Rejecting the Intertwining Doctrine: Favoring ADR while Hindering Judicial Efficiency and Economy

Authors

Michael Bekesha

Abstract

Often the scope of arbitration clauses does not include all potential claims. When the provision fails to provide for all disputes, courts may proceed in one of two ways to resolve both arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims: enforce the arbitration clause with respect to arbitrable claims, or ignore the private contract and litigate all issues at once. The Colorado Supreme Court, in Ingold v. AIMCO, chose the former - rejecting the intertwining doctrine. In doing so, Colorado aligned itself with the position that the United States Supreme Court embraced over twenty years ago. This casenote will discuss whether the Colorado Supreme Court acted prudently and wisely in rejecting the intertwining doctrine.

Recommended Citation

Michael Bekesha, Rejecting the Intertwining Doctrine: Favoring ADR while Hindering Judicial Efficiency and Economy, 2008 J. Disp. Resol. (2008)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2008/iss1/13