Jane Doe 1, as Legal Guardian of the Person and Estate of Jane Doe 2, an Incapacitated Adult v. Carmel Operator, LLC d/b/a Carmel Senior Living, 144 N.E.3d 743

Resident (incapacitated adult) was admitted to Carmel Senior Living (CSL) after Guardian signed a 83-page residency packet on June 1, 2018 that included a bold, standalone "BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT" and an initials/signature block; the arbitration clause invoked the Federal Arbitration Act and covered "any and all claims," including claims by guardians and against employees/agents.
Guardian later sued CSL, management company Spectrum, and employee Michael Sullivan for negligence and breach of contract after an alleged sexual assault by Sullivan; Certiphi (background-check vendor) was added alleging negligent background screening.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration; the trial court granted motions, finding the arbitration clause valid, not unconscionable, and delegating unconscionability/arbitrability questions to an arbitrator; it also held Certiphi (a nonsignatory) must arbitrate under equitable estoppel.
Guardian appealed, arguing the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable and that Certiphi could not be compelled to arbitrate as a nonsignatory.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, rejected unconscionability and public-policy arguments, and affirmed that equitable estoppel binds Certiphi to arbitration because the negligence claims allege interdependent, concerted misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arbitration clause is unconscionable / unenforceable as to CSL, Spectrum, and Sullivan	Guardian: clause is an adhesion provision, limits judicial review, bars punitive damages, requires confidentiality, and was presented with little time to review	Defendants: clause is clear, conspicuous (bold heading, initials, signature), freely signed, allowed counsel, and consistent with Indiana law and FAA policy favoring arbitration	Court: clause is valid and enforceable; not substantively or procedurally unconscionable; arbitration compelled
Whether nonsignatory Certiphi can be compelled to arbitrate via equitable estoppel	Guardian: Certiphi is not a signatory and thus cannot force arbitration	Certiphi: Guardian's negligence claims are interdependent with CSL’s claims and rest on the contract-related background-check conduct; broad arbitration language includes agents/employees	Court: equitable estoppel applies (concerted/interdependent misconduct); claims against Certiphi must be arbitrated

Brumley v. Commw. Bus. Coll. Educ. Corp., 945 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (standard and burdens for review and compelling arbitration)
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishing challenges to arbitration clause from challenges to contract as a whole)
Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2010) (procedural rule on who decides arbitrability when clause delegates that issue)
MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942 (11th Cir. 1999) (equitable estoppel doctrines permitting nonsignatory to compel arbitration where claims are interdependent)
German Am. Fin. Advisors & Tr. Co. v. Reed, 969 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (adopting MS Dealer framework for equitable estoppel under Indiana law)
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2009) (FAA policy favoring arbitration)
Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (U.S. 1989) (treating arbitration agreements like other contracts)
MPACT Constr. Group, LLC v. Superior Concrete Constructors, Inc., 802 N.E.2d 901 (Ind. 2004) (state-law principles govern formation and enforceability of arbitration agreements)