There
are now various methods to resolve disputes short of going to trial,
and Michael Gangadeen knows these methods really well. They are often
used after a lawsuit has already been filed, but they can be a viable
solution even before it. Collectively, these methods are called
alternative dispute resolutions. They are primarily used to provide an alternative dispute resolution to other, fairly common legal solutions.
Mediation
There
are mediation and arbitration tools, and while both can be effective,
they are fairly different. Mediation is when an independent person is
selected, usually by the agreement of everybody involved. Often that
person is a retired judge or an experienced lawyer, and everyone gathers
with that person who then seeks to facilitate the group of people
getting together in order to resolve their dispute, or at least part of
it. In essence, a mediator - in the legal sense - is a person who brings
the two sides together in hoping to reach a resolution.
Arbitration
Arbitration
is quite different compared to mediation. In an arbitration, every
party selects an arbitrator – again, often a retired judge or an
experienced lawyer -, and the case is submitted to that person,
following pretty much the usual, informal process, although sometimes
there is written documentation instead of live witnesses. The arbitrator
then makes a decision similarly to how a judge would, and that decision
is binding for everyone. As a result, lawyers often call this a binding
arbitration. Arbitrations can also be high-low agreements. Let’s say
there is an automobile accident where the plaintiff believes that their
claim is worth $200.000, but the insurance company thinks that it only
worth $40.000. In this case, they might make a binding high-low
agreement in the range of $120.000 to $220.000. They make an agreement
not to tell the arbitrator what the highest and lowest amounts are.
Their cases then get submitted to the arbitrator, who decides the value.
If the value decided by the arbitrator is between $20.000 and $220.000,
that is the amount that the insurance company will pay on the claim. If
the amount is below of $20.000, the insurance company will pay the
minimum ($20.000). On the other hand, if the arbitrator decides that the
claim is worth more than $220.000, the insurance company is guaranteed
to not have to pay more than the highest amount they agreed on (which,
in this case, would be $220.000)
The Reason Why These Methods Are Popular
Since
it’s fairly common that either an insurance company, or another party
that would have to pay the claim involved, they often seek some kind of
limitation that would eliminate the possibility of a jury making a
drastic decision. They basically cover their bases by eliminating the
worst case scenario. That is the main reason why these high-low
agreements are popular. The plaintiff gets his or her money, and the
other party eliminates the worst case scenario, taking it out of the
equation. Michael Gangadeen often relies on these methods, due to the
simple fact that they usually represent the best solution for his
clients.
