Court Opinion

ID: 9744202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:56:49.027356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:47.491893
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that re-arbitration by new arbitrators is not mandated, in light of the fact that the trial court did not explicitly find fraud or corruption.
Nevertheless, I fully agree-with the original conclusion of the court to the effect that from start to finish the “entire arbitration proceeding [conducted by ECBOR and IAR] was one mistake and rule violation after another”, and that the procedures and proceedings “suggested corruption or fraud” and partiality. Record at 138,135.5
Accordingly, I would require the order for re-arbitration to direct that a totally new and impartial set of arbitrators be appointed. The new arbitrators should not be appointed by, or owe allegiance to, either ECBOR or IAR. The new arbitrators should be appointed by the Elkhart Superior Court pursuant to I.C. 34-4-2-4, as specifically contemplated by I.C. 34-4-2-13(c).

. It may well be that the Rules and the Manual are phrased in such a way as to promote the use of inappropriate methods and procedures, or, in the alternative, to promote the abuse of appropriate methods and procedures.