{ "id": 8472320, "name": "ELLIS-DON CONSTRUCTION, INC., ELLIS-DON CONSTRUCTION, INC., as the assignee of RALEIGH-DURHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Plaintiffs v. HNTB CORPORATION, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Ellis-Don Construction, Inc. v. HNTB Corp.", "decision_date": "2005-04-05", "docket_number": "No. COA04-829", "first_page": "630", "last_page": "635", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "169 N.C. App. 630" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "593 S.E.2d 592", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631180, 12631181 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/593/0592-02", "/se2d/593/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12631282, 12631283, 12631284, 12631287, 12631227 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/595/0152-02", "/se2d/595/0152-01", "/se2d/595/0153-02", "/se2d/595/0154-01", "/se2d/594/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "366 S.E.2d 705", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "707" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 N.C. App. 476", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522889 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "480" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/89/0476-01" ] }, { "cite": "566 S.E.2d 130", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "132" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9080966 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "509" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "507 S.E.2d 913", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. App. 687", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11204567 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "689", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/131/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "757" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. App. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8528048 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/101/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.3", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "496 S.E.2d 800", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 N.C. App. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11654868 ], "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/128/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "568 S.E.2d 611", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511265, 1511141, 1511272, 1511566, 1511352 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0167-05", "/nc/356/0167-03", "/nc/356/0167-04", "/nc/356/0167-02", "/nc/356/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "562 S.E.2d 64", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. App. 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9130955 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "645" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/149/0642-01" ] }, { "cite": "591 S.E.2d 577", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "580" }, { "page": "580" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. App. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8917911 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "461" }, { "page": "461" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/162/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1-567.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.18", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "401 S.E.2d 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "825", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 N.C. App. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523254 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/102/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 719", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "720", "parenthetical": "\"Assignments of error not addressed in the brief are deemed abandoned under Rule 28(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251635 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "650-51", "parenthetical": "\"Assignments of error not addressed in the brief are deemed abandoned under Rule 28(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S.E. 836", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1934, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "838", "parenthetical": "\"the law does not permit parties to swap horses between courts in order to get a better mount\" on appeal." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 6", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621595 ], "year": 1934, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10", "parenthetical": "\"the law does not permit parties to swap horses between courts in order to get a better mount\" on appeal." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0006-01" ] }, { "cite": "554 S.E.2d 634", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "641" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138307 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "309" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "589 S.E.2d 414", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418-19", "parenthetical": "quoting Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 354 N.C. 298, 309, 554 S.E.2d 634, 641 (2001)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 673", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8959888 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "680", "parenthetical": "quoting Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 354 N.C. 298, 309, 554 S.E.2d 634, 641 (2001)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/161/0673-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 580, "char_count": 10703, "ocr_confidence": 0.754, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.861179590752023e-07, "percentile": 0.8414220288518751 }, "sha256": "51753d72f079f52a90641e9f344a493cad3e4c6baf3aa5f05e64d65c4771564a", "simhash": "1:036a46003a4825c2", "word_count": 1678 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:06:54.593382+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "ELLIS-DON CONSTRUCTION, INC., ELLIS-DON CONSTRUCTION, INC., as the assignee of RALEIGH-DURHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Plaintiffs v. HNTB CORPORATION, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nHNTB Corporation (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals the trial court\u2019s denial of its motion to dismiss and motion to stay and compel arbitration. We remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law.