What Types of Construction Disputes Can Be Resolved Through Arbitration?

Sep 24 2026      On Behalf of  David M. Duree & Associates, P.C.      Construction

Construction projects are complicated by nature. You have owners, general contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, engineers, and architects all working under a web of contracts, and when something goes wrong, the question of who owes what to whom can get messy fast. We’ve seen disputes drag on for years in court, eating up resources that everyone involved would rather spend elsewhere. Arbitration offers a different path, and in Missouri and Illinois, it’s become a well-established way to resolve construction conflicts without the full weight of courtroom litigation landing on both sides.

That said, not every dispute is the same, and not every situation lands cleanly in arbitration. Understanding construction law in Missouri and Illinois matters here, because both states have their own frameworks governing when and how arbitration agreements are enforceable. Missouri law, for instance, requires contracts subject to the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Act to include a specific written notice; the requirement may be preempted where the Federal Arbitration Act governs. Illinois has specific requirements for home repair and remodeling contracts, where consumers must be given the option to accept or reject a binding arbitration clause and indicate that choice in writing. These aren’t just technicalities. A poorly drafted arbitration clause can unravel an otherwise solid agreement at the worst possible time.

What Kinds of Payment Disputes Can Arbitration Actually Resolve?

Payment disputes are probably the most common reason construction relationships fall apart. A contractor claims they completed the work. The owner says it wasn’t done right, or wasn’t done at all. A subcontractor hasn’t been paid in 60 days and is threatening to walk off the job. These situations happen on projects of every size, from a residential remodel in St. Louis County to a large commercial build near the Gateway Arch or a public works project across the river in the Metro East area of Illinois.

Arbitration can address a wide range of payment-related claims. Unpaid contract balances, disputes over retainage, disagreements about whether a change order was properly approved and priced, and conflicts over payment timing all fall within the kinds of issues an arbitrator can evaluate and decide. The arbitrator reviews the contract terms, the documentation on both sides, and the applicable legal framework, then issues a decision. In binding arbitration, that decision carries real weight.

One thing worth understanding: payment disputes often involve more than just the money itself. They frequently connect to questions about whether the work was completed properly, whether delays caused cost overruns, or whether change orders were handled correctly. In our experience, those threads tend to run together. Pulling on one usually means pulling on all of them.

Can Arbitration Handle Construction Defect Claims?

Yes, and this is actually one area where arbitration can shine. Construction defect claims tend to be technically dense. Whether it’s a foundation issue on a home in Jefferson County, a roofing failure on a commercial property in Springfield, Illinois, or a structural problem discovered post-completion on a multi-family development, these disputes require someone who understands what went wrong and why. A generalist judge or jury may not have that background.

Arbitration allows parties to select an arbitrator with relevant construction knowledge or technical background. That can matter enormously when the dispute turns on questions about building codes, material specifications, or industry-standard practices. Both sides present their evidence, bring in witnesses, and submit documentation. The arbitrator then reaches a conclusion based on the facts and the contract terms. The process is less formal than a courtroom trial, but it’s still structured and serious.

To clarify something that comes up often: defect claims in arbitration are not limited to obvious physical failures. Disputes over workmanship quality, incomplete work, or work that doesn’t meet the specifications outlined in the contract can all be brought into arbitration, provided the contract’s arbitration clause covers them. The scope of that clause matters a great deal, which is why contract drafting deserves real attention before a project ever breaks ground.

What About Delays, Change Orders, and Scope Disputes?

About those delay claims… they’re more complicated than most people expect, and they come up constantly. A project falls behind schedule. The owner blames the contractor. The contractor blames the owner’s late design decisions, site access problems, or a subcontractor’s failure to perform. Everyone points at someone else, and meanwhile the project costs keep climbing.

Arbitration can work through delay disputes, though the evidentiary picture tends to be detailed. Documentation becomes critical: schedules, daily logs, correspondence, change-order records, and anything else that establishes who knew what and when. Change order disputes are similarly document-heavy. A contractor may claim additional compensation for scope changes the owner requested. The owner may dispute whether the changes were properly authorized or whether the pricing is reasonable. An arbitrator with construction background can evaluate those competing positions and reach a binding resolution.

Scope disputes, where the parties disagree about what work was actually included in the original contract, also lend themselves to arbitration. These often arise when contract language is ambiguous or when verbal understandings didn’t make it into the written agreement. Illinois courts, for example, tend to interpret ambiguous contract language against the party who drafted it, which adds another layer to how these disputes play out depending on which side of the Mississippi the project sits on.

When Does Arbitration Make Sense for Your Situation?

Frankly, arbitration isn’t automatically the right answer for every construction dispute. There are situations where litigation is more appropriate, particularly when the legal questions involved require court jurisdiction or when one party has reason to believe the arbitration clause itself may be unenforceable. Challenging the validity of an arbitration agreement is a separate legal question from the underlying dispute, and courts in both Missouri and Illinois have addressed this distinction in various contexts.

What we do know is that arbitration tends to offer a faster, more private, and often more cost-effective path for resolving disputes between parties who are bound by a valid arbitration agreement. The confidentiality factor matters too. Court proceedings and filings are generally public, which can expose sensitive financial information, project details, or business relationships that neither side wants aired publicly. Arbitration proceedings are generally private, but they are not automatically confidential unless an agreement, applicable rules, or law requires confidentiality.

If you’re involved in a construction dispute in Missouri or Illinois, whether it involves payment, defects, delays, or contract interpretation, understanding your options early makes a real difference. We encourage clients to reach out before a situation escalates, because the earlier we can assess the contract language and the facts on the ground, the better positioned you’ll be to pursue the most effective path forward. At David M. Duree and Associates, P.C., we work with contractors, subcontractors, owners, and developers across the region, and we’re ready to help you evaluate what the right next step looks like for your specific situation.