Holt & Holt, Inc. “Holt” appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Cobb County which granted partial summary judgment to Choate Construction Company and Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland1 collectively “Choate” as to $67,345 of the damages Holt claimed for subcontractor work performed. Holt also appeals the court’s order staying arbitration proceedings pursuant to the terms of a contract between the parties. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact remaining for jury resolution and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp. , 226 Ga. App. 459 1 486 SE2d 684 1997. Similarly, we review a grant of a motion to stay arbitration de novo to determine whether the trial court was correct as a matter of law. See Tigner v. Shearson-Lehman Hutton, Inc. , 201 Ga. App. 713, 715 411 SE2d 800 1991. Further, the construction of a contract is also a question of law subject to de novo review. Deep Six, Inc. v. Abernathy , 246 Ga. App. 71, 73 2 538 SE2d 886 2000. Where contract language is unambiguous, construction is unnecessary and the court simply enforces the contract according to its clear terms. Caswell v. Anderson , 241 Ga. App. 703 527 SE2d 582 2000. So viewed, the record reveals the following relevant evidence.
On January 30, 2002, Holt entered into an agreement to perform drywall subcontractor work for general contractor Choate on a new high-rise building. The contract required Holt to perform and complete all work in accordance with the January 18, 2002 construction schedule incorporated into the agreement. The contract provided that all work “shall be subject to the final acceptance of the Contractor, Architect/Engineer and Owner.” In the event that Holt failed to meet its obligations, the contract entitled Choate to issue written decisions terminating Holt’s employment or supplementing its work with labor and materials, the cost of which would be deducted from payment due Holt. Finally, the contract required that “any claim, dispute, or controversy” between Choate and Holt “shall be conclusively resolved and settled” pursuant to the provisions of its claims and disputes article, which provided in relevant part: Holt shall conclusively be bound by and abide by Choate’s decision, unless Holt shall timely commence arbitration proceedings in strict accordance with the following provisions: i. If Holt decides to appeal the decision of Choate, then the controversy shall be decided by arbitration . . . , and the arbitration decision shall be final and binding on both parties; provided, however, that arbitration proceedings shall be commenced by Holt not later than 30 days following Holt’s receipt of notice of Choate’s decision; otherwise, Choate’s decision becomes final and binding. On March 20 and April 12, 2002, Choate informed Holt that it was in default under the contract and that unless Holt immediately remedied its defective performance, Choate would hire additional or replacement contractors at Holt’s expense. Although Holt argues it remedied any defective performance and obtained extensions of time to perform the work, it is undisputed that on May 29, 2002, Choate sent Holt a certified letter informing it of its decision to supplement Holt’s work forces. This letter stated that it was the “contractor’s decision to do so due to Holt’s inability to maintain the project schedule as well as follow through on the many commitments made by Holt.” The letter also advised Holt that “in accordance with your subcontract on this project, Choate intends to hold Holt fully responsible for all costs incurred by Choate due to the delays by your firm.” Thereafter, Choate employed additional workers and also sent Holt three change orders setting forth the specific amounts Choate would be charging against Holt for the supplemental work. These June 12, July 2, and August 8, 2002 orders totaled $67,345.
