Cinergy's appeal, the trial court re-set the hearing on Safety and Cinergy's motions. About one week prior to the hearing, Safety filed a motion to stay the proceedings and to compel arbitration. A review of all of Safety's actions after the commencement of litigation reveals that it did not participate ted Home Life Ins., Co., 549 N.E.2d 67, 71 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (finding no waiver because defendant "asserted its right to arbitrate throughout the proceedings"), adopted by 563 N.E.2d 609 (Ind.1990). Cf. JKL Components Corp. v. Insul-Reps, Inc., 596 N.E.2d 945 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (refusing to compel arbitration as appellant made no effort to specifically request arbitration at any time before appeal), trans. denied; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Dalson, 421 N.E.2d 691, 692-693 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>); Shahan, 181 Ind.App. at 45, 390 N.E.2d at
holding that the party demanding arbitration had waived its right to arbitrate by filing eight months earlier a complaint against the other party to the arbitration agreement holding that after two years of litigation the employer had waived any right it had to compel arbitration holding that a defendant that answered complaint filed a counterclaim participated in discovery and did not move to compel arbitration waived the right to arbitrate holding that in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration a court must consider 1 whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement 2 whether an arbitrable issue exists and 3 whether the right to arbitration has been waived holding plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitrate where they had consistently resisted arbitration and only when an unfavorable judgment was entered against them at trial did they seek to compel arbitration