Oof. Step-daughter was involved in a car accident. Our insurance denied liability, his insurance said to involve small claims.
(This is in Washington state.)
What was described in the Small Claims paperwork as "optional arbitration available" was actually mandated by the court, as in "We won't hear you unless you go through this".
I ended up filing a complaint about the arbitrator.
Was a citation issued? "Yes, to my step-daughter, that we are contesting, because it says she ran a red light, based on the evidence of the other person in the collision alone, who is not exactly an unbiased witness". "That's irrelevant to this proceeding. I just asked if a citation was issued."
This guy had his car towed to a shop who charged him storage fees. When my insurance informed him, whether he agreed or not, that they were not paying the bill, he kept the car in the shop for another six weeks accruing a $200/day bill because the shop said "Oh, it'll all be fine, they'll pay eventually". Couldn't understand why I was not going to accept any responsibility for that decision, apropos of anything else. Neither could the arbitrator.
Arbitrator: "Well, you're going to have to pay for it somehow - your rates will go up because it's an at-fault collision". "No, my insurer is happy with considering this not at-fault based on everything." "Well, you were at fault, a citation was issued!" "I thought the details of the citation were irrelevant to this?" "..."
And then a slight tactical error on my part, "What if the court awards against you?" "Then our insurance will pay, based on a court judgment being entered."
Arbitrator (being absolutely neutral and impartial /s) "Well, in that case, I simply cannot understand why you would not - as a human being (her emphasis) - agree to give him everything he is asking for in this claim. I don't understand that."
Really, you don't understand why I might have an objection to paying $10,000 (his claim) for damage to a $1,400 car that may have been his fault, that he then incurred a nearly $7,000 storage bill for due to him just assuming "it'll all be figured out, don't worry".
Yeah, I had a big problem with that.
Oh, and when we did finally figure something out, the arbitrator, who had mentioned she was a lawyer in family practice, wrote out an agreement that said that "FireBeyond and [insurer] agree to do this", and "if FireBeyond or [insurer] do not, it is agreed that they will be in default"...
"I'm not an attorney, but pretty certain I don't have authority to enter into an agreement binding my insurer to anything at all..."
"Sigh. Fine, I suppose not", and makes a big dramatic deal about rewriting it to remove that.
Sorry to hear your experience. In my limited opinion this is the kind of thing that is fundamentally broken. It is designed to make life easy for insurance companies, not for people.
We as a nation, have decided to be governed by laws not by people. If we are truly to a people governed by laws, the common people (you and me) must have fair access to the courts to effect those laws. If we cannot afford an attorney, or if courts mandate arbitration - we cannot have equal access to the legal system.
In my opinion (again), the judge's requirement for mandatory arbitration denied you one of your fundamental rights as an American. Just saying.
> In my opinion (again), the judge's requirement for mandatory arbitration denied you one of your fundamental rights as an American. Just saying.
I entirely agree, actually. Especially since my step-daughter is a minor. Judge: "So, you've sued a minor in small claims. That's not a thing you can do. There's a process to do so, but we may not be able to proceed today."
I was ready to lean on that, but there was the associated stress to her and partner that they just wanted done.
As it was, the arbitration used e-signing. I wrote an agreement, and didn't sign until I spoke to our (insurance) lawyers (who couldn't represent us in small claims, but could advise). In the end they said "we could definitely argue procedural issues, etc." but they drew up a quote for what that would cost in Superior Court, etc., etc. "How much did you tentatively agree to?" Told them. "Yeah, we'll just cut a check versus making a big deal out of it." (It was an amount far more in line with a questionable liability accident than what they asked for... and then we filed a claim right back...).
I have represented myself `pro se` (no lawyer) in a state court and a state Supreme Court. One of the fundamental things I have learned is that lawyers and courts work on what is "cost effective".
The way this works is that a lawyer says it is not worth while to take something to court - "... what that would cost in Superior Court..." In this the "cost" lawyers are calculating is not your cost but theirs - and I would suspect the same with the insurance agency.
Lawyers are driven by profit period. Not all lawyers certainly, but almost all. (note 1). Your case may have merit, and it may be cost effective for you. But, if it won't be profitable for the lawyers they won't want to do it. And profitable depends on two things. The first is the amount of work.
