Harrison County Commercial Lot, LLC v. H. Gordon Myrick, Inc., 107 So. 3d 943

Myrick contracted to build Cain Office Building for HCCL under an AIA-based contract with an arbitration clause excluding aesthetic-effect claims.
Disputes arose over punch-list items related to appearance; HCCL terminated Myrick and hired a new contractor.
Myrick sought to compel arbitration; HCCL contested which claims fell within arbitration vs. litigation for aesthetic-effect claims.
Trial court found arbitration agreement valid and instructed parties to submit which claims were related to aesthetic effect.
Affidavits and submissions on aesthetic-effect issues were exchanged; the court ordered certain punch-list items to arbitration and others to litigation.
On appeal, the court affirms arbitration validity, addresses scope and ambiguity, and remands for clearer reasoning on punch-list items.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of arbitration agreement	HCCL argues ambiguity and lack of jury-waiver language invalidate agreement.	Myrick contends agreement is clear, unambiguous, and enforceable.	Arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable.
Scope: which claims are arbitrable vs. aesthetic-effect	All claims relate to aesthetic effect and are not subject to arbitration.	Contract language shows most claims fall within arbitration except aesthetic-effect claims.	Some claims are arbitrable and some are not; the trial court's designation requires clarification on punch-list items.
Waiver of arbitral rights by filing litigation	Myrick waived by filing suit rather than arbitration.	Myrick’s filing of a motion to compel arbitration did not waive rights.	No waiver; motion to compel arbitration properly filed.
Punch-list item determination and reasoning	Ambiguity in defining 'aesthetic effect' and which items are excluded.	Court properly designated some items as aesthetic; others arbitrable.	Remand for explicit articulation of why items were categorized as aesthetic or not.

Scruggs v. Wyatt, 60 So.3d 758 (Miss. 2011) (two-part test for arbitrability; focus on contract intent and external constraints)
East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor, 826 So.2d 709 (Miss. 2002) (arbitration policy favors arbitration when ambiguities exist)
Pre-Paid Legal Servs., Inc. v. Battle, 873 So.2d 79 (Miss. 2004) (lack of notice/negotiation renders arbitration language insufficient)
McKenzie Check Advance of Miss., LLC v. Hardy, 866 So.2d 446 (Miss. 2004) (jury-trial waiver not required; arbitration agreement suffices)
Harry Baker Smith Architects, 83 So.3d 395, 83 So.3d 395 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (interprets arbitration clauses in construction contracts as clear)
May Constr. Co., Inc. v. Benton Sch. Dist., 895 S.W.2d 521 (Ark. 1995) (aesthetic claims may be non-arbitrable when appearance is the basis)