 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barackman v. Anderson2/18/2004
P claimants are not required to pay more than $100 toward the cost of those proceedings, which means that PIP insurers will pay a disproportionate share of those costs. Although the statute imposes that limit on costs, we do not believe that it represents a legislative decision to insulate PIP claimants from the preclusive effect of binding arbitration decisions. Arbitration proceedings generally are intended to be quicker and less costly than judicial proceedings. If plaintiff were correct that it would vitiate those goals to give preclusive effect to arbitration decisions, then arbitration decisions should not be given preclusive effect. It is well established in Oregon, however, that issue and claim preclusion generally apply to decisions in binding arbitration proceedings notwithstanding the possible effect that preclusion can have on the ability of parties to use arbitration to obtain a comparatively quick and inexpensive resolution of their disputes. We therefore reject plaintiff's argument that it is inconsistent with the nature of PIP arbitration proceedings to give preclusive effect to decisions in those proceedings.
Plaintiff also argues that Mazorol v. Coats, 102 Or App 8, 11-12, 793 P2d 325 (1990), rev'd, 316 Or 367, 852 P2d 178 (1993), dictates that we not give preclusive effect to PIP arbitration decisions. The fundamental problem with that argument is that the Supreme Court reversed our decision in Mazorol and, based on its decision in Carrier v. Hicks, 316 Or 341, 851 P2d 581 (1993), held that an arbitration decision regarding uninsured motorist benefits between a plaintiff and his insurer could be given preclusive effect in subsequent litigation between the plaintiff and the alleged tortfeasor. Mazorol, 316 Or at 369. Carrier further held that it does not violate the right to a jury trial to give preclusive effect to decisions in voluntary arbitration proceedings. Carrier, 316 Or at 351-52. PIP arbitration proceedings are voluntary proceedings because parties are not required to arbitrate PIP disputes unless they agree to do so. See ORS 742.520(6). Consequently, Carrier controls and establishes (1) that binding arbitration decisions in disputes between plaintiffs and insurers over automobile insurance benefits can be given preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings brought by plaintiffs against alleged tortfeasors and (2) that it does not violate plaintiff's right to a jury trial to give preclusive effect to the PIP arbitration decision in this case. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on defendant's issue preclusion defense.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 1 2 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|