It was entered into on June 17, 1996. The contract was entered into on June 13, 1996. The contract includes an arbitration clause within the main body of the agreement itself. After Metro began its work under the three subcontracts, a dispute arose between the parties. A hearing was held on September 10, 1999.
Appellants raise one point on appeal.
Appellants argue the trial court erred in denying their motion to stay litigation pending arbitration. Appellants argue the three subcontract agreements between the parties included enforceable arbitration agreements by incorporating the general conditions to the respective prime contracts, including a written arbitration provision. Our standard of review is essentially de novo. Courts favor and encourage arbitration proceedings. A court must stay litigation if it determines that the parties agreed to arbitrate.