Construction Delay Award Survives Arbitration Challenge and Adds Enforcement Fees
An Ohio appellate court upheld a home-construction delay award and additional enforcement fees, emphasizing limited arbitration review and the need for a proper record.
Case record
Authority before analysis.
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District
Docket
2026-Ohio-3912; CA2026-01-008
Decision
October 5, 2026
Posture
Appeal from confirmation of arbitration award, denial of vacatur, and supplemental attorney-fee award; affirmed.
Status
Published Ohio intermediate appellate decision interpreting Ohio arbitration and home-construction statutes.
01
What the court did
In Remillard v. DF Construction Co., LLC, the court affirmed confirmation of an award arising from delays in building a home. The arbitrator awarded $37,209.70 in damages and $23,223.78 in attorney fees after finding a knowing violation of Ohio’s Home Construction Service Suppliers Act. The appellate court rejected speculative claims of arbitrator bias based on an earlier, unrelated mediation. It treated the notice-and-cure challenge as disagreement with contract interpretation, not proof the arbitrator exceeded his powers. It also upheld $12,346 in additional fees for defending and enforcing the award.
02
Why operators should care
Our operating takeaway: manage schedule commitments and notice records early - before a construction dispute reaches arbitration. Preserve the contract, extensions, delay explanations, correspondence, and hearing record. A challenge to an arbitrator needs specific evidence, not suspicion arising from prior professional involvement. Here, the absence of an arbitration transcript required the court to presume regular proceedings. Account for the possibility that a statutory fee entitlement may extend to enforcement proceedings, making an unsuccessful challenge more expensive.
03
What remains unresolved
This decision applies Ohio statutes and this arbitration record. It does not make all delays statutory violations, invalidate notice-and-cure clauses, or prevent evidence-based challenges to arbitrator partiality. The court reviewed the limited statutory grounds for disturbing the award; it did not conduct a new trial of the homeowners’ claims. Fee recovery depended on the established statutory violation, not a universal rule that every arbitration winner receives fees.
Industries
General contractorsResidential construction
Ownership models
Issues
Attorney feesContracts and payment
Primary record
Read the opinion.
This update identifies the court, posture, holding, and unresolved questions. The linked opinion remains the controlling source.
Shop On Fire is not a law firm. This publication provides general business education and commentary, not legal advice or representation. Consult qualified counsel about a specific matter.
