If you're involved in an insurance-related dispute in Colorado or elsewhere across the country (either as an insurer or insured), what is the more preferable process for you to invoke to resolve your challenge -- arbitration or formal adversarialism under the oversight of a judge?
You likely suspect that, because the question is legal-tinged, there is no true-in-every-case answer to it, right?
Nonetheless, a tandem team of informed commentators in the publication The Legal Intelligencer vigorously contends that, if a dispute is marked by significant complexity, it can far more often be effectively resolved via the courtroom and not by an arbitration panel.
What those writers maintain is that binding arbitration is best confined to circumstances "that are relatively simple in nature and lend themselves to a compromised solution." Insurance litigation -- often inherently complex -- is frequently muddled rather than definitively resolved in a clear way when binding arbitration rather than a court proceeding determines it outcome.
It is thus often the case, the writers strongly imply, that litigants -- on both sides of an issue -- will realize comparatively outsized benefits when they eschew arbitrators in complex litigation and, instead, secure the aid of a proven lawyer well grounded in insurance-related representation to advocate forcefully for them in a court of law.
And those benefits are myriad for both insureds and insurers, note the authors, especially in cases when opposing parties have already tried nonbinding arbitration to no avail and are now contemplating whether to proceed with binding arbitration or formal litigation.
In most instances, notes the Intelligencer article, going the latter route is preferable.
We will visit the stated reasons why in our next blog post.