This opinion is difficult to unpack. The court of appeals begins with stating a motion to compel arbitration should be treated as a motion for summary judgment. A motion to preclude arbitration should be treated similarly. OK, makes sense. Here’s the situation. A contractor contracted with a property owner to remodel a building and parking lot. After the work was done, property owner refused to pay the final invoice. The contract included an arbitration clause, and the contractor filed both a lien and a separate claim with AAA. Meanwhile, the property owner obtained a statutory discharge of the lien bond from RLI Insurance Company. Contractor then adds RLI to the arbitration. RLI then filed a separate superior court action against the contractor arguing that the contractor’s lien was invalid because it was not perfected and timely foreclosed. Contractor moved to dismiss the superior court action stating that in binding itself to pay any outstanding monies owed under the lien, RLI was also bound by the arbitration clause. Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court ruled for the contractor and dismissed the superior court action. The court of appeals reverses and holds RLI is not bound by the arbitration provision. While a surety bond frees up the property of the lien, and when a contractor forecloses the lien, the lawsuit is against both the property owner and the surety, these rights are distinct from the contract rights. RLI may proceed with contesting the lien for failure to perfect and timely foreclose.

link to opinion