## Facts

- Springfield Housing Authority (SHA) hired Bildoc, Inc. (Bildoc) as the general contractor on a construction project.
- Western Waterproofing Co., Inc. (Western) and Mid-Continental Restoration Company, Inc. (Mid-Continental) worked on the project as subcontractors under contracts with Bildoc.
- Under the subcontracts, Western and Mid-Continental were to be paid 63 days after the project’s completion.
- Western and Mid-Continental performed their work in full, and the project was completed.
- SHA paid Bildoc for the work, but Bildoc did not pay Western or Mid-Continental.
- Western and Mid-Continental obtained default judgments against Bildoc but were unable to collect on those judgments.
- The prime contract between SHA and Bildoc contained a section titled “Performance and Payment Bond,” but the text of that section required Bildoc to furnish a performance bond to SHA and did not specifically require a payment bond.
- Western and Mid-Continental sued SHA, alleging they were intended third-party beneficiaries of the SHA–Bildoc prime contract based on the bond provision.
- SHA and the subcontractors filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether subcontractors may recover from a public owner as intended third-party beneficiaries of the prime contract when the prime contract’s bond provision, despite its title, requires only a performance bond and does not state an intent to benefit subcontractors.

## Decision

- The court granted SHA’s motion for summary judgment and denied the subcontractors’ motion.
- The court held Western and Mid-Continental were not intended third-party beneficiaries of the SHA–Bildoc contract’s bond provision.
- The court reasoned that the operative language required only a performance bond for SHA’s protection and did not show an intent to give subcontractors enforceable rights against SHA.
- The court treated the provision’s title (“Performance and Payment Bond”) as insufficient to create subcontractor rights where the substance of the clause did not provide for a payment bond or otherwise promise payment protection to subcontractors.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois law, a nonparty may enforce a contract only if the contract shows an intent to benefit that nonparty directly; incidental benefits are not enough.
- Courts focus on the operative contract language when deciding third-party beneficiary status; headings or captions do not control where the text is clear.
- A performance bond is generally for the owner’s benefit (assuring contract completion), and it does not, by itself, show an intent to protect subcontractors from nonpayment.
- An owner’s payment to the general contractor, without an express contractual undertaking to protect or pay subcontractors, does not create contractual liability by the owner to subcontractors through third-party beneficiary doctrine.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the subcontractors’ attempt to treat the SHA–Bildoc bond clause as a promise made for their benefit, holding that the prime contract’s text required only a performance bond for SHA’s protection and did not manifest an intent to grant subcontractors enforceable rights against SHA; summary judgment was therefore entered for SHA.


Western Waterproofing Co., Inc. v. Springfield Housing Authority, 669 F.Supp. 901 (1987)