Sec. 3. (a) On application of a party showing an
agreement described in section 1 of this chapter, and the opposing
party's refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed
with arbitration. Ten (10) days notice in writing of the hearing of such
application shall be served personally upon the party in default. If the
opposing party denies the existence of the agreement to arbitrate, the
court shall proceed summarily to the determination of the issue raised
without further pleading and shall order arbitration if found for the
moving party; otherwise, the application shall be denied.
(b) On application, the court may stay an arbitration proceeding
commenced or threatened on a showing that there is no agreement to
arbitrate. Ten (10) days notice in writing of the hearing of the
application shall be served personally upon the party in default. Such
an issue, when in substantial and bona fide dispute, shall be forthwith
summarily determined without further pleadings and the stay ordered
if found for the moving party. If found for the opposing party, the court
shall order the parties to proceed to arbitration.
(c) If an issue referable to arbitration under the alleged agreement
is involved in an action or proceeding pending in a court having
jurisdiction to hear applications under subsection (a), the application
shall be made in that action or proceeding. Otherwise and subject to
section 17 of this chapter, the application may be made in any court
with jurisdiction.
(d) Any action or proceeding involving an issue subject to
arbitration shall be stayed if an order for arbitration or an application
for an order for arbitration has been made under this section (or IC 34-4-2-3 before its repeal), or, if the issue is severable, the stay may be
with respect to the issue only. When the application is made in such an
action or proceeding, the order for arbitration must include such a stay.
(e) An order for arbitration shall not be refused on the ground that
the claim in issue lacks merit or bona fides or because any fault or
grounds for the claim sought to be arbitrated have not been shown.
(f) If the court determines that there are other issues between the
parties that are not subject to arbitration and that are the subject of a
pending action or special proceeding between the parties and that a
determination of such issues is likely to make the arbitration
unnecessary, the court may delay its order to arbitrate until the
determination of such other issues or until such earlier time as the court
specifies.
(g) On application the court may stay an arbitration proceeding on
a showing that the method of appointment of arbitrators is likely to or
has resulted in the appointment of a majority of arbitrators who are
partial or biased in some relevant respect. The court shall then appoint
one (1) or more arbitrators as provided in section 4 of this chapter.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-2-3.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.53.
Notes of Decisions
Brumley v. Commonwealth Bus. Coll. Educ. Corp., 945 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “Where a party seeks to compel arbitration pursuant to a written arbitration agreement, then "upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed…”
Pekin Ins. Co. v. Jose & Carol Hanquier & Joseph Hall, 984 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 14× “Pekin raises the following restated issue on appeal: whether the trial court erred in failing to enforce the arbitration provision of the Pekin insurance policy as mandated by Indiana Code section 34-57-2-3. We reverse and remand with instructions.”
Capitol Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Farah, LLC, 946 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Capitol points to Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3 and argues that “Farah never filed a petition with the trial court seeking the court to order the parties to arbitration.”
Destination Yachts, Inc. v. Shirley Pierce, 113 N.E.3d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3 (emphases added). [16] Accordingly, once the court is satisfied that the parties contracted to submit their dispute to arbitration, the court is required by statute to compel arbitration.”
Saf. Nat'l Cas. Co. v. Cinergy Corp., 829 N.E.2d 986 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “(citing Ind.Code § 34-57-2-3(a)). When determining whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a dispute, we apply ordinary contract principles governed by state law.”
Tender Loving Care Mgmt., Inc. v. Randall Sherls, 14 N.E.3d 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “If a party seeks arbitration, and the other party refuses to arbitrate, the party seeking arbitration may move a trial court to compel arbitration, and, where arbitration is ordered, the underlying action at the trial court must be stayed.”
Homes by Pate, Inc. v. DeHaan, 713 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Code § 34-4-2-3 was repealed and recodified without amendment at Ind.Code § 34-57-2-3. P.L. 1-1998, §§ 53, 221.”
Am. Gen. Fin. Mgmt. Corp. v. Watson, 822 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “In reaching its conclusion to deny the request for arbitration, the trial court concluded that the facts before us fell within the reach of Indiana Code § 34-57-2-3 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Norwood Promotional Prods., Inc. v. Roller, 867 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “(citing Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3 (a)). When determining whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a dispute, we apply ordinary contract principles governed by Indiana law.”
Harlow v. Parkevich, 868 N.E.2d 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “; see Ind.Code 34-57-2-3(a) (“On application of a party showing an agreement [to arbitrate] and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration.”
Novotny v. Renewal by Andersen Corp., 861 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “We note that Novotny relies on the Act, specifically, Indiana Code section 34-57-2-3(a) in support of her contention that the trial court should have determined whether the arbitration agreements were invalid for fraud before compelling arbitration.”
Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3(a): 11 cases
Saf. Nat'l Cas. Co. v. Cinergy Corp., 829 N.E.2d 986 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“(citing Ind.Code § 34-57-2-3(a)). When determining whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a dispute, we apply ordinary contract principles governed by state law.”
Tender Loving Care Mgmt., Inc. v. Randall Sherls, 14 N.E.3d 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
“If a party seeks arbitration, and the other party refuses to arbitrate, the party seeking arbitration may move a trial court to compel arbitration, and, where arbitration is ordered, the underlying action at the trial court must be stayed.”
Capitol Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Farah, LLC, 946 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“Capitol points to Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3 and argues that “Farah never filed a petition with the trial court seeking the court to order the parties to arbitration.”
Pekin Ins. Co. v. Jose & Carol Hanquier & Joseph Hall, 984 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“Pekin raises the following restated issue on appeal: whether the trial court erred in failing to enforce the arbitration provision of the Pekin insurance policy as mandated by Indiana Code section 34-57-2-3. We reverse and remand with instructions.”
Novotny v. Renewal by Andersen Corp., 861 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
“We note that Novotny relies on the Act, specifically, Indiana Code section 34-57-2-3(a) in support of her contention that the trial court should have determined whether the arbitration agreements were invalid for fraud before compelling arbitration.”
Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3(c): 1 case
Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3(d): 3 cases
Harlow v. Parkevich, 868 N.E.2d 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
“; see Ind.Code 34-57-2-3(a) (“On application of a party showing an agreement [to arbitrate] and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration.”
Destination Yachts, Inc. v. Shirley Pierce, 113 N.E.3d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
“Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3 (emphases added). [16] Accordingly, once the court is satisfied that the parties contracted to submit their dispute to arbitration, the court is required by statute to compel arbitration.”
Pekin Ins. Co. v. Jose & Carol Hanquier & Joseph Hall, 984 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“Pekin raises the following restated issue on appeal: whether the trial court erred in failing to enforce the arbitration provision of the Pekin insurance policy as mandated by Indiana Code section 34-57-2-3. We reverse and remand with instructions.”
Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3(f): 1 case
Am. Gen. Fin. Mgmt. Corp. v. Watson, 822 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“In reaching its conclusion to deny the request for arbitration, the trial court concluded that the facts before us fell within the reach of Indiana Code § 34-57-2-3 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3(g): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.