Oregon Statute Does Not Reverse Preempt Federal Arbitration Act
Post 5208
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/federal-arbitration-provision-applied-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-9kjmc and at https:/zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200.
Litigation Over Costs to Clean Superfund Site Forced to Arbitration
Federal Arbitration Provision Applied
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/federal-arbitration-provision-applied-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-9kjmc and at https:/zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200.
Oregon Statute Does Not Reverse Preempt Federal Arbitration Act
Post 5208
Litigation Over Costs to Clean Superfund Site Forced to Arbitration
In Pacificorp et al v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, et al, No. 3:25-cv-00163-AB, United States District Court, D. Oregon (October 7, 2025) Plaintiff PacifiCorp sued its excess liability insurers, for failing to indemnify costs related to the Portland Harbor Superfund Site only to have the suit stayed and arbitration compelled. This case tried to change the ruling.
Arbitration Provision:
The Court interpreted the arbitration provisions in the insurance policies and concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies. Plaintiff argued that the FAA is reverse preempted by Oregon law.
Court’s Decision:
The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of the Court’s Opinion & Order Compelling Arbitration and Staying Proceedings. The Court found that the FAA is not reverse preempted.
Legal Standards and Analysis:
The Court applied Oregon law to interpret the arbitration provision, concluding that the term “may” permits either party to compel arbitration.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argued that the Court’s application of the FAA to interpret the Arbitration Provision superseded or displaced Oregon law, thereby triggering reverse preemption under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (“MFA”).
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b), this is known as reverse preemption.
The Court concluded that application of the FAA to the Arbitration Provision did not invalidate, impair, or supersede the OECAA because the FAA does not directly conflict or interfere with the purpose of the OECAA.
Because no provision of the OECAA “explicitly prohibits or regulates the validity of arbitration provisions in insurance policies ….”
Plaintiff argued the opposite. Plaintiff’s argument was flawed.
The Court did not commit clear error in holding that the FAA applies to the Arbitration Provision.
CONCLUSION
The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification of the Court’s Opinion & Order Compelling Arbitration and Staying Proceedings.
ZALMA OPINION
Although Oregon law applied it did not exempt or defeat the requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act applied. The litigation is properly stopped and the parties are ordered to arbitration in accordance with the policy language and the language of the Federal Arbitration Act.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Private Limitation In Accordance With Statute Defeats a Claim
Post 5204
There is No Good Reason to Delay Filing Suit
In Christian Care Center v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:25-CV-00321-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division (October 6, 2025) a private limitation of action provision effective barred the suit.
KEY FACTS:
Plaintiff and Defendant:
The case involves an insured, the Christian Care Center (Plaintiff) and its insurer American Alternative Insurance (Defendant) in a coverage dispute.
Loss Event:
Plaintiff’s property sustained damage due to a storm on April 27, 2020.
Insurance Claim:
Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendant on February 2, 2022, which was denied on July 29, 2022.
Lawsuit:
Plaintiff sued alleging breach of contract and violations of Chapters 541 ...
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Private Limitation In Accordance With Statute Defeats a Claim
Post 5204
There is No Good Reason to Delay Filing Suit
In Christian Care Center v. American Alternative Insurance Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:25-CV-00321-O, United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division (October 6, 2025) a private limitation of action provision effective barred the suit.
KEY FACTS:
Plaintiff and Defendant:
The case involves an insured, the Christian Care Center (Plaintiff) and its insurer American Alternative Insurance (Defendant) in a coverage dispute.
Loss Event:
Plaintiff’s property sustained damage due to a storm on April 27, 2020.
Insurance Claim:
Plaintiff submitted a claim to Defendant on February 2, 2022, which was denied on July 29, 2022.
Lawsuit:
Plaintiff sued alleging breach of contract and violations of Chapters 541 ...
Insured May Intervene to Assert Bad Faith Claim Not Assigned
Post 5203
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v7013x8-insured-cant-assign-bad-faith-claim.html and at https://youtu.be/e8OApzn6YZs, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Judge Requires Conflict Between Different District Courts in Louisiana Requires Conflict to be Resolved on Appeal
In Allstate Construction, Inc. v. Ohio Security Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 23-01295-BAJ-SDJ, United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana (September 30, 2025) Vina Cleaners, the insured, assigned its claim against Ohio Security to Allstate Construction but did not assign its rights to sue for the tort of bad faith so it intervened in Allstate Construction’s suit.
Background and Procedural History:
In an insurance dispute following damage caused by Hurricane Ida to Vina Cleaners’ property. Vina Cleaners was insured under a commercial policy with the Defendant, Ohio Security Insurance Company. Vina Cleaners assigned its rights ...
Sometimes the Best Court Decision is to Do Nothing
Post 5209
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/abstention-protects-against-risk-potentially-fact-zalma-esq-cfe-chkzc, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, No. 24-CV-3309 (PKC) (TAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (September 30, 2025) the parties C.C.C. and HCC filed actions against Scottsdale in New York state court regarding Scottsdale’s insurance coverage obligations.
FACTS
Underlying Labor Litigation:
Hector David Campoverde sustained injuries from a scaffold fall at a construction site in Brooklyn, New York, on September 14, 2015. Campoverde, an employee of Vazquez Bro Restoration Inc., was working for C.C.C. Renovation Inc., a subcontractor of L&M Builders Group LLC.
LEGAL ISSUES
Declaratory Judgment:
Starr sought a declaratory judgment regarding Scottsdale’s obligations under the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 policies.
Abstention ...
ZIFL – Volume 28, Issue 20
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gt5Kyumz, See the full 18 page issue of ZIFL at https://lnkd.in/gBUgEBmP, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at https://lnkd.in/gVT5G9s
The Contents of the October 15, 2025 Issue of ZIFL Includes:
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 28th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/
The Contents of the October 15, 2025 Issue of ZIFL Includes:
Insurer’s Attempt to Obtain Summary Judgment Against Fraudsters Fails
To Prove Fraud Admissible Evidence is Required
Allegations That Health ...
Insured Must Reside in Dwelling to Obtain Homeowners Insurance Claim Benefits
Post 5206
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/estoppel-does-apply-where-plaintiff-deceived-insurer-barry-ifgdc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
In Donald Jackson v. Spinnaker Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 22-1244, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (October 7, 2025) where Plaintiff, in his Proposed Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Slip and his Trial Brief asserted for the first time an entitlement to equitable estoppel on grounds that Defendant’s “own rules and procedures . . . required [Defendant, through its property inspector] to confirm that the insured had moved in and begun to reside in the insured premises.”
Plaintiff asserted that Defendant’s exercise of its right to inspect the property and failure to confirm, and/or communicate its assessment of, his residency induced his justified reliance. He further asserts that were he aware that his use of the property was ...