\nI. Background\nIn June 1996, Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc. (\u201cWPCE\u201d) contracted with Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority (\u201cRDAA\u201d) to provide facility planning and engineering services for the construction and renovation of a parking garage at the Raleigh-Durham Airport (\u201cthe Project\u201d). Shortly thereafter WPCE contracted with defendant to provide design services for the Project as a subcontractor.\nIn January 1998, Ellis-Don Construction, Inc. (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) was awarded the general construction contract by RDAA for the Project. Both contracts between RDAA and WPCE and RDAA and plaintiff include identical arbitration clauses. The contract between WPCE and defendant incorporates the same dispute resolution clause.\nWhile performing its obligations under the contract, plaintiff alleges it incurred unanticipated and significant cost overruns due to circumstances beyond its control. Plaintiff submitted to RDAA a request for equitable adjustment to be reimbursed for the additional costs. Plaintiff and RDAA could not settle the matter and plaintiff demanded arbitration. During the arbitration, RDAA brought a third-party claim against WPCE for indemnification. After several days of proceedings, plaintiff and RDAA settled. As part of the settlement, plaintiff was assigned all of RDAA\u2019s claims against other participating parties, including defendant.\nPlaintiff, for itself and as the assignee of RDAA\u2019s claims, filed a complaint against defendant asserting affirmative claims of negligence, breach of contract, and indemnification. On 12 September 2003, defendant responded and moved to dismiss, to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration. Following oral argument and review of submissions, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motions on 19 February 2004. Defendant appeals.\nII. Issue\nThe issue on appeal is whether the arbitration clause included in the contracts between plaintiff and RDAA and defendant and WPCE is binding between plaintiff and defendant.\nIII. Issues Preserved for Anneal\nPlaintiff asserts that several issues defendant argues before this Court were not raised at the trial stage. We agree.\n\u201c \u2018This Court has long held that issues and theories of a case not raised below will not be considered on appeal, and th[ese] issue[s are] not properly before this Court.\u2019 \u201d Morris v. E.A. Morris Charitable Found., 161 N.C. App. 673, 680, 589 S.E.2d 414, 418-19 (2003) (quoting Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 354 N.C. 298, 309, 554 S.E.2d 634, 641 (2001)), disc. rev. denied, 358 N.C. 235, 593 S.E.2d 592 (2004).\nDefendant\u2019s brief includes arguments derived from the Federal Arbitration Act, third-party beneficiary contracts, and plaintiffs alleged waiver of the arbitration clause. The record fails to disclose defendant previously asserted these \u201ctheories\u201d of its case at the trial level. We limit our review to those arguments asserted in the pleadings before the trial court and properly preserved for review. See Weil v. Herring, 207 N.C. 6, 10, 175 S.E. 836, 838 (1934) (\u201cthe law does not permit parties to swap horses between courts in order to get a better mount\u201d on appeal.)\nIV. Motion to Dismiss\nIn accordance with Rule 10(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, defendant included in the record on appeal its assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss. N.C.R. App. P. 10(c) (2004). Defendant\u2019s brief and arguments faiHo argue or set out authorities to support this assignment of error.\nUnder Rule 28(b)(6), \u201c[assignments of error not set out in the appellant\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2004). Defendant\u2019s assignment of error asserting the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss is abandoned. See Smith v. Noble, 155 N.C. App. 649, 650-51, 573 S.E.2d 719, 720 (2002) (\u201cAssignments of error not addressed in the brief are deemed abandoned under Rule 28(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.\u201d).\nV. Review of Denial of Arbitration\nThis Court has repeatedly held that \u201can order denying arbitration, although interlocutory, is immediately appealable because it involves a substantial right which might be lost if appeal is delayed.\u201d Prime South Homes, Inc. v. Byrd, 102 N.C. App. 255, 258, 401 S.E.2d 822, 825 (1991) (citations omitted). Defendant properly set forth the statutory framework under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.18 (2001) permitting review of the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to stay and compel arbitration. See 2003 N.C. Sess. ch. 345, \u00a7 1 (N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1-567.1 through 1-567.20: Repealed effective January 1, 2004, and applicable to agreements to arbitrate made on or after that date).\nIn Slaughter v. Swicegood, 162 N.C. App. 457, 461, 591 S.E.2d 577, 580 (2004), we held\n[t]he question of whether a dispute is subject to arbitration is an issue for judicial determination. This determination involves a two-step analysis requiring the trial court to ascertain both (1) whether the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate, and also (2) whether the specific dispute falls within the substantive scope of that agreement.