## Facts

- Horacio Alaniz, a roofer, was injured while working on a construction project where Schal Associates served as construction manager/general contractor.
- Alaniz worked for Rite-On Roofing, a subcontractor of Thorne-McNulty Corporation; Thorne-McNulty had contracted with Schal.
- The Schal–Thorne-McNulty subcontract included general language requiring Thorne-McNulty to maintain “safety and loss prevention programs” for its work and the work of its subcontractors.
- Alaniz sued, and later amended to assert a breach-of-contract claim against Thorne-McNulty, alleging he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the safety-program provision and that Thorne-McNulty’s failure to maintain those programs caused his injuries.
- The contract did not expressly identify Alaniz or site workers as beneficiaries.

## Issues

1. Whether a construction worker employed by a lower-tier subcontractor is an intended third-party beneficiary of a subcontract, based solely on a general safety and loss-prevention clause.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of Alaniz’s amended complaint.
- The court held Alaniz was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the Schal–Thorne-McNulty subcontract.
- The safety-program clause was construed as allocating responsibilities between the contracting parties and provided, at most, an incidental benefit to workers.
- Out-of-state authority suggesting workers may enforce similar provisions was rejected as inconsistent with Illinois third-party beneficiary doctrine.

## Legal Principles

- A nonparty may sue for breach of contract only if the contract was made for the nonparty’s direct benefit; incidental beneficiaries have no right of recovery.
- Contracting-party intent controls third-party beneficiary status and is determined from the contract as a whole and the circumstances at execution.
- General construction-contract safety provisions typically do not create enforceable rights in workers absent clear contractual intent to confer such rights.

## Conclusion

Because the subcontract’s generalized safety and loss-prevention language did not show a clear intent to confer enforceable rights on site workers, the worker’s benefit was incidental, and he lacked standing to sue as a third-party beneficiary.


Alaniz v. Schal Assocs., Inc., 175 Ill. App. 3d 310, 529 N.E.2d 832 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988)