Third Circuit Rules Litigation Conduct Did Not Waive Arbitration Rights

Appeals court holds that a party's litigation conduct did not constitute waiver of its right to arbitrate.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 8, 2026, 1:58 p.m. ET

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that a party's litigation conduct did not waive its right to compel arbitration, according to a report by the National Law Review. The decision, issued in a case identified as , addresses the line between active litigation and waiver of arbitration rights. The ruling, as reported by the National Law Review, determined that the party's actions in the litigation did not rise to the level of waiver. The case is a matter that reached the stage, and the court has adjudicated the issue, finding the party liable on the waiver question. The National Law Review's report does not specify the underlying dispute or the nature of the litigation conduct at issue. The court's reasoning and the specific facts of the case have not been detailed in the available report.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Litigating Without Waiving Arbitration: The Third Circuit Draws the Linenatlawreview.com

Revision history

Version 18 Sept 2026, 17:58current
First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.