Binding arbitration clauses in insurance contracts are not enforceable in washington

Good news for opponents of mandatory arbitration clauses.

In an en banc decision issued on January 17, 2013, the Washington Supreme Court held that binding arbitration clauses in insurance contracts are unenforceable under a state statute, RCW 48.18.200(1)(b). The Court further held that the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1012, shields the relevant state statute from preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a law that liberally allows the arbitration of legal disputes. See State of Washington, Department of Transportation v. James River Insurance Company, Case No. 87644-44 (Wash. Jan. 17, 2013).

Source: Washington Supreme Court Holds That Binding Arbitration Clauses in Insurance Contracts Are Unenforceable | Troutman Sanders LLP

tort reform bill dies in Indiana

Good riddance:

Indiana won’t be passing a bill requiring losers to pay all costs and attorney fees in civil lawsuits.

. . . .

The problem with the bill is simple, Steele said: “It doesn’t work.”

Steele, R-Bedford, said he had filed “exactly the same bill” in 1995 and got an earful from just about every interest group.

They convinced him, he said, that it is unworkable because determining just who is the loser in a lawsuit is difficult — and impossible in “no fault” divorce cases.

Source: Gov. Mike Pence-backed tort reform bill exits quietly | Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

One hypocrisy we at Legal Reader have often noticed: Conservative Republicans bristle at the suggestion that America looks to Europe for inspiration for anything… but they’re all too eager to pass European-style “loser pays” bills.