§ 172.058.Challenge After Appointment

A rule against having it both ways.

The limit falls on the appointing party. A party who appointed an arbitrator, or participated in the appointment, is restricted in challenging that person.

Only later-discovered reasons count. The challenge must rest on a reason the party becomes aware of after the appointment is made.

Knowledge at the time is treated as acceptance. A party who chose an arbitrator knowing of a relationship cannot object to it when the case turns.

The rule fits the two-plus-one appointment model. Each side picks a member, and the picking party cannot later attack its own choice on grounds it knew about.

Participation is enough. A party that joined in appointing a presiding arbitrator is limited as to that arbitrator too.

The disclosure duty is what makes this fair. Section 172.056 requires the arbitrator to reveal the relevant circumstances before appointment, so a party who did not learn of something usually was not told.

The continuing duty covers what arises later. Section 172.056(c) requires prompt disclosure of new circumstances throughout the proceeding, which is where later-discovered grounds come from.

Section 172.006 states the same instinct generally, waiving objections a party sits on while the arbitration proceeds.