In a recent ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld an arbitration award favoring homeowners Adam and Erin Remillard against DF Construction Company, LLC. The court confirmed the award despite DF Construction's attempts to vacate it, marking a significant decision in construction contract disputes.
The case, Remillard v. DF Construction Company, L.L.C., was filed under docket number CA2026-01-008. The ruling, delivered on October 5, 2026, by Judge Melena S. Siebert, addressed the homeowners' claims regarding delays in the construction of their new residence and the associated costs incurred as a result.
This decision is crucial for homeowners and construction companies alike, as it reinforces the enforceability of arbitration awards and the limited grounds on which they can be contested. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the arbitration process in resolving disputes.
Background
The Remillards entered into a construction contract with DF Construction on October 26, 2021. The agreement stipulated that construction should begin approximately 45 days after the closing of a construction loan, which occurred on December 29, 2021. DF Construction was expected to complete the residence within 210 days after excavation.
However, DF Construction did not commence excavation until July 26, 2022, which was 209 days after the loan closing. The project was ultimately completed on October 12, 2023, resulting in a delay of 443 days. The Remillards expressed their concerns about the delays in a letter sent on August 31, 2023, indicating that they expected to occupy their new home by February 2023.
Following the delays, the Remillards initiated arbitration on June 3, 2024, seeking damages for the construction delays. The American Arbitration Association appointed Richard Hamilton as the arbitrator after the initially selected arbitrators were unavailable. DF Construction objected to Hamilton's appointment, citing a previous mediation involving the same parties, but the AAA confirmed Hamilton's role.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to deny DF Construction's motion to vacate the arbitration award. The court found no evidence of evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator and concluded that DF's challenge to the notice-and-cure provision in the contract merely reflected a disagreement with the arbitrator's interpretation.
The court ruled, "DF failed to demonstrate evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator, and its challenge to the contractual notice-and-cure provision amounts to a disagreement with the arbitrator's interpretation of the parties' agreement."
Additionally, the court upheld the trial court's authority to award the Remillards attorney fees incurred in enforcing the arbitration award. The trial court had previously awarded the Remillards $37,209.70 in damages and $23,223.78 in attorney fees based on the arbitrator's findings that DF Construction had knowingly violated the Home Construction Service Suppliers Act.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for both homeowners and construction companies in Ohio. It reinforces the validity of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism and clarifies the limited grounds on which arbitration awards can be challenged. Homeowners can feel more secure in pursuing arbitration for construction-related disputes, knowing that courts will uphold these awards unless there is clear evidence of bias or misconduct.
Moreover, the decision highlights the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the potential consequences of delays in construction projects. Construction companies must be diligent in meeting deadlines and communicating with clients to avoid disputes that may lead to arbitration.
What's Next
DF Construction may consider appealing the ruling, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases. The court's affirmation of the arbitration award sets a precedent for similar disputes in the future, emphasizing the importance of compliance with arbitration agreements and the enforcement of statutory rights under construction law.