Breaking Barriers to Justice
Following, they need to take evidence and then decide damages. It is far easier to schedule the few days needed for damages evidence with an arbitration panel. In a bifurcated arbitration, it also may not be necessary to depose damage experts before the arbitration. If the case does not settle after the decision on liability, there would be time to take expert depositions in damages before any further hearing. The key to this suggestion is the recognition that Kaiser views arbitration awards much differently than settlements. When Kaiser settles a case, they must agree internally that there is sufficient liability to make a settlement offer. If they make no offer before arbitration, they may expect that an arbitration panel will agree with their analysis. Without a bifurcation,
Kaiser knows that any neutral arbitrator will be concerned about the potential of blackballing of any neutral arbitrator who may be inclined to make an award of significant damages and thus find against the plaintiff - simply to keep such an award off Kaiser’s books. In a bifurcated case, it is much easierfor a neutral to find in favor of plaintiff (if the evidence justifies such a finding) without worrying about how the damages finding may negatively affect their future business. This proposed suggestion takes advantage of the opportunity to show Kaiser that the case has liability by a bifurcated hearing, forcing Kaiser to reconsider their evaluation of liability.
64
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM July/August 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs