Court Opinion

ID: 9505346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:03:58.897039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:24.356825
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. This is a typical multiparty construction litigation, where various parties are pointing fingers in various directions and claiming that whatever went wrong with the project is somebody else's-anybody else's-problem. I agree that state law governs the formation of the contract and that nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act requires that these disputes between subcontractors and the general contractor be arbitrated unless the parties agreed to that method of dispute resolution. I believe, however, that these agreements do call for arbitration of the entire multiparty dispute among the owner, the general contractor, and these several subcontractors.
The agreement between the general contractor and the owner is a standard printed form AIA construction agreement. All agree that that contract includes an enforceable arbitration clause, and an undertaking to bind subcontractors to the same terms that obligate the general. The general's agreements with the subs provide that each sub acknowledges the principal agreement and agrees to be bound by it. The principal agreement provides, inter alia, that the general will impose conforming conditions on all subs. These agreements are among businesses fully familiar with this sort of arrangement, and fully cognizant that the last thing either the general or the owner wants is picce-*912meal litigation with different subs. The result the majority reaches produces an arbitration between the owner and the general and litigation with one or more subs in a separate forum. The majority concedes that the general intended to bind the subs to arbitration, but points to imprecision in the language used to accomplish that. It seems to me that the subs did understand, or should have, that arbitration was intended. They should be held to have accepted arbitration when they accepted these agreements. Accordingly, I would require arbitration of this entire dispute in one proceeding.
The majority points to what I agree is less than elegant phrasing of the agreement, and what it describes as "inadequate contract negotiations." I think these agreements, given the context, were sufficient to make clear to the subs that they were expected to arbitrate their disputes with the general or the owner. Particularly in an industry where arbitration is widely used, ambiguity does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no meeting of the minds occurred. Rather, I would conclude that ambiguity should be construed in favor of finding an agreement to arbitrate where that is commonplace in the industry. We have on several occasions expressed support for the policy under Indiana law favoring arbitration. PSI Energy, Inc. v. AMAX, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 96, 99 (Ind.1994); Sch. City v. East Chicago Fed'n of Teachers, Local No. 511, 622 N.E.2d 166, 169 (Ind.1998). These rulings also support finding an agreement to arbitrate where the documents support that conclusion, albeit with less than precision.
SHEPARD, C.J., joins.