S.W.2d at 704; Loudermilk, 208 S.W.3d at 704. Courts will not find that a party has waived its right to enforce an arbitration clause by merely taking part in litigation unless it has substantially invoked the judicial process to its opponent’s detriment. Bruce Terminix Co., 988 S.W.2d at 704; Loudermilk, 208 S.W.3d at 704. Substantially invoking the judicial process may occur when the party seeking arbitration actively tried, but failed, to achieve a satisfactory result in litigation before turning to arbitration. Loudermilk, 208 S.W.3d at 704; Williams Indus., Inc., 110 nt substantially invoked the litigation process to appellee’s detriment and, thus, waived her right to arbitrate the counterclaim. See Frye v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 877 F.2d 396, 398 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1016, 110 S.Ct. 1318,
holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial after defendant was found incompetent to stand trial in the midst of trial holding that party waived public policy challenge by failing to raise it during arbitration holding that party waived arbitration by filing multiple lawsuits holding that party waived arbitration by participating in trial that ended in mistrial 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