Capitol Construction Services, Inc. v. Farah, LLC
946 N.E.2d 624
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Capitol contracted with Farah on June 12, 2003 to renovate and add to a structure in Indianapolis for $744,546, with an arbitration clause in the contract.
- Farah demanded arbitration on September 13, 2007; Capitol refused, claiming arbitration provisions had been stricken.
- Farah filed a civil action in Marion County Superior Court on October 31, 2007 seeking damages for contract breaches and related claims.
- Farah sought abeyance with the AAA, noting a dispute over whether arbitration provisions remained in the contract.
- The trial court consolidated Farah’s action with Architura-related case for discovery and pre-trial purposes; later disputes concerned which contract version controlled.
- In 2010, after extensive discovery and declaratory-judgment proceedings, the court determined Farah’s contract controlled and Capitol’s Motion to Dismiss was denied; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly denied Capitol's Motion to Dismiss | Capitol argues Farah waived arbitration by prolonged litigation. | Farah argues no waiver; contract dispute required discovery before arbitration. | Denied; Farah did not waive arbitration; contract controls and arbitration compelled. |
Key Cases Cited
- HemoCleanse, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 831 N.E.2d 259 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (de novo review of arbitration-compulsion denial; arbitration favored)
- MPACT Const. Grp., LLC v. Superior Concrete Constructors, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 901 (Ind.2004) (arbitration policy and waiver considerations)
- Safety Nat. Cas. Co. v. Cinergy Corp., 829 N.E.2d 986 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (waiver factors and inconsistency with right to arbitrate)
- Koors v. Steffen, 916 N.E.2d 212 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (waiver determined by conduct; facts control)
- Kilkenny v. Mitchell Hurst Jacobs & Dick, 733 N.E.2d 984 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (arbitration-right waiver; prior arbitration efforts considered)
- Williams v. Orentlicher, 939 N.E.2d 663 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (cannot rely on contract when advantageous and repudiate when disadvantageous)
- Tepper Realty Co. v. Mosaic Tile Co., 259 F. Supp. 688 (S.D.N.Y.1966) (equitable considerations in contract-based arbitration)