If no agreement to arbitrate exists, either in fact or because the controversy sought to be arbitrated is not within the scope of the arbitration clause of the contract, the court may interfere and protect a party from being compelled to arbitrate. The record here clearly establishes that Haymaker and the school district had an arbitration agreement in their general construction contract. We are not persuaded by the school district's arguments that the denial of arbitration was proper because Fresh has no right to arbitrate. The fact that Fresh has no right to arbitrate does not per se adversely affect Haymaker's right to arbitrate. All of the claims at issue belong to Haymaker, as the general contractor on the project.
All claims arise from the construction contract with the school district.
The assignment agreement between Haymaker and Fresh was for a fraction of the claims and appears to have been a way for them to streamline their dispute with the school district. Whether this assignment of claims affects the arbitrability of Haymaker's claims is a question for the arbitrator to determine. Beyond the existence of the agreement to arbitrate, the parties contest the arbitrability of the claims by disputing the form and timeliness of the notice of claims. When reviewing questions of arbitrability, the court differentiates between substantive and procedural issues. Haymaker argues that actual notice of the completed work should have been sufficient to serve as a notice of claim.