If two parties agree to arbitration, how is a tie resolved in choosing an arbitrator?

In arbitration, when two parties are unable to agree on a choice of arbitrator, the resolution typically involves the mutual agreement of the two arbitrators already chosen by each party. This process helps ensure that both parties have input into who will serve as the neutral third party in the arbitration process.

Choosing arbitrators is an important step in arbitration because it sets the stage for how disputes will be settled. If each party nominates one arbitrator and there is a deadlock or a tie when it comes to agreeing on a third arbitrator, the two appointed arbitrators are tasked with selecting an additional neutral arbitrator. This method assists in maintaining fairness and neutrality in the proceedings.

The other options are less common in this context. Random selection could lead to a party feeling like they have less control or agency in the decision-making process. Allowing an insurance company to decide would compromise neutrality, as that would introduce a potential bias. Voting between both parties seems impractical when a stalemate already exists, leading back to the need for an alternative resolution method. Thus, mutual agreement of the two arbitrators is the most logical and accepted approach to breaking a tie in this scenario.