Affirming a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration of a construction dispute, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that the parties' arbitration agreement only covered disputes about construction plans, rather than the present dispute about alleged poor quality construction.

In 2200 M Street LLC v. Mackell, No. 04-CV-550, 2007 WL 4563643 (D.C. Dec. 31, 2007), various individuals bought condominiums from condominium seller 2200 M Street LLC in 2000 and 2001. Later, the building's water and sewer systems broke, causing flooding and toxic mold growth throughout the building.

The condominium owners sued the sellers for fraud, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of statutory warranties, breach of contract, strict liability, and violations of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Act. The builders moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement in the purchase agreement. The condominium owners opposed the motion arguing the arbitration agreement did not cover the present dispute. The trial court denied the motion and the sellers appealed.

Although the Court upheld the arbitration agreement, it held that the present dispute was outside the arbitration agreement's scope, as the parties' arbitration agreement encompassed only disputes about construction blueprints. Although federal law attaches a presumption favoring arbitration when parties agree to arbitrate certain disputes, the presumption only attaches itself to those disputes the parties agreed to arbitrate.

Here, the arbitration agreement expressly states that it covers all disputes "involving delivery of the Unit in accordance with the Plans." Additionally, the arbitration clause was located in a section dealing with "plats and plans." D.C. Code § 42-1901.02 (2001) defines "plats and plans" as official documents that "survey…the locations" of the real property on which the condominium structure is located. Finally, the arbitration clause required the project architect to serve as arbitrator, which supported the premise that the parties only intended to arbitrate those disputes within the professional experience of an architect – namely disputes about whether the construction conformed to the blueprints.