§ 5.5.14 Conclusion
Arbitration as an alternative to construction litigation can often be a desirable method of dispute resolution for parties that seek a relatively quick and inexpensive solution to their potential future disputes. However, foundational to this is a thorough arbitration agreement that is tailored to the particular circumstances of the project and drafted with the input of the participants in the construction process. Adherence to applicable laws and rules, and clearly defined powers of an arbitrator, are necessary for creating an arbitration process that works as the parties intend. As arbitration laws and rules continually change, and courts reviewing arbitration awards are examining their own role in the process, legal practitioners are reminded to keep an eye on current trends to ensure the most effective representation of their clients.
A.S.W. Allstate Painting & Constr. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 94 F. Supp. 2d 782 (W.D. Tex. 2000) 5.5-18
Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 115 S. Ct. 834 (1995)............. 5.5-1, 28, 33
Am. Centennial Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Cas. Co., 951 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 1991)................................. 5.5-27
Amoco Pipeline Co. v. Dave Kolb Grading, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 314 (ED. Mo. 1993)........ 5.5-15
Anderson v. Golf Mill Ford, Inc., 890 N.E.2d 1023 (Ill. Ct. App. 2008)................................... 5.5-4
Armendariz v. Found. Health Serv., 6 P.3d 669, 24 Cal. 4th 83, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745 (2000) 5.5-29, 30, 40
Armendariz v. Found. Health PsychCare Servs., Inc., 6 P.3d 669, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745 (Cal. 2000) 5.5-10
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011)...................................... 5.5-31
AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Comms. Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 106 S. Ct. 1415 (1986)....... 5.5-18
Baesler v. Cont’l Grain Co., 900 F.2d 1193 (8th Cir. 1990).......................................................... 5.5-27
Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v. Docutel, 371 F. Supp. 240 (E.D.N.Y. 1973)............................ 5.5-23
Bollinger Shipyards Lockport LLC v. Northrop Grumman Ship Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 86704 (E.D. La. 2009)...................................................................................................................................................................... 5.5-14
Broemer v. Abortion Servs. of Phoenix, Ltd., 173 Ariz. 148, 840 P.2d 1013 (1992)............ 5.5-41
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S. Ct. 1204 (2006)................. 5.5-14
Canon Sch. Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., Inc., 180 Ariz. 148, 882 P.2d 1274 (1994) 5.5-32, 33
Chang v. Siu, 234 Ariz. 442, 323 P.3d 725 (Ct. App. 2014)............................................. 5.5-35, 36, 41
City of Cottonwood v. James L. Fann Contracting, Inc., 179 Ariz. 185, 877 P.2d 284 (Ct. App. 1994) 5.5-5
Clark v. Renaissance West, LLC, 232 Ariz. 510, 307 P.3rd 77 (Ct. App. 2013)...................... 5.5-41
Clarke v. ASARCO Inc., 123 Ariz. 587, 601 P.2d 587 (1979)................................................ 5.5-11, 15
Commonwealth Coating Corp. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 145, 89 S. Ct. 337 (1968)...... 5.5-19
Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc., v. Bill Harbert Constr. Co., 529 U.S. 193, 120 S. Ct. 1331 (2000) 5.5-34
David Co. v. Jim W. Miller Constr., Inc., 444 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1989)................................ 5.5-32
Doctor’s Assocs. Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 116 S. Ct. 1652, 134 L. Ed. 2d 902 (1996) 5.5-28
Donnelly Constr. Co. v. Obeig/Hunt/Gilleland, 139 Ariz. 184, 677 P.2d 1292 (1984)...... 5.5-27
Dusold v. Porta John Corp., 167 Ariz. 358, 807 P.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1990)............................... 5.5-5
Fazio v. Lehman Bros., Inc., 340 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2003)........................................................... 5.5-18
Ferro Union Corp. v. SS Ionic Coast, 43 F.R.D. 11 (S.D. Tex. 1967)...................................... 5.5-23
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 115 S. Ct. 1920 (1995)............ 5.5-13, 14
Flower World of Am., Inc. v. Wendel, 122 Ariz. 319, 594...
