When it comes to resolving no-fault insurance disputes, medical providers and insurers are often faced with a key decision: pursue arbitration or file in court? Each path has its own pros, cons, and strategic considerations—and choosing the right forum can have a major impact on cost, timeline, and outcome.

 

At Larkin Farrell, we represent both providers and insurers in high-volume no-fault litigation across New York and New Jersey. Here’s our take on the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration vs. court for no-fault collections.

 

The Case for Arbitration

 

Pros of Arbitration

 

1. Speed and Efficiency
Arbitration is typically faster than litigation. With limited discovery and fewer procedural hurdles, cases often move from filing to resolution in a matter of months rather than years.

 

2. Cost-Effective for Small Claims
For lower-dollar no-fault claims, arbitration often offers a more cost-effective route—especially when legal fees and filing costs are taken into account.

 

3. Less Formal Process
Arbitration proceedings are less formal than court trials. That can reduce stress, streamline scheduling, and simplify document presentation—making it easier for providers to navigate the process.

 

4. Specialized Knowledge
Arbitrators who regularly hear no-fault cases are often well-versed in the specific statutes and medical billing norms involved, potentially reducing the learning curve compared to some trial courts.

Cons of Arbitration

 

1. Limited Discovery and Appeals
Arbitration often restricts discovery and rarely allows appeals—so if the arbitrator gets it wrong, your options for challenging the decision are limited.

 

2. Inconsistent Outcomes
Because there’s no binding precedent, similar cases can produce very different results. That can make arbitration unpredictable—especially with unique legal or factual issues.

 

3. Perception of Bias or Informality
Some parties believe arbitrators lean toward neutrality at the expense of clarity or fairness. Others worry that the informal process leads to less rigorous decision-making.

 

The Case for Filing in Court

 

Pros of Litigation

 

1. Broader Legal Tools
Courts allow for more comprehensive discovery, including depositions and subpoenas. That can be critical in complex or questionable claims where more fact-finding is required.

 

2. Precedent and Predictability
Courts follow prior rulings. This consistency can work in your favor—especially when arguing legal issues that have been decided before.

 

3. Stronger Enforcement Mechanisms
Judgments issued by courts can be more easily enforced, especially across jurisdictions. That can be helpful for collecting on awarded sums or defending against mass filings.

 

4. Appeal Rights
If you lose in court, you typically have the right to appeal—a key benefit for insurers or providers facing potentially precedent-setting issues.

 

Cons of Litigation

 

1. Slower Process
Litigation often takes longer—especially in crowded dockets like NYC. What could be resolved in months through arbitration might take years in court.

 

2. Higher Costs
Between filing fees, motion practice, and legal representation, court cases can be more expensive—particularly for low-value or high-volume claims.

 

3. Procedural Complexity
Court rules are strict. Providers handling their own claims—or insurers dealing with unrepresented plaintiffs—must be extremely careful to avoid costly procedural errors.

 

So Which Is Better for No-Fault?

 

It depends.

• For routine, lower-dollar disputes where speed and cost are priorities, arbitration may offer the best path.

• For higher-stakes claims, complex legal questions, or patterns of abuse, litigation gives parties more tools and protections.

At Larkin Farrell, we evaluate each case to determine the right forum—balancing the legal strengths, financial exposure, and long-term strategy for each client.

 

Whether you're facing hundreds of no-fault claims or a single high-risk dispute, we help insurers and providers make the right decision—arbitration or court—with a strategy tailored to results.