\n(internal citations and quotations omitted).\nIn considering the first step, \u201c[t]he trial court\u2019s findings regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement are conclusive on appeal where supported by competent evidence, even where the evidence might have supported findings to the contrary.\u201d Sciolino v. TD Waterhouse Investor Servs., Inc., 149 N.C. App. 642, 645, 562 S.E.2d 64, 66 (citation omitted), disc. rev. denied, 356 N.C. 167, 568 S.E.2d 611 (2002). We review de novo whether the specific dispute is governed by the arbitration agreement. Tohato, Inc. v. Pinewild Mgmt., Inc., 128 N.C. App. 386, 496 S.E.2d 800 (1998).\nUnder former N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-567.3(a) (2001), the trial court \u201cshall proceed summarily\u201d to determine whether an agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties. See Routh v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 101 N.C. App. 703, 706, 400 S.E.2d 755, 757 (1991); see also 2003 N.C. Sess. ch. 345, \u00a7 1 (N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1-567.1 through 1-567.20: Repealed effective January 1, 2004, and applicable to agreements to arbitrate made on or after that date). The trial court must make this determination or risk committing reversible error. Burke v. Wilkins, 131 N.C. App. 687, 689, 507 S.E.2d 913, 914 (1998) (citations omitted).\nA. Analysis\nHere, the trial court\u2019s order denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss and motion to stay and compel arbitration stated in toto:\nThis Matter came before the Court on Defendant\u2019s Motion to Dismiss and on Defendant\u2019s Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration. After reviewing all matters submitted and hearing arguments of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that both motions should be denied. It is therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that Defendant\u2019s Motion to Dismiss is denied and that Defendant\u2019s Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration is Denied.\nThe order appealed from does not state the grounds for the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to stay and compel arbitration. No findings of fact allow us to review and determine whether competent evidence supports the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to stay and compel arbitration. Slaughter, 162 N.C. App. at 461, 591 S.E.2d at 580.\nIn Barnhouse v. Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc., 151 N.C. App. 507, 509, 566 S.E.2d 130, 132 (2002), this Court reviewed the same issue and held\nthere is no indication that the trial court made any determination regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties before denying defendants\u2019 motion to stay proceedings. The order denying defendants\u2019 motion to stay proceedings does not state upon what basis the court made its decision, and as such, this Court cannot properly review whether or not the court correctly denied defendants\u2019 motion.\nHere, the trial court\u2019s order does not indicate whether it determined if the parties were bound by an arbitration agreement. While denial of defendant\u2019s motion might have resulted from: (1) a lack of privity between the parties; (2) a lack of a binding arbitration agreement; (3) this specific dispute does not fall within the scope of any arbitration agreement; or, (4) any other reason, we are unable to determine the basis for the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nWithout findings of fact, the appellate court cannot conduct a meaningful review of the conclusions of law and \u201ctest the correctness of [the lower court\u2019s] judgment.\u201d Appalachian Poster Adver. Co., Inc. v. Harrington, 89 N.C. App. 476, 480, 366 S.E.2d 705, 707 (1988). The order appealed from contained neither factual findings that allow us to review the trial court\u2019s ruling, nor a determination whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.\nVI. Conclusion\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error concerning whether the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss is abandoned. The trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to stay and compel arbitration is reversed and the matter is remanded for further factual findings and conclusions of law in accordance with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges McGEE and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "NigleB. Barrow, Jr.; and Hendrick Phillips Salzman & Flatt, by Martin R. Salzman and William D. Flatt, pro hac vice, for plaintiffs-appellees.", "Maupin Taylor, P.A., by John I. Mabe, Jr., for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ELLIS-DON CONSTRUCTION, INC., ELLIS-DON CONSTRUCTION, INC., as the assignee of RALEIGH-DURHAM AIRPORT AUTHORITY, Plaintiffs v. HNTB CORPORATION, Defendant\nNo. COA04-829\n(Filed 5 April 2005)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 questions not raised at trial\nIssues and theories not raised at trial were not reviewed on appeal.\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 assignments of error \u2014 arguments required\nAssignments of error not supported by argument or authorities were abandoned.\n3. Arbitration and Mediation\u2014 denial of motion to compel\u2014 findings required\nThe denial of a motion to stay and compel arbitration in a construction dispute was reversed and remanded for further findings where the court\u2019s order contained neither factual findings that would allow review, nor a determination of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 19 February 2004 by Judge W. Osmond Smith, III, in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 March 2005.\nNigleB. Barrow, Jr.; and Hendrick Phillips Salzman & Flatt, by Martin R. Salzman and William D. Flatt, pro hac vice, for plaintiffs-appellees.\nMaupin Taylor, P.A., by John I. Mabe, Jr., for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0630-01", "first_page_order": 660, "last_page_order": 665 }