For example, lets take a divorce case. Most divorces, no matter what, go down a well worn path. The lawyers have boiler plate forms, probably know each other, know the judge. It is like a well oiled dance. The actual work they need to do versus the work they can bill is very low. If you are a programmer, this would be like you just wrote a program and now someone wants you to write almost exactly the same program.
For this profit to work, the clients - that would be you - need to go along and not go outside the well-worn-path.
The second dependency is your chance of winning. You might think this depends on the merits of your case, but that is your issue - not the lawyers. The lawyer is evaluating odds. If they have two cases, one with a 90% chance of winning and yours with a 50% chance of winning they take the 90. Things that affect their odds are who the opposing lawyer is, who the judge is. You may have a case, but the judge may have a reputation for having a grudge against people like you. Or your lawyer may have just lost too many times against the other lawyer.
And no sane, profit oriented lawyer will contemplate appealing your case. It is just too expensive and time consuming.
I'm just trying to give you the lay of the land, because there is a kicker here. As a person representing yourself, you can appeal a case. And if you have a case, time and diligence you can pursue a wrong all the way to the US Supreme Court. In appealing a case - and I mean a case where you understand the law and have merit - you break the ordained dance. Suddenly the math for the lawyers and even the judge does not work any more.
I urge people who can do this to do it. Lawyers and to some extent judges, have gamified our courts in the interest of lawyer profit.
But I would be selling you a bill of goods if I did not raise the stress factor. You were absolutely correct: "there was the associated stress to her and partner ...."
Thanks for posting and sharing.
Note 1. For example in New Hampshire lawyer operated, free phone line you can call. But they will only answer questions if the case you want to know about is not about you getting money. Then you have to get a lawyer. But then the "cost effective" part comes into play and lawyers will not take your case.
[edit for grammar, clarity and incomplete sentence]
Oof. Step-daughter was involved in a car accident. Our insurance denied liability, his insurance said to involve small claims.
(This is in Washington state.)
What was described in the Small Claims paperwork as "optional arbitration available" was actually mandated by the court, as in "We won't hear you unless you go through this".
I ended up filing a complaint about the arbitrator.
Was a citation issued? "Yes, to my step-daughter, that we are contesting, because it says she ran a red light, based on the evidence of the other person in the collision alone, who is not exactly an unbiased witness". "That's irrelevant to this proceeding. I just asked if a citation was issued."
This guy had his car towed to a shop who charged him storage fees. When my insurance informed him, whether he agreed or not, that they were not paying the bill, he kept the car in the shop for another six weeks accruing a $200/day bill because the shop said "Oh, it'll all be fine, they'll pay eventually". Couldn't understand why I was not going to accept any responsibility for that decision, apropos of anything else. Neither could the arbitrator.
Arbitrator: "Well, you're going to have to pay for it somehow - your rates will go up because it's an at-fault collision". "No, my insurer is happy with considering this not at-fault based on everything." "Well, you were at fault, a citation was issued!" "I thought the details of the citation were irrelevant to this?" "..."
And then a slight tactical error on my part, "What if the court awards against you?" "Then our insurance will pay, based on a court judgment being entered."
Arbitrator (being absolutely neutral and impartial /s) "Well, in that case, I simply cannot understand why you would not - as a human being (her emphasis) - agree to give him everything he is asking for in this claim. I don't understand that."
Really, you don't understand why I might have an objection to paying $10,000 (his claim) for damage to a $1,400 car that may have been his fault, that he then incurred a nearly $7,000 storage bill for due to him just assuming "it'll all be figured out, don't worry".
Yeah, I had a big problem with that.
Oh, and when we did finally figure something out, the arbitrator, who had mentioned she was a lawyer in family practice, wrote out an agreement that said that "FireBeyond and [insurer] agree to do this", and "if FireBeyond or [insurer] do not, it is agreed that they will be in default"...
"I'm not an attorney, but pretty certain I don't have authority to enter into an agreement binding my insurer to anything at all..."
"Sigh. Fine, I suppose not", and makes a big dramatic deal about rewriting it to remove that.