(a) If the parties to an agreement to arbitrate agree on a method for appointing an arbitrator, that method must be followed unless the method fails. If the parties have not agreed on a method, the agreed method fails or an arbitrator appointed fails or is unable to act and a successor has not been appointed, the court, on motion of a party to the arbitration proceeding, shall appoint the arbitrator. An arbitrator so appointed has all the powers of an arbitrator designated in the agreement to arbitrate or appointed pursuant to the agreed method.

(b) An individual who has a known, direct and material interest in the outcome of the arbitration proceeding or a known, existing and substantial relationship with a party may not serve as an arbitrator required by an agreement to be neutral.

History: Laws 2001, ch. 227, § 12.

Compiler's note. — Laws 2002, ch. 227, § 33 repealed the former Uniform Arbitration Act, Sections 44-7-1 to 44-7-22 NMSA 1978, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 168, §23. The Uniform Arbitration Act compiled as 44-7A-1 to 44-7A-32 NMSA 1978 was enacted effective July 1, 2001.

Terms of arbitration agreement govern disqualification of arbitrator. — Where defendants and contractor, who was hired to do concrete and framing work on defendants' property, entered into a binding arbitration agreement following a dispute regarding money due on construction work at defendants' property, and where contractor subsequently requested that the arbitrator be disqualified for refusing to perform his duties and for non-neutrality, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the parties' arbitration was subject to all the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), including the rule regarding disqualification of an arbitrator and that the AAA has the authority to disqualify a designated arbitrator if the AAA determines that such a disqualification is warranted under its rules and procedures, because the natural construction of the parties' arbitration agreement was that the parties intended to arbitrate disputes between them under all the AAA rules, and there was no language of limitation in the arbitration agreement demonstrating an intent to limit the scope of the AAA's rules. L.D. Miller Construction, Inc. v. Kirschenbaum, 2017-NMCA-030.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 4 Am. Jur. 2d Alternative Dispute Resolution § 148 et seq.

Liability of organization sponsoring or administering arbitration to parties involved in proceeding, 41 A.L.R.4th 1013.

6 C.J.S. Arbitration § 60 et seq.