What is the difference between arbitration and mediation in insurance litigation cases?

Arbitration and mediation are both alternatives to going to court in an insurance litigation case. They both involve an independent third party who hears both sides and makes a ruling or decision based on the evidence presented. Arbitration is a more formal process, generally involving an experienced arbitrator who considers the evidence and any argument presented, and then makes a decision about who should pay and how much. The decision of an arbitrator is generally regarded as binding and is enforceable by a court. Mediation, on the other hand, is a less formal process. The mediator does not make a decision but rather helps both sides of the dispute to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. The mediator generally does not make a ruling, but rather assists the parties in coming up with a solution that both sides can agree to without the need for a court ruling. In Texas, arbitration is used more often than mediation in insurance cases, since the decision of the arbitrator is binding. However, if the parties cannot agree on a settlement, then mediation may be used to help the parties come to an agreement without going to court.

Related FAQs

What are the elements of a breach of contract claim in an insurance litigation case?
What are the elements of an insurance claim?
What are the elements of a bad faith insurance claim?
What is a set-off defense in an insurance litigation case?
What is the burden of proof in an insurance litigation case?
What evidence is necessary to prove an insurance litigation claim?
What is an insurance rescission in an insurance litigation case?
What is a punitive damage claim in an insurance litigation case?
What is the discovery process for an insurance claim?
What is a motion to intervene in an insurance litigation case?

What is the difference between arbitration and mediation in insurance litigation cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts