Integrity Construction II v. Severino Construction — Court rejects subcontractor’s bid to compel arbitration

Case
Integrity Construction II, Inc. v. Severino Construction, Inc. et al.
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth District
Judge
Dingus, J. (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
August 13, 2026
Docket No.
25AP-138
Topics
Arbitration; Construction contracts; Incorporation by reference; Flow-down provisions
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Metro Development II, LLC, the general contractor on a housing-development project, subcontracted with J. Severino Construction, Inc. The Metro-Severino subcontract gave Metro alone the discretion to elect arbitration or litigation in disputes between Metro and Severino. It also contained certain flow-down provisions governing obligations and rights among the owner, Metro, and Severino.

Severino later hired Integrity Construction II, Inc. for sanitary-sewer, earthwork, and storm-sewer work. After a payment dispute, Integrity sued Severino for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and conversion. Severino sought to stay the action and compel arbitration under its subcontract with Metro, contending that the Metro subcontract had been incorporated into its agreements with Integrity.

The Court’s Holding

The Tenth District affirmed the denial of Severino’s motion to compel arbitration. The sanitary-sewer agreement did not refer to Metro’s subcontract, and the earthwork notation—“Dirt Work Per Metro Contract Doc.”—was only a reference, not a sufficiently clear incorporation of that subcontract’s terms.

Although the storm-sewer agreement likely incorporated the Metro subcontract by stating that all terms of the Metro contract applied, Severino still could not enforce Metro’s arbitration provision. The clause gave Metro, in its sole discretion, the right to choose arbitration or litigation in a Metro-Severino dispute. Neither that clause nor the incorporated flow-down language gave Severino the right to step into Metro’s shoes and invoke arbitration against Integrity. Incorporation by reference alone did not create that missing right.

Key Takeaways

  • A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate absent an agreement to arbitrate that dispute.
  • A contract’s mere reference to another document does not necessarily incorporate that document’s terms.
  • Even effective incorporation does not extend a party-specific arbitration right to a different contractual relationship without supporting contractual language.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that construction-contract flow-down provisions must be drafted with precision. A subcontractor seeking arbitration rights against a lower-tier subcontractor cannot rely solely on incorporation of an upstream contract where the arbitration provision expressly belongs to the general contractor and the agreement contains no downstream provision transferring that right.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top