Advertisement

July 25, 2014

Mandatory Arbitration Struck Down in Washington

Some insurers include mandatory arbitration clauses in their policies. Today, in WSDOT v. James River Ins. Co. (.pdf), the Washington Supreme Court ruled that those provisions are unenforceable because they violate RCW 48.18.200(1)(b). The statute states that an insurance contract delivered or issued in Washington cannot deprive Washington courts of “the jurisdiction of action against the insurer.” In reaching its holding, the Court rejected James River’s argument that the legislature merely intended the statute to keep coverage disputes venued within the State of Washington. The Court also held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt RCW 48.18.200 because the statute regulates the “business of insurance” such that there is “reverse preemption” under the McCarran-Ferguson Act

© 2002-2013 by Williams Kastner ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

About the Author

Dana Ferestien is a member in the Seattle office and a part of the firm’s business litigation practice group and insurance team.

206-233-2892

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.