Image by skeeze via pixabay.com
This is the third of a three-part series exploring the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Zachry Construction Corp. v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County. A summary of the case can be found at Part 1 of the series. Part 2 addressed the “no-damages-for-delay” aspects of the case and commented upon the current state of North Carolina jurisprudence on the enforcement of such contract clauses. This post explores the decision’s holding with respect to lien waivers and highlights some key issues contractors should bear in mind before executing these often-overlooked instruments.
What Zachry Says About Lien Waivers
By way of reminder, here’s the pertinent lien waiver language that gave rise to the dispute over whether Zachry waived its right to claim $2.36 million in liquidated damages (“LDs”) that had been withheld by the Port Authority:
[Zachry] hereby acknowledges and certifies that [the Port Authority] has made partial payment to [Zachry] on all sums owing on Payment Estimate Number [–––] and that it has no further claims against [the Port Authority] for the portion of the Work completed and listed on the Schedule of Costs in Payment Estimate Number [–––].
The Port Authority argued this language constituted a waiver of all claims for payment; Zachry argued it only applied to lien claims. The trial court saw it Zachry’s way, and the Texas Court of Appeals reversed.
The Texas Supreme Court thought the jury got it right.
N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News 