Opinion ID: 2149843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wherefore Arbitration?

Text: Indiana was surely among the first jurisdictions to sanction arbitration as a means of dispute resolution. Even before Indiana became a State in 1816, the territorial legislature adopted An Act authorising and regulating arbitrations. Laws of the Indiana Territory, ch. XXXII (1807). For nearly two centuries, Hoosiers have had recourse to the umpirage or arbitration of any person or persons, to be by them, mutually chosen for the purpose of resolving legal controversies. Id. [2] Nineteenth century judges viewed prospective agreements to arbitrate with some skepticism. See, e.g., Kistler v. Indianapolis & St.L.R.R. (1882), 88 Ind. 460, 464. Arbitration after the dispute arose, however, has always been part of Indiana's statutory and common law. As Judge Isaac Blackford observed in 1835, we find that any persons, though no suit was pending between them, might agree to submit their matters of difference to arbitrators; and that their agreement for this purpose might be in writing... . Titus v. Scantling (1835), 4 Blackf. 89, 91. Indiana's current arbitration regime commenced in 1969, when the legislature adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act, Ind. Code Ann. ch. 34-4-2 (West 1983 & Supp. 1994). In more recent years, this Court has adopted a comprehensive set of rules for alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including a rule on arbitration. Ind. Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 3. As court dockets become more crowded, parties entering into contractual relationships are looking favorably on various methods of ADR as a way to avoid the time and expense of litigation. A recent survey of Fortune 1000 corporations indicated that those using ADR had increased their use of those procedures by 200% in one five-year period. [3] More and more corporations have agreed in advance to settle their differences not in front of a judge, but before one or more arbitrators. [4] At least for the resolution of private commercial disputes such as the case at bar, ADR is also preferable from a public policy perspective, [5] freeing scarce judicial resources to devote to questions of wider public import. See generally Leon Sarpy, Arbitration as a Means of Reducing Court Congestion, 41 Notre Dame Lawyer 182 (1965).