In King County, Washington, personal injury cases often go through mandatory arbitration to expedite resolution and reduce the burden on the court system. This process, known as Mandatory Arbitration (MAR), applies to cases where the total amount in controversy does not exceed $100,000, as authorized by RCW 7.06.050. However, arbitration results are not always final. Either party—the plaintiff or the defendant—can request a “trial de novo,” effectively rejecting the arbitration award and asking for a new trial in the superior court. Importantly, with a trial de novo, a party can request damages exceeding the $100,000 limit imposed in arbitration.
What Is a Trial de Novo?
A trial de novo is a complete retrial of the case before a judge or jury in superior court. The process begins after one party files a formal request to appeal the arbitration award. Unlike an appeal, which typically reviews legal errors from the prior proceeding, a trial de novo starts the case over as if the arbitration had never occurred. The request for a trial de novo must be filed within 20 days of the arbitration award, as mandated by MAR 7.1. Missing this strict deadline results in the arbitration award becoming final and binding. Litigants should consult an attorney to ensure timely filing and compliance with procedural requirements.
The Improved Position Doctrine
Washington’s “improved position doctrine” applies to trial de novo requests, incentivizing parties to carefully evaluate whether appealing the arbitration award is worth the risk. Under this doctrine, as clarified in Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., 133 Wn.2d 804 (1997), if the appealing party does not achieve a better outcome at trial than the arbitration award, they may be required to pay the other party’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
For example:
-
If the plaintiff appeals the arbitration award, they must secure a judgment that exceeds the arbitration award to avoid paying the defendant’s fees and costs.
-
If the defendant appeals, they must achieve a judgment that is more favorable to them (e.g., a lower damages award) than the arbitration decision to avoid similar financial consequences.
An additional strategic element of the improved position doctrine, governed by RCW 7.06.050, allows the non-appealing party to serve a written offer of compromise on the appealing party up to thirty days before the trial de novo. These offers can be made multiple times but must be spaced at least ten days apart. If the appealing party does not accept an offer within ten days, the amount of the offer replaces the arbitration award for purposes of determining whether the appealing party has improved their position at trial. This mechanism permits the non-appealing party to incrementally influence the “improved position” threshold and makes settlement offers a critical component of negotiations.
This doctrine ensures trial de novo requests are made in good faith, discouraging frivolous appeals while promoting reasonable settlement discussions.
Expedited Timeline for Trial de Novo in King County
Trial de novo cases in King County operate on an expedited timeline compared to newly filed cases. The Local Civil Arbitration Rule (LCAR 7.1(a)) requires that these cases be scheduled for trial no later than 240 days (approximately 8 months) from the date of assignment. This streamlined timeline ensures disputes are resolved quickly while still allowing sufficient time for essential pretrial activities.
Key Deadlines Along the Expedited Timeline
-
Trial Scheduling: Upon filing the trial de novo request, the court will issue a scheduling order. The trial date will be set within the 240-day period.
-
Discovery Period: Discovery is often compressed within this expedited timeline. Deadlines for completing depositions, exchanging documents, and submitting expert reports typically fall within the first 120 to 150 days after assignment.
-
Pretrial Motions: Deadlines for filing and hearing pretrial motions, including motions in limine, are generally set 30 to 60 days before trial.
-
Settlement Conferences: Courts frequently require settlement conferences or mediation to occur approximately 60 to 90 days before the trial date. These conferences encourage resolution and may influence trial strategy.
-
Trial Readiness Confirmation: Parties must confirm their readiness for trial, often 14 to 21 days before the trial date, ensuring no last-minute issues delay proceedings.
Failure to adhere to these deadlines can result in significant consequences, including dismissal of claims, exclusion of evidence, or sanctions. The expedited timeline demands diligent preparation by both parties to comply with court-mandated deadlines and ensure the case is trial-ready.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Requesting a trial de novo can be a high-stakes decision due to the potential financial consequences. If the appealing party fails to improve their position, they may be ordered to reimburse the non-appealing party for:
-
Attorneys’ fees
-
Expert witness costs
-
Other trial-related expenses
These additional costs can be significant, particularly in complex personal injury cases where expert testimony and extensive discovery are involved.
When the Plaintiff Appeals
If the plaintiff requests a trial de novo, their goal is to secure a higher award than what was granted in arbitration. For example, the arbitration award might not adequately cover medical expenses, lost wages, or pain and suffering. However, as per Cohn v. Ritz Transp., Inc., 140 Wn. App. 343, 166 P.3d 1239 (2007), plaintiffs bear the risk of paying attorneys’ fees and costs if they fail to achieve a better result. This risk often requires plaintiffs to weigh the arbitration award against the potential trial outcome carefully.
When the Defendant Appeals
When a defendant appeals an arbitration award, their aim is typically to reduce the amount they are required to pay or to achieve a complete defense verdict. The stakes are high because, as clarified in Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., failure to improve their position at trial could result in paying the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, in addition to the arbitration award. Defendants should also carefully evaluate their risk exposure and trial strategy.
Strategic Considerations
Deciding whether to request a trial de novo requires careful analysis. Parties should consider:
-
Likelihood of Success: How strong is the evidence to achieve a more favorable outcome?
-
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Are the potential gains from a trial de novo worth the risk of paying additional fees and costs?
-
Litigation Risks: Trials involve uncertainties, including the unpredictability of jury decisions.
-
Settlement Options: Settlement offers can reset the improved position threshold, making them a strategic tool to minimize risk.
Conclusion
Trial de novo is a valuable tool for parties dissatisfied with an arbitration award, but it is not without risks. The improved position doctrine’s fee-shifting mechanism ensures that parties think carefully before rejecting arbitration results. Plaintiffs and defendants alike should consult with an experienced personal injury attorney to assess the merits of pursuing a trial de novo and the potential financial implications.
In King County, Washington, where mandatory arbitration is a common step in personal injury cases, understanding the nuances of trial de novo can help litigants make informed decisions about their cases. For personalized guidance, reach out to Scott & Scott, PLLC—your trusted advocates in personal injury law.
