Arbitration is not a Good Idea for Personal Injury Claims
Arbitration is a contract in which the parties to it agree to have their disputes decided by an arbitrator instead of a judge or jury. It is promoted by its supporters as a fair, quick, and inexpensive way to have disputes decided. In fact, when the dispute is between seasoned businesses involving financial disputes, it often lives up to the praise it has received. That is because the disputes usually involve only economic damages, their is usually no arbitrator bias, and business contracts that provide for arbitration are often negotiated by companies with similar knowledge and bargaining power.
On the otherhand, none of the above factors are present in a personal injury claim. The damages almost always involve some sort of pain and suffering damages. Arbitrators hearing the same types of personal injury claims over and over again can become desensitized to a plaintiff's suffering. As a result, arbitration awards tend to be lower than jury trial awards. In addition arbitrators tend to come from the industry they are arbitrating. Therefore they have a natural bias in favor of the industry. When companies are involved on both sides, the bias does not affect results. On the otherhand, when a company is arbitrating against an individual, arbitrator bias can lead to close decisions favoring the company.
The main problem with personal injury arbitration, however, involves the unfair advantage the company has at the time the decision to enter into an arbitration agreement occurs. The company knows that arbitration tends to favor it in both outcome and award size. However, the consumer does not have this vital information at the time they sign the contract. Furthermore, the consumer does not believe they are going to be injured by the company at sometime in the future. If they did know either of these things, they would have no desire to enter the contract in the first place.
Unfortunately, the consumer rarely has a choice. The company usually offers the contract on a take it or leave it basis. The consumer either signs the agreement or forgos the companies product or service. When the product or service is abundant, it is not an immediate need, and most competitors are not requiring arbitration, the consumer can leave it. However, this is rarely the case. The industries that require arbitration agreements are usually the industries where the consumer has an immediate need for the product or service and most competitors require arbitration. Under the circumstances, it is not realistic to expect the consumer to do anything other than sign the agreement.
In the most egregious cases, the company uses superior knowledge and unfair bargaining power to add additional provisions to the arbitration agreement to further slant the outcome in its favor. For example, personal injury arbiration agreements often contain provisions limiting the amount of damages that can be awarded and limiting the amount of evidence the plaintiff can collect. Clearly, an informed consumer would never want to enter such an agreement.
Unfortunately, Florida Nursing Home Neglect lawyers and Florida Medical Malpractice Attorneys see these types of unfair arbitration provisions all the time. Health care providers like nursing homes, hospitals and doctors provide their services to very vulnerable people. These medical service consumers experienc all of the problems described above when they enter into arbitration agreements with their health care providers.
Scott Distasio
Tampa Personal Injury Lawyer
DISTASIO LAW FIRM
HELPING INJURED PEOPLE
OFFICES: TAMPA
888-595-0022
