Divisions Maintenance Group lawsuits are limited in the public record but instructive: the Cincinnati-based facility-maintenance company is the plaintiff in a pending federal breach-of-contract case against its former claims administrator, Broadspire Services, and its standard subcontractor agreement contains payment and lien terms that commonly generate disputes with the independent providers who perform its on-site work. Its Better Business Bureau file also notes unanswered complaints.
The Broadspire Lawsuit
On February 23, 2024, Divisions, Inc., doing business as Divisions Maintenance Group, sued Broadspire Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. DMG had hired Broadspire in June 2020 to administer its commercial general liability claims. DMG alleges that in July 2023 it discovered Broadspire had mismanaged those claims, causing losses of more than $900,000.1GovInfo. Divisions, Inc. v. Broadspire Services, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00025-DCR
The complaint brought four counts: breach of contract, indemnification, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Broadspire moved to dismiss the negligence and unjust enrichment counts. On May 24, 2024, the court granted that motion and dismissed both with prejudice. The negligence claim was barred by Kentucky’s economic loss rule because the alleged duty was not independent of the parties’ service agreement, and the unjust enrichment claim could not proceed where a valid contract already governed the relationship.1GovInfo. Divisions, Inc. v. Broadspire Services, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00025-DCR
The breach-of-contract and indemnification counts survived, with the court ruling that Delaware substantive law governs them. Those claims remain active on the most recent available docket.
Subcontractor Agreement Terms That Drive Disputes
DMG sits between property owners and a network of independent service providers who perform the actual maintenance work. Its provider agreement — the most recent public version took effect in February 2026 — puts most of the financial risk on those providers, which is where day-to-day friction tends to appear.2Divisions Maintenance Group. DMG Provider Terms and Conditions
- Pay-when-paid. DMG’s receipt of payment from the property owner is an express condition precedent to paying the provider, and the provider “expressly assumes the risk of the Owner’s nonpayment.”
- Payment timing. Undisputed amounts are due within 55 days of DMG’s own receipt of payment, unless law requires otherwise.
- Invoicing forfeiture. Routine work must be invoiced by the 15th of the month; non-routine or service-call work within 16 calendar days of substantial completion. Missing the deadline or the formatting requirements forfeits payment.
- Lien waiver. Providers waive existing and future lien rights to the fullest extent allowed, and must cover DMG’s and the owner’s costs if a lien is filed by the provider or its own subcontractors.
- Replacement-cost indemnity. If a provider performs inadequately or late, it must indemnify DMG for the cost of a replacement, which DMG may offset against current or future invoices.
These provisions are common in facility maintenance and construction, but stacked together they can leave a provider waiting months for payment, or receiving nothing if the end client doesn’t pay DMG, with limited leverage to push back.
BBB Complaints and Rating
DMG’s Better Business Bureau profile shows an A- rating, and the company is not BBB-accredited. The BBB records that DMG failed to respond to three complaints filed within the standard three-year reporting window, and that factored into the rating.3Better Business Bureau. Divisions Maintenance Group BBB Business Profile
Regulatory Backdrop for Building-Services Intermediaries
Companies that sit between property owners and on-site workers have also drawn federal attention. In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission ordered a building service contractor to stop enforcing “no-hire” agreements with building owners, finding that penalties on owners who directly hired the contractor’s employees suppressed competition and wages. The FTC described it as the agency’s second major action against such clauses in the building-services industry, taken with the New York and New Jersey attorneys general.4Federal Trade Commission. FTC Orders Building Service Contractors to Stop Enforcing No-Hire Agreement
That action did not involve DMG. It’s included here because it defines the regulatory environment around the intermediary model DMG uses, not because DMG has been named in it.