontractor subjectively believed or intended. This means once you sign an unambiguous lien waiver, you cannot later claim you didn't mean to give up your rights.
Key Takeaways
- •Read lien waivers carefully before signing—courts will enforce the actual words you sign, not your personal intent or understanding
- •If a lien waiver uses clear language waiving claims, you cannot escape it by arguing you didn't subjectively intend to waive those claims
- •Require payment in full before signing final lien waivers; progress payment waivers should be limited to amounts actually received
Where a release contains clear and unambiguous waiver, party cannot evade effect by contending it did not subjectively intend to waive.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sign a lien waiver and later claim I didn't really mean to give up my lien rights?
No. If the lien waiver contains clear, unambiguous language waiving your claims, courts will enforce it regardless of your subjective intent or what you thought you were signing. The words on the document control, not what you believed. Always read and understand lien waivers before signing.
Related Cases
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
A standard merger clause without clear and unequivocal language expressly disclaiming reliance does not bar a fraud claim, even in a commercial lease agreement between parties.
Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi
A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.
Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc.
Sovereign immunity bars subcontractors from enforcing equitable liens against the United States Government, as the APA's waiver of immunity does not extend to claims for money damages.
Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh
An insured may assert an article 21.21 claim against its excess liability carrier for unfair claim settlement practices, but liability requires proof of a proper settlement demand within policy limits that an ordinarily prudent insurer would accept.
Weize Co. v. Colorado Regional Construction, Inc.
A general contractor violated Colorado's construction trust fund statute by failing to hold funds in trust for subcontractors and suppliers, and a lien release bond does not exempt contractors from trust fund obligations or excuse failure to record a lis pendens.