How Mediation and Arbitration Differ

Rowan University graduate and NJ resident Anthony Ruggeri completed both the associate in claims (AIC) and associate in risk management (ARM) courses at the Insurance Institute of America. Since then, Anthony Ruggeri of NJ has been working in the insurance industry as a claims adjuster and supervisor. As the claims program manager/supervisor at Armour Insurance Group, he tracks insurance claim arbitrations, mediations, and trials.

Arbitration and mediation are two types of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that help parties resolve insurance claims outside of court. Since both resolution methods are similar, many people use them interchangeably, but mediation and arbitration are actually two separate legal processes.

The more formal option of the two, arbitration is legally binding and usually occurs instead of court action. Before arbitration can occur, particularly in the United States, both parties must agree to the process. This is done either when both parties enter into a contract that specifically notes that arbitration is the only course of action in event of a dispute, or when they both agree to resolve an existing dispute via arbitration.

Like arbitration, mediation is voluntary and often requires that both parties agree to be involved in the process. However, it is not legally binding and is sometimes required before a regular court case. When mediation is done, a neutral individual creates a dialogue between the parties involved in a dispute and attempts to find a solution they can both agree on. Mediators do not impose a resolution on the parties like an arbitrator does.

Mediation and arbitration also differ in terms of privacy awarded to the involved parties. Since mediation is less binding, all mediation processes are confidential. Assuming the parties do not find an agreeable solution to their dispute and still end up in court, the results of mediation cannot be brought up in favor of either side. Conversely, the results of arbitration are made public and are generally enforceable under both federal and state law in the United States.

New Jersey’s Rigorous Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights for Schools

A program manager for Armour Risk Management Limited Anthony Ruggeri is a well-established risk management and insurance professional who has practiced in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. While working with the New Jersey Schools Insurance Group, Anthony Ruggeri focused on ways that school districts can ensure quality education and avoid legal liability in matters ranging from ethics complaints to bullying in schools.

In 2011, New Jersey took a major step in addressing bullying through the passing of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights (ABR). Signed into law by Governor Chris Christie, the new law was described by the The New York Times as the toughest law against bullying nationwide. 

One major ABR requirement is that school personnel particularly teachers must report bullying incidents within a single school day, with the investigation to be completed in a timeframe of no more than ten school days. Each district appoints an anti-bullying coordinator, with each school fielding an anti-bullying specialist who brings together teams comprised of a parent, teacher, and the principal. 

Schools statewide are graded on how well they are addressing bullying, with suicide prevention training part of the quality-focused mandate. The anti-bullying law applies to both students in grades K-12 and those who are in higher education. To promote public awareness, schools are required to distribute anti-bullying policy materials during the first week of school each fall. 

As with any new law, the complex web of interrelated responsibilities shared between schools, districts, and educators have also resulted in new insurance liability risks. This can cause difficulty in meeting anti-bullying compliance mandates.