GoSpotCheck has truly arrived.
As a commentator in a recent business-related article notes, the principals of startup enterprises routinely devote -- and rightly so -- a substantial amount of time, energy and resources to the crafting of plans geared toward promoting success.
Risk commonly features in commercial-related stories and reports, and understandably so.
The publication Legal Intelligencer poses the hypothetical question quite directly, to wit: As either an insured party or insurance company that has tried unsuccessfully to resolve a legal matter via nonbinding mediation, is it now better to seek resolution through binding arbitration or in a court of law?
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?
As noted in a Colorado publication earlier this month, state lawmakers "have tried and narrowly failed for years" to craft compromise legislation that would satisfy customarily opposed interests regarding an important business matter.
We noted in a recent blog post that Stuart D. Morse & Associates is a law firm comprising tested litigators focused upon "select areas where our attorneys command special interest and proven commitment to clients needing strong legal representation."