agreement.” Lisanti v. Alamo Title Ins. of Tex., 2002-NMSC-032, ¶ 17, 132 N.M. 750, 55 P.3d 962. “[R]edue[ing] caseloads in the courts, not only by allowing arbitration, but also by requiring controversies to be resolved by arbitration where contracts or other documents so provide” was the legislative intent behind this State’s enactment of the Uniform Arbitration Act. Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Rose, 92 N.M. 527, 531, 591 P.2d 281, 285 (1979); see NMSA 1978, §§ 44-7A-1 to -32 (2001). {15} Inasmuch as arbitration provisions are favored where they have been agreed upon by both parties, New Mexico courts have clearly distinguished those situations where lack of agreement by the parties renders an arbitration clause unenforceable. See Lisanti, 2002-NMSC-032, ¶¶4-8, 132 N.M. 750, 55 P.3d 962 (<HOLDING>); see also McMillan v. Allstate Indem. Co.,
holding plaintiff waived right to arbitration by not simultaneously requesting a stay and an order of arbitration at the time of the complaint holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision holding that an arbitration clause was narrow when it called for arbitration only of disputes relating to certain payments made under the lease holding that in the context of uninsured motorist disputes where the insurance endorsement provides for arbitration only upon the agreement of both parties the insureds could not unilaterally compel insurer to arbitrate holding an insureds right to a jury trial was violated by a state regulation that mandated arbitration of eer tain title insurance disputes at the option of one party