NH Construction Law
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Links

#127:  Subcontract "Flow Down" of Prime Contract Terms

7/22/2023

4 Comments

 
Commercial construction subcontracts frequently incorporate by reference provisions of the prime contract between the owner and the general contractor, often with language requiring the subcontractor to assume toward the general contractor all duties owed by the general contractor to the owner.  (Article 2 of the popular AIA A401 (2017) is an example.)  Exactly what duties these “flow down” clauses embrace can be less clear than a casual reading might suggest.
 
Flow down clauses can limit a subcontractor’s remedies for breach by incorporating the prime contract’s restrictions.  In Costa v. Brait Builders Corp., 463 Mass. 65, 78, 972 N.E.2d 449 (2012), a subcontractor who agreed “to be bound to the Contractor by the terms of the [general contract] and to assume to the Contractor all the obligations and responsibilities that the Contractor by those documents assumes to the awarding authority” was stuck with a waiver of consequential damages clause found only in the prime contract.  In L & B Construction Co, v. Ragan Enterprise, Inc., 482 S.E.2d 279 (Ga. 1997), a no-damages-for-delay clause in a prime contract was held binding on a subcontractor through a similar flow-down clause. 
 
When the prime contract dictates a forum for resolving disputes, cases are split on the effect of flow down clauses.  Weatherguard Roofing Co. v. D. R. Ward Construction Co., Inc., 152 P.3d 1227 (Ariz. App. 2007), saddled a subcontractor with the prime contract’s arbitration clause. Remedial Construction Services, LP v. AECOM, Inc., 65 Cal. App. 5th 658 (2021), went the other way.   ESI Companies, Inc. v. Ray Bell Construction Co., 2008 WL 544563 (Tenn.  App., Feb. 29, 2008), bound a subcontractor to the prime contract’s forum-selection clause.  U.S. Steel Corp. v. Turner Construction Co., 560 F.Supp. 871 (S.D.N.Y.1983), went the other way. 
 
The precise language of the flow down clause matters greatly, and any ambiguity in its scope as well as any conflict with express provisions in the subcontract will likely limit flow-down incorporation to those prime contract provisions directly addressing scope and quality of work.  Such was the case in Flatiron-Lane v. Case Atlantic Co., 121 F.Supp.3d 315, 551 (M.D.N.C. 2015), refusing to flow down a prime contract’s notice-of-claim obligations onto a subcontractor because “the Subcontract has numerous procedural and notice provisions of its own that are dissimilar to those found in the [prime contract], make no reference to the [prime contract] at all, and are not entirely consistent with the [prime contract] procedures.”

Some courts go further, and restrict flow down clauses to items involving performance of work unless the clause explicitly states otherwise.  In Amerisure Insurance Co. v. Selective Insurance Group, Inc., 2023 WL 3311879 (2d Cir., May 9, 2023), the subcontractor agreed to “assume toward the Contractor all the obligations and responsibilities that the Contractor assumes toward the Owner.” The court ruled that this clause “does not require the subcontractor to assume all obligations of the general contractor, but only those relating to the nature or scope of the work undertaken by the subcontractor.”  Id. at *3.
 
Where does New Hampshire stand on all of this?  We have but one Supreme Court case to go on, and it suggests a narrow interpretation of flow down clauses.  Berke Moore Co. v. Phoenix Bridge Company, 98 N.H. 261 (1953), was a suit by a concrete subcontractor on a State bridge project who agreed to “be bound by and conform to the general specifications in all respects wherein they apply to the work embraced in this agreement” and agreed to accept payment “for the quantity of material approved by the State Highway Commission.”  The State paid the general contractor per square yard of finished concrete surface excluding curbs, but the Supreme Court held that this wasn’t binding with respect to the subcontractor’s claim against the general contractor, id. at 271:
 
“The provisions of the ‘general specifications’ which relate to ‘the work embraced in’ the subcontract contain no reference to the provisions of the N. H. specifications defining the authority of the State Engineer and Commissioner.  Accordingly these provisions upon which the defendant relies may not be considered incorporated by reference in the subcontract.”

4 Comments
drywall contractor augusta ga link
10/20/2023 06:21:42 pm

This omission is significant, and it highlights the need to carefully consider the language and scope of all provisions in a subcontract. Without explicit language, it is unreasonable to assume that provisions from one document were intended to be included in another.

Reply
khaye530
7/17/2024 12:18:03 pm

Flow down clauses in construction subcontracts can significantly impact subcontractors' obligations and rights, binding them to terms from the prime contract. Understanding these clauses is crucial as they can limit remedies and dictate dispute resolution forums. <a href="https://www.toppeakwelding.com/">Top Peak Welding</a>

Reply
&lt;a href="https://www.toppeakwelding.com/"&gt;Top Peak Welding&lt;/a&gt;
7/17/2024 12:19:19 pm

The complexities of subcontract "flow down" clauses highlight the importance of precise language and careful consideration of their implications for subcontractors. Understanding these clauses is crucial to navigating contractual obligations effectively.

Reply
atlanta IOP link
3/26/2025 05:37:28 am

Our Atlanta IOP offers structured yet flexible therapy for those needing more than traditional counseling. Get expert-led mental health treatment while maintaining your daily routine.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Frank Spinella

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly