JJ Connor Co., Inc. v. Reginella Constr. Co., Ltd.
2014 Ohio 3873
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- JJ Connor and Reginella had a construction subcontract containing an arbitration clause for a turnpike reconstruction project; Travelers issued a bond for Reginella as surety.
- JJ Connor sued Reginella, Travelers, and the Ohio Turnpike Commission in May 2012 over project disputes.
- Trial court stayed the case and referred matters to arbitration, with proceedings scheduled for March 2013.
- Travelers moved in November 2012 to compel arbitration to join the JJ Connor-Reginella arbitration, which Connor and Reginella opposed.
- A magistrate granted Travelers’ motion in March 2013; JJ Connor and Reginella appealed; the appeals were consolidated as 13 MA 75 and 13 MA 77.
- The Seventh District ultimately held that a nonsignatory/surety cannot compel or join arbitration under the subcontract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Travelers can be made a party to the arbitration. | Connor argues Travelers cannot compel participation as a nonsignatory. | Travelers argues its status as surety should permit participation. | No; nonsignatory cannot compel or join arbitration. |
| Whether Travelers, as surety, has automatic right to participate in the arbitration. | Connor/Reginella contend no automatic right. | Travelers contends its surety status requires participation. | No automatic right to participate. |
| Whether Travelers is an intended third-party beneficiary of the subcontract arbitration clause. | Travelers should have rights enforce arbitration. | Travelers is merely an incidental beneficiary. | Travelers is not an intended beneficiary and cannot enforce arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (2008) (stay of proceedings pending arbitration reviewed as final appealable order)
- Council of Smaller Enterprises v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 661 (1998) (arbitration authority limited to signatories to the contract)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitration-related questions treated as matters of contract law)