According to a 2018 report by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, the United States is, by far, the most litigious society in the world. The report, which is based on 2016 statistics, indicates that we spend about 2.3% of gross domestic product, roughly $429 billion a year, or about $2,000 for each house hold in the country, on tort litigation.
Since this report was published, these costs have likely continued to rise.
Not only does an insurer face litigation costs, there is the uncertainty of a potentially unfavorable venue or a complicated defense that is not ideal for the trial courts.
There is an alternative: arbitration.
In Century Plastics, LLC v Frimo, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued Jan. 30 (Docket No. 347535), 2020 WL 504977, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s granting of summary disposition for defendant on the basis the parties had an agreement to arbitrate.
“Defendant having incorporated the General Terms into the parties’ contract, under the unambiguous language of this provision, defendant had the power to compel arbitration of disputes arising under the contract. Plaintiff assented to the terms of the price quotation, and it did not raise any concerns” as to the applicability of the General Terms.
Insurers should review their terms and conditions of their policy and consider whether to remove a more costly lawsuit from an unfavorable, plaintiff-friendly venue and place it into arbitration, where the fact-finder arbitrator may be more well-informed as to the law, and can then apply them to the facts of whatever dispute arises between the parties, and can likely do so more efficiently.
As Benjamin Franklin said, “When will mankind be convinced and agree to settle their difficulties by arbitration?” With more and more lawsuits being filed, that time may be now.
A partner in the firm's Bloomfield Hills office, Abe Barlaskar concentrates his litigation practice on defending insurers and personal line carriers, rental car companies, trucking companies, and corporations and ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- No Fault Liability
- Auto Liability
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
- Trucking Liability
- Premises Liability
- Fraud Activity
- Judicial Estoppel
- Retail Liability
- Driver Exclusion
- insurance policy
- Cargo Liability
- Risk Management
- Public Policy
- Governmental Immunity
- Environmental Legislation
- Environmental Regulation
- Medicare Issues
- Defending Against Fraudulent Claims Following Michigan Supreme Court’s Ruling in Meemic v Fortson
- Michigan Expands Chiropractic Coverage Under No-Fault Act
- Arbitration is a Road Less Traveled but one Worthy of Consideration for UM/UIM Claims
- Truck Driver’s Bodily Injury Claim barred by his Bankruptcy Case
- Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association Slashes 2020-2021 Fee Assessments
- What the No-Fault Act Giveth the No-Fault Act can Taketh Away
- Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Vacationer’s PIP Claims for Fraud
- Court Reaffirms One Year Back Rule, Rejects Use of Consent to Treat Forms as Assignments
- Once Again, More Fees for Michigan Drivers
- Don't Tweet and Drive!